Small Thoughts for a Complex World™

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

For a rational individual, aspects of all three definitions describe what a personal ideology consists of and how it properly functions, being a systematic (i.e., integrated) body of knowledge used to guide one's thinking in relation to society, culture and sociopolitical ends. In other words, a rational ideology is merely a subset of a broader rational philosophy of life. However, this does not correspond to Schindler's usage. Further investigation at the online Dictionary.com yields this:

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

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

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

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

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

Original Nolan Chart – 1969

Revised Nolan Chart – 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Roberts concludes his piece with the observation:

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

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

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

Earlier today, Rand Paul, the Republican Senator from KY, began a filibuster of the nomination of Obama appointee, John Brennan, to head up the CIA. Paul is conducting this filibuster in an attempt to force President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder to declare their allegiance to the Writ of Habeas Corpus (Section 9) and the right to trial by Jury (5th Amendment) as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. He is demanding that they state categorically that the Executive branch does not have the authority to unilaterally target for death, any American citizen on American soil who does not pose an immediate threat. So far, both have refused to make a clear declaration. The need to take such a stand comes in the wake of the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) coupled with the administration's recent actions to turn Homeland Security into a unconstitutional, national, military organization and transition local police into a paramilitary force, while concurrently stockpiling arms and ammo and deploying drones across America.

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

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

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

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

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

UPDATE:

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

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

The Loss of the American Spirit

A culture, like an individual, has a sense of life or, rather, the equivalent of a sense of life—an emotional atmosphere created by its dominant philosophy, by its view of man and of existence. This emotional atmosphere represents a culture's dominant values and serves as the leitmotif of a given age, setting its trends and its style.   [The Age of Envy, 1971] Just as an individual's sense of life can be better or worse than his conscious convictions, so can a nation's. And just as an individual who has never translated his sense of life into conscious convictions is in terrible danger—no matter how good his subconscious values—so is a nation. This is the position of America today. If America is to be saved from destruction—specifically, from dictatorship—she will be saved by her sense of life.   [Don't Let it Go, 1971]

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

Description		1970		2012		% Increase
Total Federal Outlays		$1,158 billion		$3,796 billion		228%
Total Outlays as % of GDP		19%		24%		26%
Human Resources Outlays		$446 billion		$2,473 billion		455%
Human Resources as % of Outlays		39%		65%		69%
Human Resources as % of GDP		7%		16%		115%

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

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

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

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

  It would never be wise to depend on a corrupt mafia boss to do your bidding, as the American voters now depend on corrupt politicians to do their bidding for almost everything: unemployment insurance, education, medical care, retirement insurance, the list will never stop growing. Sooner or later, this dependence-via-coercion comes back to bite you. When you make people do things through coercion, you destroy any sense of good will. Good will is necessary for all human relationships, and it's necessary to keep civility, including respect for individual and property rights, in place.

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

Lessons from the 2012 Election

Big Hat, No Cattle – by Randy Newman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's Time for a Change of Plans

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

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

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

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

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

Network Movie Clip	Making the Rounds

Don't Take it Lying Down

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

One must strengthen the oppressed population themselves in their determination, self-confidence, and resistance skills One must strengthen the independent social groups and institutions of the oppressed people One must create a powerful internal resistance force One must develop a wise grand strategic plan for liberation and implement it skillfully

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

Whence Comes the Power? Achieving a society with both freedom and peace is of course no simple task. It will require great strategic skill, organization, and planning. Above all it will require power. Democrats [i.e., those seeking democracy] cannot hope to bring down a dictatorship and establish political freedom without the ability to apply their own power effectively. Necessary sources of political power The principle is simple. Dictators require the assistance of the people they rule, without which they cannot secure and maintain the source of political power. These sources of political power include: Human resources, the number and importance of the persons and groups which are obeying, cooperating with, or providing assistance to the rulers Skills and knowledge, needed by the regime to perform specific actions and supplied by the cooperating persons or groups Intangible factors, psychological and ideological factors that may induce people to obey and assist the rulers Material resources, the degree to which the rulers control or have access to property, natural resources, financial resources, the economic system, and means of communication and transportation Sanctions, punishments, threatened or implied, against the disobedient and noncooperative to ensure the submission and cooperation that are needed for the regime to exist and carry out its policies All of these sources, however, depend on acceptance of the regime, on submission and obedience of the population, and on the cooperation of innumerable people and the many institutions of the society. These are not guaranteed. . . . As the political scientist Karl W. Deutsch noted in 1953: Totalitarian power is strong only if it does not have to be used too often. If totalitarian power must be used at all times against the entire population, it is unlikely to remain powerful for long. Since totalitarian regimes require more power for dealing with their subjects than do any other types of government, such regimes stand in greater need of widespread and dependable compliance habits among their people; more than that they have to be able to count on the active support of at least significant parts of the population in case of need.

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

Exercising Power What techniques of action will capitalize on the theory of political power? ... The alternative of choice is political defiance. Political defiance has the following characteristics: It does not accept that the outcome will be decided by the means of fighting chosen by the dictatorship. It is difficult for the regime to combat. It can uniquely aggravate weakness of the dictatorship and can sever its sources of power. It can in action be widely dispersed but can also be concentrated on a specific objective. It leads to errors of judgment and action by the dictators. It can effectively utilize the population as a whole and the society's groups and institutions in the struggle to end the brutal domination of the few. It helps to spread the distribution of effective power in the society, making the establishment an maintenance of a democratic society more possible. The workings of nonviolent struggle Nonviolent struggle is a much more complex and varied means of struggle then is violence. Instead the struggle is fought by psychological, social, economic and political weapons applied by the population and the institutions of society. These have been known under various names of protest, strikes, noncooperation, boycotts, disaffection, and people power. . . . About two hundred specific methods of nonviolent action have been identified, and there are certainly scores more. These methods are classified under three broad categories: protest and persuasion, noncooperation, and intervention.

The Need for Strategic Planning Very careful thought based on a realistic assessment of the situation and the capabilities of the populace is required in order to select effective ways to achieve freedom under such circumstances. If one wishes to accomplish something, it is wise to plan how to do it. The more important the goal, or the graver the consequences of failure, the more important the planning becomes. Strategic planning increases the likelihood that all available resources will be mobilized and employed most effectively. ... Some individuals and groups, of course, may not see the need for broad long-term planning of a liberation movement. Instead, they may naively think that if they simply espouse their goal strongly, firmly, and long enough, it will somehow come to pass. Others assume that if they simply live and witness according to their principles and ideals in the face of difficulties, they are doing all they can to implement them. The espousal of humane goals and loyalty to ideals are admirable, but are grossly inadequate to end a dictatorship and to achieve freedom. ... There are also activists who base their actions on what they "feel" they should do. These approaches are, however, not only egocentric but also offer no guidance for developing a grand strategy of liberation. ... What is needed instead is action based on careful calculation of the "next steps" required to topple the dictatorship. Without strategic analysis, resistance leaders will often not know what that "next step" should be, for they have not thought carefully about the successive specific steps required to achieve victory. ... It is also just possible that that some democratic movements do not plan a comprehensive strategy to bring down dictatorship, concentrating instead only on immediate issues, for another reason. Inside themselves, they do not really believe that the dictatorship can be ended by their own efforts. Therefore, planning how to do so is considered to be a romantic waste of time or an exercise in futility. ... Unfortunately, because comprehensive strategic plans for liberation are rarely, if ever, developed, dictatorships appear much more durable than they in fact are. They survive for years or decades longer than need be the case. Planning Strategy Particularly, strategists will need to answer many fundamental questions, such as these: What are the main obstacles to achieving freedom? What factors will facilitate achieving freedom? What are the main strengths of the dictatorship? What are the various weaknesses of the dictatorship? To what degree are the sources of power for the dictatorship vulnerable? What are the strengths of the democratic forces and the general population? What are the weaknesses of the democratic forces and how can they be corrected? What is the status of third parties, not immediately involved in the conflict, who already assist or might assist either the dictatorship or the democratic movement, and if so in what way? [Emphasis added]

Planning for democracy It should be remembered that against a dictatorship, the objective of the grand strategy is not simply to bring down the dictators but to install a democratic system and make the rise of a new dictatorship impossible. To accomplish these objectives, the chosen means of struggle will need to contribute to a change in the distribution of effective power in the society. ... When the grand strategy of the struggle has been carefully planned there are sound reasons for making it widely known. The large number of people required to participate may be more willing and able to act if they understand the general conception, as well as specific instructions. This knowledge could potentially have a very positive effect on their morale, their willingness to participate, and to act appropriately. Spreading the idea of noncooperation For successful political defiance against a dictatorship, it is essential that the population grasp the idea of noncooperation. ... Once the general conception of noncooperation is grasped, people will be able to understand the relevance of future calls to practice noncooperation with the dictatorship. They will also be able on their own to improvise a myriad of specific forms of noncooperation in new situations.

An Example of How Small Actions Can Produce Large Results

When reading about nonviolent political defiance in Gene Sharp's books, I was reminded of a small, but very powerful scene from Orson Scott Card's science fiction novel, Shadow Puppets, which perfectly illustrates this method in action. The story is set in Earth's future and deals with geopolitical conflict, primarily between the countries of Asia and the Middle-East. At this point in the story, China has invaded India and is attempting to occupy the country. India's chief political strategist, a young girl named Virlomi, is struggling with how to mount a resistance. The following passages are selected excerpts from Chapter 5, titled, Stone in the Road. (Note: The entire chapter may be read here.)

India was simply too large to digest all at once, and like the British before them, the Chinese found it easier to rule India by dominating the bureaucratic class and leaving the common folk alone. Within a few days, Virlomi realized that this was precisely the situation she had to change. . . . There was no solidarity. As always before, the conquerors were able to rule India because most Indians did not know what it meant to live in "India." They though they lived in this village or that one, and cared little about the great issues that kept their cities in turmoil. . . . The indian people had to be roused from their slumber now, while there were still allies outside their borders who might help them, while the Chinese were still overextended and dared not devote too many resources to the occupation. I will bring war down on there heads to save them as a nation, as a people, as a culture. I will bring war upon them while there is a chance of victory, to save them from war when there is no possible outcome but despair. . . . She set down the pitchers at the side of the road, picked up a few stones and carried them to the middle of the road. There she set them and returned for more, arranging them in a broken line right across the road. Only a few dozen stones, when she was done. Not a barrier of any kind. And yet it was a wall. It was as obvious as a monument. . . . Virlomi looked around at the others. "It's what they told me in the other towns that had a wall. It's the Great Wall of India. Too late to keep the barbarian invaders out. But in every village, they drop stones, one or two at a time, to make the wall that says, We don't want you here, this is our land, we are free. Because we can still build our wall." . . . Virlomi went from village to village, each time pretending that she was only passing along a custom she had seen in other places. . . . In the third week she came for the first time to a village that really did already have a wall. She did not explain anything to them, for they already knew — the word was spreading without her intervention. She only added to the wall and moved quickly on. It was still only one small corner of southern India, she knew. But it was spreading. It had a life of it's own. Soon the Chinese would notice. Soon they would begin tearing down the walls, sending bulldozers to clear the road — or conscript Indians to move the stones themselves. And when the walls were torn down, or the people were forced to remove their walls, the real struggle would begin. For now the Chinese would be reaching down into every village, destroying something that the people wanted to have. Something that meant "India" to them. That's what the secret meaning of the wall had been from the moment she started dropping stones to make the first one. The wall existed precisely so that the Chinese would tear it down. And she named the wall the "flag of India" precisely so that when the people saw their walls destroyed, they would see and feel the destruction of India. Their nation. A nation of wallbuilders. And so, as soon as the Chinese turned their backs, the Indians walking from place to place would carry stones and drop them in the road, and the wall would grow again. What would the Chinese do about it? Arrest everyone who carried stones? Make stones illegal? Stones were not a riot. Stones did not threaten soldiers. Stones were not sabotage. Stones were not a boycott. The walls were easily bypassed or pushed aside. It caused the Chinese no harm at all. Yet it would provoke them into making the Indian people feel the boot of the oppressor. The walls were like a mosquito bite, making the Chinese itch but never bleed. Not an injury, just an annoyance. But it infected the new Chinese Empire with a disease. A fatal one, Virlomi hoped.

The Right to Your Rights

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

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

Pushing Back

The ongoing federal budget and national debt crisis reminds me of a bad—and frankly hopeless—marriage. Each side blames the other, without any implied ownership of the problem itself. . . . This leaves the responsibility on the backs of the American people themselves, the vast majority of whom are not elites, intellectuals, economists or anything of the sort. But the American people are not going to do anything, either. They have assumed there's nothing they can do, and it's really just a matter of waiting and seeing what happens, and hoping for the best. . . . What will it take? Will America go the way of the few other free republics who have perished throughout history? Or will the resurgence of freedom emerge as, itself, an unprecedented event in human history to date? Know it or not, like it or not, this is the story of our times. Most of us will probably live to know the answer. America had the Revolution, the Civil War, the Great Depression and the second World War. This may be the biggest crisis yet. Its outcome will, for better or worse, change everything.

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

Tactics: From the Bottom Up

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

I support a continuing and expanding secessionist movement, not because I think that secession is a particularly good geopolitical idea, nor because I think that it is likely to be successful. I support it because it is an excellent form of very visible and vocal protest against the loss of freedom citizens and states are experiencing at the hands of the federal government, and it brings to the forefront of debate the critical issues of liberty, individual rights and a constitutionally limited government. Currently, the state of Texas has an organization called the Texas Nationalist Movement which fights on for state independence, and I would encourage groups in other states to organize similar movements as a means of keeping this issue active. This is a perfect example of becoming a very bothersome pebble in the shoe of the federal government, and every moment that the Obama administration is forced into focusing on states' rights issues is a moment they are unable to function elsewhere.
However, I don't think that these state-based movements are necessarily the most effective form of protest. Because they require organized group efforts, they are difficult to manage and impose considerable overhead. So, in addition to those actions, I suggest a personal secessionist movement, where individuals declare that because of the violations of their rights, along with the many illegal actions taken by the legislative and administrative branches which overstep the enumerated powers authorized by the constitution, that we, as individuals, no longer recognize the legitimate authority of the government. As the Declaration of Independence says:

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

At this point, I see this particular action, not as any form of civil disobedience or illegal activity that could get one arrested, but strictly as an exercise of free speech—a pronouncement declaring the withdrawal of moral support for our current corrupt form of government. There are a number of creative possibilities that could be employed to communicate one's stance. Individuals could write blog articles or letters to the editor expressing their support for this grassroots movement and the reasons why. We could wear T-shirts with a clever personal secessionist message, or put up yard signs and employ bumper stickers in order to generate dialog with others, allowing us to express our concerns and invite others to join us.
With enough participation and promotion, I think this idea could eventually go viral and take on a life of its own, much like the "Flag of India" wall building in Card's story. And like all the truly effective forms of protest, this secessionist idea really turns the government's actions against itself. While preferring to ignore the entire thing, The more they are ignored, the more dissatisfied people will become, causing the movement to expand. And the more vocal and widespread the protest, the more the government is then forced to respond, creating its own uncomfortable political dialog.
I would be interested in hearing from others who think this is an interesting idea and would like to pursue it further.

Nullification is the doctrine, originally proposed by Jefferson and Madison, that the States, having formed the Union, sit in final authority on the exercise of federal powers, and may nullify (i.e., reject) federal laws that are judged to exceed the powers delegated to it by the U.S. Constitution. With the expansion of federal powers in the 20th Century, the theory of nullification has been revived, and is being actively investigated in relation to a number of recent federal actions. For example:
• In the 2012 election, the states of WA and CO have effectively nullified federal narcotics laws by legalizing the sale and use of marijuana.
• A number of states have passed or are proposing legislation to nullify all or part of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which includes provisions for the suspension of Habeas corpus and the indefinite detention of American citizens. This includes: AZ, FL, MI, MO, NV, SC, TN, TX, VA, WA, WY, and possibly others as well.
• Texas is actively fighting to nullify aspects of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) law.
• Idaho enacted the Health Freedom Act to nullify aspects of the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare). Other states are also working on similar legislation.
• States and Sheriffs are actively preparing in advance to nullify any gun control legislation passed by the current administration. For example, Tim Mueller, Sheriff of Linn County, OR, notifies VP Joe Biden of his intentions here.

• Localities, such as the town of Sedgwick, Maine, are passing "Food Sovereignty" laws to nullify the recent draconian interventions of the FDA.
All of these actions, and others like them, are extremely important in reasserting control over a runaway federal government that has simple assumed the ability to legislate anything and everything without limits, while not just ignoring, but actively trampling citizens' rights. If you find one or more of these issues relevant to your life, then I strongly recommend that you become involved with an organization in your state that is pursuing nullification legislation, and contribute your support to the cause. It is much easier to influence the policies of your state than it is at the federal level, so apply pressure where you have a better chance of having impact.
Just as the concept of nullification applies to the relationship between the Union and its constituents, the states, the same argument can be made concerning the relationship between the various states and their constituents, the citizens—which means you! And just as the states are learning how to reassert their sovereign rights, we citizens must once again do the same for ourselves. When states act to violate our rights, then it is incumbent upon us to declare the state's actions null and void and be prepared to uphold those convictions through our actions. Winston Smith of NY (a pen name to be sure) fully understands this, and on January 20, 2013, he crafted an open letter titled, Declaration To Defy The NY SAFE Act Of 2013, which reads in part:

We the People of New York State, that is, the natural persons lawfully residing within this state, do hereby order and direct, The governor and the senate to immediately repeal the NY SAFE act of 2013. This is not a request or a demand, but an order and directive, as it is unlawful, null and void, being in direct opposition to the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of New York Civil Rights — Article 2 — § 4. This is the will of the people, and as you are our duly appointed representatives, you will see to it that our will is carried out. The RIGHT to keep and bear arms is the RIGHT of all the people. This RIGHT is not subject to registration. Registration means surrendering our lawful RIGHT in exchange for permission, which may or may not be granted, or can be taken away, at the behest of the magistrate. This goes beyond infringement or diminishing our RIGHT. It is direct violation of the very principle upon which this RIGHT was declared in our constitution. . . . Listen here now: We will not comply. We will not register our firearms, let alone surrender them. We will not be your subjects. You may deem us criminals for doing so, but it is you who have broken the law, and we who defend it.

Read the entire letter. This may be the most important document of this decade, since it sets the framework for what must happen if we are ever to regain our liberty in this country. The People—the individual citizens—you and I—must learn how to reestablish control over our own lives. We must reassert our desire for personal freedom. And we must recognize that our freedom require that we act in service of it—that we must defend it in the face of those who constantly seek to invalidate it and render us their slaves.

Obama and his minions are doing everything within their power to destroy your wealth. They have institutionalized unemployment by following New Deal policies which long ago were proven failures. They interfere with business at every level to insure a minimum of customers and a maximum of regulatory overhead. They are tightening the screws in order to extract wealth from every possible source. They are destroying savings by holding interest rates near zero while devaluing cash through inflation and massive debt accumulation.
Virginia is not waiting around for the collapse of the dollar, and has joined 13 other state who have or are considering minting their own alternative currencies backed by gold and silver rather than a wish and a prayer.
On the economic front we should do whatever we can to starve the government, and we should do it immediately so that the consequences of Obama's policies are experienced while he is still in office where he receives the well deserved blame. To whatever extent possible, consider adjusting you finances to best protect yourself for the future while minimizing any support for the state.
• Reduce your taxable income to a minimum
• Maximize contributions to IRA/401k/HSA
• Avoid capital gains where possible
• Relocate to a state without an income tax
• Work part time

• Reduce spending to avoid additional sales taxes
• Avoid unnecessary purchases
• Barter when possible
• Avoid restaurants — eat at home
• Purchase used rather than new
• Order online to avoid sales tax
• Relocate to a state with low or no sales tax

• Reposition your finances
• Withdraw all cash from the banking system
• Dump all government bonds and securities
• Convert dollars into gold and silver
• Invest in commodities
• Invest in emerging overseas markets
• Invest in foreign countries with strong currencies
California, one of the most mismanaged states in the country, attempts to tap its residents for more and more money. The predictable response is that companies close up shop and relocate to other more business-friendly states, while, on average, a quarter-million residents flee each year, depriving the state of billions in lost revenue. Illinois tries the same thing and produces the same results. Maryland imposes a huge new taxes on on the wealthy, and ends up losing 31,000 residents in a four year period.
Tired of being abused by their governments, Facebook co-founder, Eduardo Saverin and France's Gerard Depardieu relinquish their citizenship. Like these and so many others, you can always vote with your feet and deprive oppressive regimes of all of your talent, effort and capital. And as an added benefit, there is nothing quite so satisfying as seeing the sad look on the face of progressives' as revenues actually fall as a result of their tax increases!
Starve the propaganda wing of government by canceling subscriptions to all newspapers and news magazines, and refuse to watch or listen to news outlets that promote a totalitarian agenda.
When possible, boycott all businesses that advocate for a public-private partnership. Translated, this means they support using the government to act as their mob enforcers, either requiring that you do business directly with them, or else transferring some of your wealth to them through their government goons. Promote their competition.

Let's revisit Mark Amend's quote from the opening to this article:
"Be strong enough to stand alone, be yourself enough to stand
apart, but be wise enough to stand together when the time comes."
Many important forms of protest can be executed individually, with the impact accruing from the additive effect of numerous singular acts. However, there are also certain tasks that are more successfully accomplished through group actions. It is also true that the closer you operate to the source, the more effective your actions will typically be. This is why small groups, functioning locally can often achieve more meaningful results than those working at the state, national or international levels.
In my area, I have recently found two liberty-oriented activist groups that are making a real difference at the city and state level. The first is the Citizens' Alliance for Property Rights which works to insure that the property rights of all individuals are not infringed by tyrannical government action. The second is Liberty 21, a group which is fighting at the city level to halt and then reverse the imposition of the United Nations' Agenda 21/ICLEI action plan.
I recommend that you seek out the worthwhile local activist groups operating within your community and contribute your efforts to seeing their objectives realized.

About one year into Obama's first term, for many people the writing was already on the wall as to where this country was headed, and from a number of sources there were concurrent calls to follow the lead of the heros in Atlas Shrugged and simply withdraw in one form or another from a decaying and abusive society. This spontaneous movement came to be known as "Going Galt."  Wendy McElroy wrote an article titled, When to Say: Enough! where she does an excellent job of explaining this in greater detail:

"Going Galt" refers to the process by which an individual removes support from the political system as an act of disgust, protest or self-respect. Usually, the withdrawal involves a financial disconnect but it also can involve the decision to withdraw one's talent and skill. For example, an industrialist may decide not to run a factory, a doctor might cease to practice medicine. The decision could be prompted by myriad factors: disgust with paperwork, an agonizing lawsuit... An increasingly common motive: people prefer not to earn money that is snatched away by taxes and "redistributed" to those who produce nothing. The situation is akin to a farmer plowing under a field rather than sell at a price that is tantamount to theft. "Going Galt" does not refer to forming a new society. For many if not most people, the withdrawal is partial and a matter of commonsense [sic] as much as political protest. The economic and social equation has changed. When a government penalizes your productivity to the point of seizure through taxes, paperwork, possible lawsuits etc., then ceasing to produce is a way to remove yourself as a target and alleviate stress. Suddenly, spending time with your children or hobbies becomes far more attractive. . . . "Going Galt" is a destination at which people arrive from different directions and intentions. My intention is as a political protest and in a desire for personal freedom. I am tired through to the marrow of my bones of supporting the thieves and hypocritical looters who call themselves "public servants." I am far from alone in this utter visceral disgust. Remember again, at the end of Atlas Shrugged, a slew of ordinary people who have no political ideology "Go Galt" by refusing to contribute their energy to a parasite society or even by sabotage.

Everyone can participate in Going Galt by finding one or more aspects of your life that can be changed in order to increase personal happiness while withholding one's time, energy, money or sanction from social structures that have been engineered to usurp rather than preserve your liberty. While the individual actions you choose to take may seem small and even petty, when you add up those withheld efforts across a large group, the overall effect can be quite large and very meaningful.
For example, I have stopped making contributions to all charities, as I will no longer pretend that I have a voluntary choice in dispose of my income when it is already being taken and redistributed by force. Those voluntary contributions simply help prop up a criminal enterprise. Take the case of natural disasters such as hurricanes Katrina or Sandy. In the aftermath of these events, compassionate people might wish to extend a helping hand to those who suffer through these events. But while they are making a voluntary monetary contribution or offering aid in other forms, the government is saddling all of us with an involuntary bill in excess of $155 billion—much of which goes to fraud, waste, or unrelated activities. Any voluntary contributions simply help make more of this type of theft possible.
For a number of other examples of people who have Gone Galt, see my 2011 article, The Straw.

Passive resistance can be an effective weapon against the state. In another interesting essay titled, Two Attitudes toward the State, Wendy McElroy reflects on an enlightening example set by Henry David Thoreau:

An invaluable resource ... has been Henry David Thoreau's essay "On Civil Disobedience." Specifically, I turned over and over the story of his famous one-night stay in jail for refusing to pay a tax...and what happened directly after his release. And here I'll let Thoreau speak for himself... "It was formerly the custom in our village, when a poor debtor came out of jail, for his acquaintances to salute him, looking through their fingers, which were crossed to represent the jail window ... My neighbors did not thus salute me, but first looked at me, and then at one another, as if I had returned from a long journey. I was put into jail as I was going to the shoemaker's ... When I was let out the next morning, I proceeded to finish my errand, and, having put on my mended shoe, joined a huckleberry party..." Thoreau journeyed off with a swarm of children who moved joyfully through the fields and forest. At one point, Thoreau paused and noted to himself, "in the midst of a huckleberry field, on one of our highest hills, two miles off, and then the State was nowhere to be seen." Upon his release from jail, Thoreau felt no rage toward his neighbors, no bitterness. He did not brood or rail against the injustice of his arrest. He shed everything but the insights he had gathered from the experience. And, then, he went about what he called "the business of living." That is a wonderful phrase. The business of living. When a tax collector knocked on his door and confronted him with the demand to pay up, Thoreau probably asked himself the same question I've been asking myself since 9/11. Namely, what is my relationship to the State? In answering, it is important to understand that Thoreau's refusal to pay the tax was not the act of a determined political dissident; it wasn't part of a pattern in his life through which he fought for the ideal of freedom. Thoreau refused to pay because he knew the specific tax would support the Mexican-American war, which he thought was immoral; rendering support to the war violated his sense of decency. In short, he did not want to cooperate with evil. But unless and until the state literally knocked on his door, Thoreau was happy to go about the business of living as though the state did not exist. His insight while standing on a high hill is simple but profound: "and then the State was nowhere to be seen." . . . Oddly enough, the attitude of ignoring or obviating the State — again, as much as possible — may well be the most effective strategy for countering it. That's not my purpose; my purpose is the business of living. But by privatizing your own life, you make the state increasingly irrelevant, which is what politicians fear most. They are desperate to be part of our lives, to teach our children, to regulate our work, to read our messages and hear our phone calls, to dictate our medical choices... And the most effective personal response when the State knocks at your door may well be to not answer even by the act of raising your fist.

Thoreau, like Gandhi, adopted methods of passive resistance in response to government actions judged to be morally wrong. Unlike active resisters such as the Occupy Wall Street crowd or the anarchists, who choose to destroy property, disrupt business, inconvenience others, or commit murder, passive resistance can actually be more insidious, because, as McElroy so accurately points out, nothing is more important to totalitarians than meddling in and controlling your life—just ask NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg!—and nothing get under their skin more than being denied that opportunity. This sort of irritant can anger politicians, which may cause them to act rashly in response and end up hurting themselves politically, in the process.
Any form of civil disobedience includes risks, but the level of risk must be weighed against the possible objectives to be obtained. Individual acts of non-cooperation can often fly under the radar, but are easily punished when so deemed "necessary" by the authorities. On the other hand, well coordinated acts of mass non-cooperation spread out over a dispersed population can be effective, both as a means for generating publicity and for making it difficult for the government to single out any small group or individual for selective punishment.
Everyone is encouraged to consider how acts of civil disobedience might play a role in their life. And also think about how those ideas you have might be communicated to others and leveraged into coordinated means of protest. Here are a few ideas from Fort Liberty to get the juices flowing:
• Comply with government orders as slowly as possible

• Fill out government forms incompletely and illegibly

• Pay all taxes and fines at the last possible moment

• Take a job with the government and then do it poorly, or not at all

If you are a business owner, one way to really gum up the day-to-day workings of government is to withhold normal services upon which these these agencies have come to rely. Yes, this may incur a cost for refusing to do business, but you must calculate just what price you are willing to pay to fight for your personal freedom. For example, if you are a provider of office supplies to your local city hall, informing them that you will no longer be selling to them will create a number of problem and costs that those administrators will have to bear as they search for alternative sources. If you are located in a small town and know that the owners of other similar businesses share your concerns over the abuses of government reach, you might be able to organize them in a boycott which would then make city operations much more difficult.
USA Today reports that the Burlington, VT city council put forth a measure to ban semi-automatic rifles and large-capacity magazines. A firing range in a nearby town was used by the Burlington police for target practice. In response to the proposed legislation, the range informed the police department that all privileges had been suspended, effective immediately! Now that's the sort of strong, immediate feedback that can have impact.
If you cannot completely withhold services from the government, then another possibility is subterfuge or sabotage. I'm thinking of something along the lines of what Oskar Schindler did when he ran a munitions business in Nazi Germany, but never actually produced a functional shell in his factory, thereby undermining the German war effort.

As indicated above, I believe that spending time, energy or money attempting to directly influence politics, either through the voting booth or by trying to persuade entrenched politicians to vote a particular way on specific legislation, to be mostly a waste of time. A much more effective approach would be to use those resources to engage in one's own form of protest and in convincing other liberty-minded individuals to honor their anger at what is happening in this country by getting involved in some form of protest as well. An organized and growing protest movement that visibly demonstrates its rising ire at our current form and method of government will get considerably more attention from the politicians, while making it increasingly more difficult for them accomplish their own goals.
However, if political activism is to be a part of the mix, then I would suggest that great effort be put behind a call for the inclusion of an opt-out provision being part of all existing or new social/economic programs. Until the time where government is once again fully constrained by proper constitutional limits, the next best way to fight the collectivism being rammed down our throats is to allow each person a choice of participating in these enterprises, or going it alone.
Rather than arguing over a myriad of details concerning how to reform public education, or entitlements such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, welfare, etc., on which politicians will never agree, let's put control back in the hands of the individual by allowing each person to decide for themselves, based upon their own personal context, whether they wish to remain in these various institutions, or would prefer to opt-out. People sticking with the program would continue to pay taxes and receive benefits, while those opting out would have their taxes reduced by a specified amount in exchange for agreeing to forgo all future benefits. This solves the problem of deciding where cutoffs should be made in phasing out these programs, by letting every person decide for themselves. One person may believe that they have "invested" in Social Security to such an extent that it is in their best interest to stick with the program, while another may see the opportunity to flee the Ponzi scheme and take full control of their retirement investment as an opportunity, and jump at the chance. Whatever the choice, individuals would once again be empowered to make choices concerning their life, rather than being forced into the one-size-fits-all approach of the central planners.
For a fuller discussion of this idea, see my 2011 article, An Open Letter to Politicians and Political Candidates.

Tactics: From the Top Down

Conclusion

• SodaHead
• No-Ruler.net

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

AS the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions. Our obsession with the Constitution has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, kept us from debating the merits of divisive issues and inflamed our public discourse. [Emphasis Added]

This is not to say that we should disobey all constitutional commands. Freedom of speech and religion, equal protection of the laws and protections against governmental deprivation of life, liberty or property are important, whether or not they are in the Constitution. We should continue to follow those requirements out of respect, not obligation. Nor should we have a debate about, for instance, how long the president's term should last or whether Congress should consist of two houses. Some matters are better left settled, even if not in exactly the way we favor. There is even something to be said for an elite body like the Supreme Court with the power to impose its views of political morality on the country. What would change is not the existence of these institutions, but the basis on which they claim legitimacy. [Emphasis Added]

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

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

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

Repeal the Second Amendment. Owning a gun should be a privilege, not a right. Declare the NRA a terrorist organization and make membership illegal. I would also raze the organization's headquarters, clear the rubble and salt the earth, but that's optional. Make ownership of unlicensed assault rifles a felony. If some people refused to give up their guns, that "prying the guns from their cold, dead hands" thing works for me. Then I would tie Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, our esteemed Republican leaders, to the back of a Chevy pickup truck and drag them around a parking lot until they saw the light on gun control. And if that didn't work, I'd adopt radical measures.

• The Libertarian Enterprise

• Sodahead

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

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

Statism:   [via dictionary.com] 1) the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty.

Freedom was maximized when the government took a "hands off" attitude toward industrial development and supported the value of the currency by freely exchanging paper money for gold.

[W]e are now intensely occupied in forging the tools of democracy, the direct primary, the initiative, the referendum, the recall, the short ballot, commission government. But in our enthusiasm we do not seem to be aware that these tools will be worthless unless they are used by those who are aflame with the sense of brotherhood...The idea [of the social centers movement is] to establish in each community an institution having a direct and vital relation to the welfare of the neighborhood, ward, or district, and also to the city as a whole.

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

Beginning in 1913, the Woodrow Wilson (1913-20) administration earned dubious distinction for politically kicking off the progressive era through a series of legislative acts which included:

• Enacting the sixteenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution, permanently cementing in place the progressive Income Tax and establishing, in law, that the product of your efforts now belonged to society, not you.
  
  
• Instituting the Federal Reserve System (FED) which effectively nationalized the money supply and banking system.
  
  
• Creating the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to track and regulate business and industry practices.
  
  
• Passing the Clayton Antitrust Act to further curtail business independence and freedom of action.
  
  
• Passing the Federal Farm Loan Act, the precedent for the 2,238+ programs currently listed in Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance [CFDA].
  
  
• Regulating the labor markets through passage of the Adamson Act and the later-to-be-determined-unconstitutional, Keating-Owen Act.
  
  
• Reinstituting the military draft during World War I, making it explicit that your life belonged to society, not you.
  
  
• In response to WWI, agricultural markets were regulated and certain prices fixed through the creation of the U.S. Food Administration. Subsequently, Wilson issued a proclamation calling for the public to voluntarily observe "wheatless Mondays and Wednesdays", "meatless Tuesdays" and "porkless and sweetless Saturdays", while mandatory food restrictions were imposed on the baking industry.
  
  
• Energy markets were also regulated through the creation of the Federal Fuel Administration, which took complete control over coal, and to a lesser degree the oil and natural gas industries. Here, the public was urged to observe "heatless Mondays", "gasless Sundays" and "lightless nights". The government determined what were classified as "nonessential factories", which were then order closed.

As Hans Sennholz has reported, during the next fifteen years many of these Wilsonian agencies and policies interfered with normal self-correcting market mechanisms, while the manipulation of the money supply under the aegis of the newly created FED, were together ultimately responsible for the massive credit expansion and resulting stock market crash in 1929. Faced with a recession, the Herbert Hoover (1929-32) administration responded as follows:

• Increased the top personal tax bracket from 25% to 63%. Well, it had already been made clear that the government did not consider it to be your money.
  
  
• Increased corporate taxes. Same principle for businesses.
  
  
• Instituted the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, raising tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods to near record levels and triggering retaliatory tariffs from other countries. The results? U.S. imports decreased by 66% and exports decreased by 61% during the four years of the Hoover administration.

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

• The Glass-Steagall Act which regulated financial speculation (i.e., business risk-taking), while also creating ...
  
  
• The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), which nationalized future banking system failures while producing the unintended consequence of training depositors to no longer worry about or investigate the credit-worthiness of their financial institutions.
  
  
• The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which began regulating the stock exchanges and all other financial markets.
  
  
• The Social Security Ponzi scheme, and its FICA Payroll Witholding Tax which hid from view the full impact of the tax burden being born by the typical worker.
  
  
• An increased standard marginal tax rates, up to 91%—and with Executive Order 9250, the creation of a 100% marginal rate on salaries over $25,000. Wake up folks, it's simply not your money!
  
  
• The Thomas Amendment, which authorized currency expansion (i.e., inflating the money supply) at the whim of the president.
  
  
• Currency devaluation through Executive Order 6102. Private ownership of gold was declared illegal, and once confiscated from all citizens it was then repriced from $20.67 to $35.00 an ounce—an inflation of just under 70%—profiting government at the expense of everyone else left holding significantly devalued paper dollars.
  
  
• The creation of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), to enforce tax compliance.
  
  
• The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) and the U.S. Housing Authority, which nationalized the construction of low-cost public housing and provided mortgage and insurance subsidies.
  
  
• The National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which granted the president the power to regulate industry and authorize monopolies as desired, bypassing the newly minted anti-trust laws on a whim. NIRA is a poster child for the method of handing off regulatory law-making from the legislative to the administrative branch of government. According to Wikipedia:

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

  In 1935, the Supreme Court unanimously held the NIRA to be unconstitutional.
  
  
• Despite his 1940 campaign promises to keep America out of the war, Roosevelt reinstituted military conscription during that same year—the first peacetime draft in U.S. history. The Selective Service System which mandated draft registration was also recreated.
  
  
• The National Labor Relations Act, granting the government the power to regulate interactions between unions and employers, imposing constraints on what actions would be permitted to either group, and thereby extinguishing the right to freedom of association.
  
  
• The Fair Labor Standards Act, which regulated pay levels and instituted the Minimum Wage.
  
  
• The Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 which nationalized electric power generation. The federal government forced divestiture of private energy holding companies and regulated the industry, including pricing. The government also went into electrical production with the acquisition of private companies and the creation of public utilities, including the Tennessee Valley Authority, then the largest federally-owned corporation in America.
  
  
• Numerous government make-work programs through agencies such as the Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA), Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), and the Works Progress Administration (WPA). At one point, over three million civilian workers were being directly subsidized, accounting for just under 7% of the entire GDP—assuming of course that you are willing to classify much of these agencies make-work programs as actual domestic product!
  
  
• The Reconstruction Finance Corporation, used to pick winners and losers by making targeted loans to state and local governments, banks, railroads, mortgage lenders and other businesses.
  
  
• The Agricultural Adjustment Administration, which taxed producers of farm products and then paid subsidies directly to farmers to kill their livestock and to not grow crops on their land, forcing food prices up for everyone else. Never will you find a clearer example of the "fallacy of the broken window!"
  
  
• The Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), a government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) which securitized mortgages in the secondary market with the intent of increasing home ownership.

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

• Full Employment
  
  
• A Living Wage
  
  
• A Market for One's Goods and Services
  
  
• Freedom from Unfair Competition
  
  
• Decent Housing
  
  
• Medical Care and Good Health
  
  
• Economic Protection from Accidents
  
  
• Retirement Security
  
  
• Quality Education

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

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

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

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

• Creation of the Department of Energy (DOE), which established a federally mandated energy conservation policy for the entire country, backed up by a new regulatory bureaucracy. (Carter)
  
  
• The establishment of the Department of Education, which began the process of centralizing the administration of education policies across the nation. (Carter)
  
  
• The Job Training Partnership Act, which significantly expanded training subsidies for youth and unskilled adults. (Reagan)
  
  
• The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which imposed a complex new set of rules affecting employment, transportation, telecommunications, and all publically accessible existing and new construction, enforced through public lawsuits. (Bush Sr.)
  
  
• The Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), which extended health coverage to the children of families that had incomes too high to qualify for Medicaid. (Clinton)
  
  
• The No Child Left Behind Act, which imposed significant new education standards on state schools as a contingency for receiving federal funds. (Bush Jr.)
  
  
• Faith-Based Initiatives: Legislation designed to make it easier to transfer increased federal funds to religious organizations. (Bush Jr.)
  
  
• The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act, an overhaul to Medicare which provided new prescription drug entitlements to seniors, at a projected cost of an additional $549 billion over a ten year period. (Bush Jr.)
  
  
• The initial $700 billion Troubles Asset Relief Program (TARP), used to directly bailout various financial institutions while nationalizing the financial and automotive sectors through the purchase of shares in AIG, Citigroup, General Motors, Chrysler, and other companies. (Bush Jr.)

(Click on image for larger view)

All of which brings us to Barack Obama (2009-12). In less than one term the current administration has disregarded the Constitution, invalidated the rule of law, and been responsible for one of the greatest increases in the size and scope of the regulatory state through a series of acts, including:

• Record Deficits: During the period from 2009 through 2012 (est.), the total deficit spending will be greater than $5.3 trillion, increasing the federal debt to more than $16.3 trillion, which represents over $52,100 of debt for every man, woman and child in the U.S, or more realistically, $208,400 for a typical household of four. The total debt is equal to 105% of GDP, as compared to the debt-to-GDP ratios of: Spain: 69%, Ireland: 104%, Portugal: 107%, Italy: 120%, Greece: 161%—good company, one and all!
  Of course, the above figures are made possible through the use of government accounting practices that would put any private citizen behind bars were they to use them. According to this USA Today story, where the federal government reports a deficit of $1.3 trillion for the previous year, standard accounting practices would properly show that figure to be $5 trillion! That is an underreporting by 260%. Today, in order to cover the total cost of all federal liabilities, each American household is now on the hook for over $561,000. Good luck with that!

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

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

• The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which imposed massive new regulatory requirements on an already heavily regulated financial services industry. This included creation of the:
  
  
  • Financial Stability Oversight Council which determines what constitutes "excessive risk" and then imposes it's edicts on financial institutions in order to promote "market discipline".
    
    
  • Federal Insurance Office to identify "gaps in the regulation of insurers" in order to "develop Federal policy on prudential aspects of international insurance matters".
    
    
  • Consumer Financial Protection Bureau which regulates mortgages, credit cards, student loans, and other financial products offered to consumers.
  
  With the government dictating much of the day-to-day operating parameters and reporting requirements for everything from banks to hedge funds to debt collectors, the freedom to react to market forces and innovate is significantly curtailed. As John Allison has commented:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Legislating through regulatory department fiat and executive order:
  
  
  • The EPA Declares carbon dioxide to be a health hazard, thereby drastically expanded the scope of that agency's regulatory reach.
    
    
  • The NLRB upholds card check (the elimination of secret ballots in union voting), despite the prior legislative rejection by Congress.
    
    
  • The NLRB blocks Boeing from opening its new assembly plant in South Carolina.
    
    
  • EO 13588: Reducing Prescription Drug Shortages, which requires drug manufactures to report operational data, expands the FDA's regulatory review of the industry, and coordinates with the Department of Justice to prosecute those "stockpiling" inventory or selling merchandise at "exorbitant prices".

Your Education:

Freedom of choice in the realm of education first went out the window in America when the Massachusetts Bay Colony made it compulsory back in 1642. However, after the Revolutionary War, it wasn't until 1849 when Connecticut became the first state to reintroduce mandatory school attendance—something that is nationwide today, notwithstanding the 13th Amendment's prohibition against involuntary servitude.
Despite constant calls for increased funding and new initiatives, government education is a massive failure. A study by the Broad Foundation shows that the value of public schooling is perceived to be so low that 1.2 million students drop out each year. The study also indicates that 70% of 8th grader are unable to read proficiently, and that out of the top 30 industrialized nations, American students rank 21st in science and 25th in math. This despite many reports showing that government expenditures per student greatly exceeds those of private schools, while producing inferior results.
Rather than address any of these facts pertaining to the abysmal results in the traditional subject areas of reading, composition, history, math, science and logic, the Obama administration has instead made a huge investment in the implementation of Service Learning—now active in roughly half of all government school. This new program requires that all students engage in mandatory community service work for a specified number of hours each year in order to be allowed to advance to the next grade. What types of work? Here are some examples:
• Preparing and serving meals to homeless
• Working in shelters
• Clothing/food/book/toy drives
• Participating in community clean-up projects
• Supervising toddler recreation time
• Campaigning for a political candidate   [Emphasis added]
The time required for these activities can accrue to 200 hours or more (depending upon the school) of enforced labor in order for a student to be allowed to graduate. The idea is to indoctrinate the school children into a view of Service As A Social Norm. This is nothing less than a back-door effort in support of the administration's larger goal of instituting a mandatory program of universal National Service for all Americans, where up to two years of your life are taken over by government masters.
As the above facts make clear, quality education of youth is not the primary goal of our government-run school system. Were that the case, then changes of a completely different nature would be instituted, allowing market-based competition among private schools, with parents able to to freely determine how to best spend their dollars in order to successfully train their children.
Instead, what the evidence shows is that government seeks to control the educational system as a means of being able to indoctrinate one generation after another in its propaganda. Whether it is forcing very young children to parrot praise for our glorious supreme leader, creating an eco-Nazi police force, asking students to report family secrets, or being fed either the progressive viewpoint on diversity, climate change, and social justice, or the evangelical viewpoint on creationism, intelligent design, and abstinence-only sex education, the end goal is the creation of a culture of uniform, pliable minds that can be more easily mobilized into service by a centralized authority—something I previously discussed in my article Building Obama's Army.

Your Career:

Once upon a time it was you who decided whether you had a skill of value to offer, and it was others who decided whether they agreed and were willing to trade with you for your services. But today, that's pretty much a fairy tale. Slowly, the various states began to arbitrarily declare that one profession after another was no longer yours to practice by right, but only by privilege. They started with the licensing of the medical, legal and teaching professions, and by 1920 had expanded into architecture, engineering, accounting, insurance, pharmacy, real estate, the building trades and even hair cutting. And although the common fiction was that these professions were being regulated in order to protect the public "health, safety and welfare", the truth was that in almost every case the restrictions were the result of heavy lobbying by business and trade associations for the express purpose of creating barriers to entry in the profession that would restrict competition and raise prices for its existing members. The onerous licensing requirement significantly increased the educational time and expense—including costly examination fees that can run into the thousands of dollars for certain professions—thereby excluding many qualified people from an otherwise viable career path. One unintended consequence of this was to actually lower rather than raise the overall level of professionalism.
While the politicians may not themselves have been initially interested in the true intent of professional licensing, they soon came to see two major benefits. First, there were the ongoing annual licensing fees that could be imposed upon an ever expanding segment of the population—and new sources of taxes are always a top priority. But more importantly, the politicians quickly realized that with the power to extend the right to work within a profession, also came the power to revoke that privilege. This placed the state in the position of being able to directly control the very livelihood of citizens—a new and powerful lever that could be used to exact compliance from an important segment of the voting public. With these incentives awaiting, the gold rush was on, and the number of licenses exploded. Today, pest control operator, locksmith, animal trainer, travel guide, log scaler and shampooer are among the more than 1,100 distinct professions requiring a license in one or more states. Here is a site listing 10,385 licensed occupations among the 50 states, while this link provides a comprehensive list of 194 occupations requiring a license in the state of North Carolina alone. During the 1950s, only 5% of American workers were licensed. By 2008 that number had grown to 23% of the workforce and is certainly higher today.

Your Business:

As our little stroll down memory lane has shown, the 20th and 21st century attack on free-market business practices has been an unrelenting one. Every new regulation has created a government bureaucracy that has hobbled entrepreneurs' ability to respond to ever changing market forces, while burying them under a mountain of record keeping and reporting that diverts crucial resources away from productive activity.
In 2010 and 2011, the size of the Federal Register exceeded 82,000 pages—each year! This provides some indication of the magnitude of the legislative burden being placed upon business. And as the Wall Street Journal reported, in 2008, the annual cost of complying with all federal regulations was greater than $1.75 trillion!
Consider how many jobs are being destroyed by this direct government intervention. In 2010, the average national wage was $41,600. If we assume a generous 75% markup to cover non-salary expenses, this raises the business cost per employee to $72,800. If that $1.75 trillion were not being diverted to unproductive tasks, it could represent more than 24 million potential jobs, while the current unemployment rate is estimated to be 12.5 million!
That same WSJ article indicates that the cost of these regulations is born disproportionately by smaller businesses:

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

Since small business is the center for new job creation, if Obama were truly serious about increasing employment, then he should actively work to reduce the regulatory burden on all enterprise. Instead, his approach is exactly the opposite, so it's no mystery why economic recovery has not occurred.
But the question still remains, if this level of misery is the result, then why are progressives so committed to impeding the golden goose that is business? And the simple answer is their fear of freedom. The mere idea of an unregulated business left to operate under its own direction is, in itself, so abhorrent, that they are more willing to suffer the consequential pain of applying the fetters.

Your Choices:

Telling us that monopolies were bad, the government created antitrust legislation which it has then used to prosecute honest businesses from Standard Oil and Alcoa to IBM, Microsoft and Google. Of course, it is only bad when it is anyone other than the politicians doing the monopolizing.
The U.S. Postal Service is a "good" monopoly, because .... well, because the government says it is. Between 2006–2011 the Post Office lost over $25 billion and is scheduled to lose another $14 billion during 2012. Despite these facts, profitable private companies such as DHL, FedEx and UPS are still prohibited from offering us their services in this area of standard mail delivery.
Gambling is bad for you—unless it is the government that is raking in the proceeds, at which point it is actively encouraged. State governments maintain a monopoly on lotteries and spend millions each year advertising them with the intent of extracting billions of additional dollars ( $53.8 billion in 2006) from their residents. Go ahead and purchase your government tickets. Just don't you try this at home! When it comes to government, what's good for me is prohibited for thee.
Where individuals once dealt directly with businesses vying with one another to provide us with various goods and services, over time the politicians stepped in and created government-sponsored monopolies that eliminating all competition. An early example was the building of roads, followed later by the control or outright takeover of one utility after another. The net result? Not happy with your electric rates, your trash collection or your cable service and would like to look elsewhere for something better? Well tough noogies. You options have been eliminated because there's now only one government-mandated game in town. Your right to choose has been replaced by expanded controls which force you to accept someone elses decisions. And despite the example of AT&T, where the end of the government-enforced monopoly led to rapid innovation, increased consumer choice and dramatically lower prices in the telecommunications industry, there is no will to repeat that success.

Your Property:

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

A free people have the right to dispose of their property as they see fit. While this was generally true in the 19th and early 20th century, it is no longer the case.
When it comes to your land, you are now regulated by zoning boards which limit not only what type of structures you will be allowed to build, but their placement, lot coverage, height, shape, permeability, construction materials, signage, lighting, landscaping, and often even the allowable colors will be dictated. For some projects, you may also be required to make "social concessions" such as paying for public amenities, turning over a portion of your land as a park, or building a certain number of subsidized units, in exchange (i.e., as a bribe) for obtaining zoning approval. Then there are the building inspectors, backed by many thousands of pages of codes and regulations, who will demand you make detailed submissions for their review, outlining every change or improvement intended for your property. This submission must typically be accompanied by a very large fee (tax) before the review will be conducted. The Fire Marshall or Army Corps of Engineers may also weigh in, along with many others officiating bodies, depending upon the nature of your project. Should you meet all of the requirement and finally receive building approval, then the inspectors will supervise all work to insure that you perform to their requirements. The concept of private property no longer exists. Government has asserted authority over all usage, and while you bear the financial liability for the construction and maintenance, you are really only a tenant of the land. And each year you will receive a property tax bill from the real owners to remind you of your leasehold status.
Or consider another example. Do farmers have a right to the use of their own cattle? Wisconsin Circuit Court Judge Patrick J. Fiedler emphatically declared that they do not! In a case where the judge proclaimed that the farm families "do not have a fundamental right to consume the milk from their own cow," he went even further, stating that Americans "do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice."
Then there are federal asset seizures which have risen over the years to epidemic proportions. This is where regulatory and enforcement agencies are given the power to confiscate property without Fifth Amendment protection of due process. As the Wall Street Journal reports, in 2010 alone:
"forfeiture programs confiscated homes, cars, boats and cash in more than 15,000 cases. The total take topped $2.5 billion"
In the meantime, innocent people are being caught in this unrestrained fishing net. Ostensibly, these seizures of ill-gotten goods are supposed to be returned to victims, but a 1984 federal law allows state and local agencies to retain up to 80% of what is taken, creating what Scott Bullock of the Institute for Justice points out is an "improper profit incentive."
So much for your property rights.

Your Income:

Your income is the product of your thought and labor. In a free society it should be recognized as your property by right, to save, invest, spend or give away as you—and only you—wish. But this is not the view of contemporary government. They see your earnings as their property, to be disposed of in a manner of their choosing. By their grace, politicians leave you with a percentage of what you make, but then confiscate the remainder to fund their programs, schemes, junkets and wars. We have already examined the case where FDR imposed a 100% marginal tax rate on income above a certain level, stating in unequivocal terms that should anyone in that position choose to work, they were fully slaves of the state. The following two recent events reinforce this point:
In April, Barbara Boxer (D-CA) introduced Senate bill S.1813 reauthorizing federal highway funding. But hidden within that bill was a provision to revoke the passport of anyone owing more than $50,000 to the IRS. By restricting citizens from leaving the country, this would effectively erect a virtual "Berlin Wall" around America, caging its citizens, who may only depart if and when granted permission.
Then, in May, in response to Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin's decision to renounce his citizenship and reside in Singapore, Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Bob Casey (D-PA) proposed the Ex-PATRIOT Act (S. 3205), which would impose a 30% tax on the investments of any person renouncing their American citizenship. In addition, these people would be barred from reentering the U.S., permanently walling them out.
The vitriol exhibited by both Schumer and Casey made crystal clear their belief that Saverin was "stealing" from both them and the U.S. government the millions of tax dollars to which they had a rightful claim but would now be denied, due to Saverin's actions.
Some might argue that the typical progressive is motivated by their radical egalitarianism to work for equality among all people. Not the "equality under the law" that the Founding Fathers recognized, but "equality of outcomes" that promotes uniformity across the entire social spectrum. However, this view crumbles under close examination. Given a choice of proposals, where one promotes that the less well off apply themselves and raise their standard of living towards a more equal stature, while another relies upon the confiscation of property and the restraining of ability of those better off so as to bring them down, the progressive will inevitably select the latter. They do so because it is not empathy and love for the less fortunate that motivates them, but envy and hatred for their betters that fuels their passion. Refer to the actions of Boxer, Schumer and Casey for a case in point.

Your Purchases:

Once the government had exacted its pound of flesh through taxes, it would be nice if you were then left to spend the remainder of your earnings as you liked. But no, the politicians are not through with you just yet. They have an opinion as to just how you should use that money. They know what's best for you.
For example, they think it would be great if you owned a house instead of renting. And it would be swell if you would donate some of your income to charities rather than spend it on yourself. Of course, they have a vested interest in seeing you improve your job skills, since they get more tax revenue as your pay-level increases. So they nudge you in their direction by offering tax deductions for these and other desirable activities.
Or maybe these benevolent fairy god mothers who watch over us all have decided that our behavior should conform to their more "socially desirable" ideals. For example, maybe they would like to see you be more environmentally conscious by weatherizing your home or purchasing an electric car. They accomplish these objectives by taking money from someone else and offering it to you as a bribe.
An when it looks like gentle economic persuasion may not be sufficient to accomplish their goals, then they invent a new trick and simply tell you that you will be forced to make a certain purchase as in the case of the Obamacare health insurance mandate.

Your Family:

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

Your Personal Life:

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

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

Can I use a plastic bag?   Fat chance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're kidding, right?   Nope.

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

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

Now, that is a very good question!
Channeling Marvin Gaye, today's politicians would say:
There ain't no mountain high enough
Ain't no valley low enough
Ain't no behavior small enough
To keep me from regulating you

So, what's the point?

The point of this historical overview is to expose what is normally hidden from view. The corrosion of our rights has been occurring for decades. Each generation has faced its own smaller set of issues, and at each juncture a tiny percentage of the populace has fought back against the intrusions, with a few battles being won and many more lost. Then society as a whole settles back into abject complacency and learns to accept the new shackles that have been imposed upon it ... at which point the process is ready to repeat, ratcheting yet another notch closer to total enslavement.
The point is to take in the larger picture as a whole and to be horrified by the sight!
For every abridgement of freedom proposed throughout human history, there are an untold number of rationalizations that have been offered up to justify its necessity. At one point a little finesse was required in order to convince people to accept being reamed with the sharp end of the stick, but after a century's worth of abuse—not to mention indoctrination through government schools—the best that today's leader could muster was:
"I had to abandon free market principles in order to save the free market system." – Bush Jr.
and apparently that was good enough for most!
But the rationalizations simply don't cut it. When you add everything up, it soon becomes clear that our liberty has not been cashed in to save our country. It was not used as a down payment on maintaining our "way of life". It wasn't sacrificed in service of our fellow man. It was not traded for universal fairness and equality. It's loss has not resulted in brighter, happier people, or the elimination of business failure, or made the trains run on time.
We've exchanged our freedom for the promise of safety and security, and yet we remain unprotected from the Madoffs and Enrons of the world. We find our government-mandated health and retirement systems bankrupt, leaving us exposed and vulnerable. Our entire economy is on the verge of collapse and we are mired in an undeclared and undefined perpetual state of war that cannot be quantified and therefore will never end. We have taken a once productive and self-sufficient people and imbued in a sizable percentage, learned helplessness, creating a class that is no longer capable of taking responsibility for themselves.
For any contract to be valid, each party must gain something of value. In the case of this so called "social contract" that has been rammed down our throats by force, we have paid the very steep price of our liberty. What have we received in return?
Absolutely nothing of value!
I declare this contract null and void.
The point is that we now have a government that no longer honors the limits imposed upon it by the U.S. Constitution, and has come to see citizens as members of three fundamental classes: wards, slaves and rulers.
The point is that we started out with a magnificent proclamation that all men were equal, possessing unalienable rights, and that among these were life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Yet, three hundred years later, we have arrived at a point where your life is no longer your own.
The point is that the rationalizations given by our politicians for their acts are just part of the magic and misdirection use to cloud people's minds in order to keep them from identifying the simple and obvious truth: rulers are in it to rule! Today's politicians are small-minded opportunists who enjoy wielding power for power's sake and will pragmatically tell a lie as soon a truth if they deem it will further their ends. These people do not view you as an equal, but see you as a ready mark to be manipulated.
The point is that at the birth of this country men were prepared to take up arms and fight to defend their right to exist on their own terms—not be dictated to by some external controlling force. Today you are not just being taxed and regulated into oblivion, you are being told how to salt you food!
The point is, how much are you willing to take?
The point is, what are you prepared to do about it?

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

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

"The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits."        and "A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned — this is the sum of good government."        and "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The March Of Independence   —  by by Brian Royce Faulkner
We march along the street
With flags and banners high;
We praise the days of liberty
When bright was each man's eye.
We sing the spirit bold
That fired every will
To fight the fight of liberty,
And we are fighting still.
For Independence now
We raise a mighty cheer;
Our individual liberty,
It is an aim most dear.
For sacred right of life,
And property, its twin,
We praise the ways of liberty
To draw new seekers in.
There're many who know not
The things were said and done,
When war for human liberty
Was fought, and mostly won.
And many more are blind,
Bare truth will never see,
Who sacrifice their liberty
To false security.
But we, who are the few,
We march with shoulders proud;
We praise the ways of liberty
And sing its songs aloud.
The roll of drums is strong,
Our cannons smoke and roar,
The flag of Independence
Goes flying on before.
One letter does it bear
(In blazing stripe of gold)---
The "I" of human liberty
That we all grasp and hold.
We march beyond today
With fearless tongues and hands,
Until the "I" of liberty
In every thinker stands.
Across the lanes of air,
Into computers' page
The birth of Independence---
The "I"--- will come of age.
Into our children's schools
The books of light will shine,
Till many youths, in liberty,
Will sing, "My life is mine!"
In business place and home
Free thinkers will prevail,
Till smiles of Independence
For everywhere set sail!
New marchers of the mind
Will follow guilt no more---
The moral right of liberty
A creed for rich and poor.
The cross of altruism
We'll gladly hail, "Goodbye!"
No sacrifice when liberty
Waves "I" across the sky!
We march along the street,
We march through every town;
We'll swell the self of liberty
Till hate of life is down!
The roll of drums is strong,
The fifes are sweet and bright;
Our minds of Independence
Give "I" its rising height.
We sing the spirit true
That will in time hold sway
Till Independent Liberty
Is its own endless day.
Then right, and left, and right,
And right and left again,
Come all you sons of liberty
And join the march of men.
Now on and up we go,
And no! we'll never cease!
The "I"s of Independence
Are mastering ---increase!
Our rockets soar in air,
Our colored streamers fly!
The dawn of Independence
Is bursting with its "I"!
Now right, and left, and right,
And right and left again;
Come all you sons of liberty
And swell the ranks of men!

V FOR VENDETTA — 2011

• Communism, Socialism and Fascism, have been tried repeatedly and have always proven to be good at one thing only: mass murder. But the historical facts are of no value to today's reality. This time the progressive "spirit" will prevail and create the utopian society of which we dream.

• Keynesian economics has been thoroughly debunked and discredited, both in theory and practice. But this presents no problem to the progressive, who wants it to work, and that's all that matters.

• Government run Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security programs are all insolvent with no visible means for adequate future funding. No problem! Simply expand the government entitlement program into a vast new area and we will realize huge cost savings as a result. Why? Because we say so, that's why.

• Have an unstoppable progressive majority in Congress. Let's play by the rules. Lose a bunch of seats in the midterm election? Let's change the rules of the game.

• Are the leaked Climategate documents bad for your narrative? If you are the progressive New York Times, indignantly refuse to publish the illegally obtained documents. Do the illegally obtained WikiLeaks files fit your agenda? Then proudly publish them in the "public interest".

• When Nidal Malik Hasan jumped onto a desk, shouted: "Allahu Akbar!", and then proceeded to walk through the Fort Hood army base with four guns, killing 13 and wounding 30, the left demanded that we should not "jump to conclusions" about the motives involved — because speculation concerning a muslim connection doesn't comfortably fit their story. Now, just fourteen months later, when Loughner commits an almost identical act, killing 6 and wounding 18, the left sees an opportunity to accomplish one of their goals — discrediting conservatives — and therefore does what is necessary, even though they are devoid of facts to support their case and have to adopt the tactics that they demanded be previously rejected.

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

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

From Wikipedia: In 1947, Saint Louis planners proposed replacement of DeSoto-Carr, a run-down black neighborhood, with new two- and three-story residential blocks and a public park. The plan did not materialize; instead, Democratic mayor Joseph Darst, elected in 1949, and Republican state leaders favored total clearing of the slums and replacing them with high-rise, high-density public housing. They reasoned that the new projects would create a net positive result to the city through increased revenues, new parks, playgrounds and shopping space. In 1948 voters rejected the proposal for a municipal loan to finance the change, but soon the situation was changed with the Housing Act of 1949 and Missouri state laws that provided co-financing of public housing projects. The approach taken by Darst, urban renewal, was shared by Harry S. Truman administration [sic] and fellow mayors of other cities overwhelmed by industrial workers recruited during the war. Specifically, Saint Louis Land Clearance and Redevelopment Authority was authorized to acquire and demolish the slums of the inner ring and then sell the land at reduced prices to private developers, fostering middle-class return and business growth. Another agency, Saint Louis Housing Authority, had to clear land to construct public housing for the former slum dwellers. Pruitt-Igoe was a large urban housing project first occupied in 1954 and completed in 1955 in the U.S. city of St. Louis, Missouri. Shortly after its completion, living conditions in Pruitt-Igoe began to decay; by the late 1960s, the extreme poverty, crime, and segregation brought the complex a great deal of infamy as it was covered extensively by the international press. The complex was designed by architect Minoru Yamasaki, who also designed the World Trade Center towers. At 3 PM on March 16, 1972 — 16 years after construction was finished — the first of the complex's 33 buildings was demolished by the federal government. The other 32 buildings were destroyed over the next four years. The high-profile failure of Pruitt-Igoe has become an emblematic icon often evoked by all sides in public housing policy debate.

Does anything above sound familiar? Government urban planners, with big ideas and only the best interests of the "general public" at heart, use the power of the state to seize huge tracts of private land, raze everything in sight, hand over that land to private developers, and proceed to create a new social and economic Shangri-La. Except things, for some unexpected reason, don't really turn out as anticipated! Oh well, don't worry. We'll get it right next time.

From Wikipedia: During the 1950s and 60s, New Haven [Connecticut] received more urban renewal funding per capita than any city in the United States. New Haven became the de facto showcase of the new modern redeveloped city and plans for its downtown development were chronicled in publications like Time and Harper's magazines throughout the 1950s and 60s. Robert C. Weaver, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development in the Lyndon Johnson Administration, once said that New Haven during this time was the closest America has ever been to having a "slumless" city. Since 2000, downtown has seen an increasing concentration of new restaurants, nightlife, and small retail stores. The area has experienced an influx of hundreds of new and renovated apartment and condominium units, and a significant number of up-scale restaurants and nightclubs have opened.

Well, that certainly sounds more promising! However, as an architect and a resident of New Haven from 1978-1988, I recall a slightly different picture. Through the 60s, 70s and early 80s, despite being the home to Yale University, New Haven was an economically depressed area. All of that urban renewal money had been spent purchasing low-rent buildings within the downtown core, knocking them down, and creating temporarily gravel parking lots while wondrous new structures were planned. However, by the early 1980s, after 25 years of "planning", most of these areas remained open gravel lots, giving much of the city the appearance of a bombed war zone rather than a thriving community.
But what about the claims of being a "slumless" city? Well, that might well be true. Every building within New Haven that offered inexpensive storefront rents and provided affordable housing on the upper floors were demolished. All of these self-sufficient business owners were displaced, as were their clientele, the low-income tenants who had previously occupied these buildings. With no place left to live or work, these people moved on to other cities or became new clients of the state-run subsidized housing developments springing up everywhere.
While private development was being encouraged in the mid-to-late 80s when I left the state, I think the article's reference to economic expansion beginning to take real hold after 2000 — a 45-50 year period of economic stagnation — is the ultimate indictment against urban renewal. Strike two.

From Wikipedia: Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another to further economic development. The case arose from the condemnation by New London, Connecticut, of privately owned real property so that it could be used as part of a comprehensive redevelopment plan which promised 3,169 new jobs and $1.2 million a year in tax revenues. The Court held in a 5-4 decision that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified such redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Following the decision, many of the plaintiffs expressed an intent to find other means by which they could continue contesting the seizure of their homes. Soon after the decision, city officials announced plans to charge the residents of the homes for back rent for the five years since condemnation procedures began. The city contended that the residents have been on city property for those five years and owe tens of thousands of dollars of rent. The case was finally resolved when the City agreed to move Kelo's house to a new location. The controversy was eventually settled when the city paid substantial additional compensation to the homeowners. In spite of repeated efforts, the redeveloper (who stood to get a 91-acre waterfront tract of land for $1 per year) was unable to obtain financing, and the redevelopment project was abandoned. As of the beginning of 2010, the original Kelo property was a vacant lot, generating no tax revenue for the city. In addition, in September 2009, Pfizer, whose upscale employees were supposed to be the clientele of the Fort Trumbull redevelopment project, completed its merger with Wyeth, resulting in a consolidation of research facilities of the two companies. Shortly after the merger closed, Pfizer decided to close its New London facility in favor of one across the Thames River in nearby Groton by 2011; this move coincides with the expiration of tax breaks on the New London campus that also expire by 2011, when Pfizer's tax bill on the property would have increased almost fivefold. [As reported in the papers] "Pfizer Inc. announced that it is closing the $350 million research center in New London that was the anchor for the New London redevelopment plan, and will be relocating some 1,500 jobs."

Remember, these are the people who believe that they can run automobile plants, manage the entire US economy, and will soon be in charge of your life-and-death health care decisions.
In each of the three cases cited above, who knows just how many houses, businesses, and millions of tax dollars were taken from productive people who would have furthered their lives and made sensible investments with their money, only to instead have it squandered by these bureaucrats? Then, realize that it is not three, but hundreds of similarly failed experiments taking place across the country each year, and the mind boggles at the lost wealth, in the billions and trillions, that has been pumped into these rat holes of disastrous attempts at social engineering by the central planners. They failed in the 1950s, and again and again in the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, right up through the destruction of the town of New London, CT in 2009, and still no lesson has been learned — other than we can have our property confiscated from us at any time, so long as the magical incantation "for the public good" is first proclaimed.

But until they come along and take your property for some urban planning scheme, it's yours to do with as you see fit, right? Not a chance. So called Euclidean Zoning laws, instituted in the early part of the 20th century have long placed a complex set of restrictions on what any individual could do with their land and buildings. These regulations specify what types of uses are allowed (residential, commercial, religious, etc.), the location where any structure may be placed on the lot, overall land coverage, total usable building area, height, allowable exterior pavement, types of landscaping required, restrictions on signage, lighting, grading, drainage, and on and on.
After more than one hundred years of imposing these guidelines and restrictions all across the country, we must, by now, certainly be living in a designer's paradise. Well, according to a July 8th article in Architect magazine titled Brave New Codes, the result has been as follows:

The separation of uses written into Euclidean zoning codes made sense to the lawyers who wrote them, but they have the effect of creating bland and inefficient places, Plater-Zyberk says. Great places weren't being produced under Euclidean zoning, according to Plater-Zyberk. "It became evident that this regulatory framework was really what was driving suburbia, sprawl, and the things that were being criticized as being inefficient and unsustainable," Plater-Zyberk says. "It wasn't that people wanted it to be that way—the codes were just written that way."

So, the ill effects were not produced because "people wanted it to be that way", they were forced upon us all because "the codes were just written that way". Then the solution is obvious! Remove the zoning codes and let people achieve those better results that they desire. But no, freedom and choice is never a solution that crosses the mind of the totalitarian planner. Just as we saw in the case of urban planning, the zoning advocates believe that they now have all the answers and can create nirvana with a different set of regulations. So coming soon to a city near you is Form-based Zoning, the cure for what ails you.

From Wikipedia: Form-based zoning relies on rules applied to development sites according to both prescriptive and potentially discretionary criteria. Design-based codes offer considerably more flexibility in building uses than do Euclidean codes, but, as they are comparatively new, may be more challenging to create. [...] When form-based codes do not contain appropriate illustrations and diagrams, they have been criticized as being difficult to interpret. One example of a recently adopted code with design-based features [...] creates "form districts" One version of form-based or "form integrated" zoning utilizes [...] three district components - a use component, a site component and an architectural component. The use component is similar in nature to the use districts of euclidian zoning. However, with an emphasis on form standards, use components are typically more inclusive and broader in scope. The site components define a variety of site conditions from low intensity to high intensity such as size and scale of buildings and parking, accessory structures, drive-through commercial lanes, landscaping, outdoor storage and display, vehicle fueling and washing, overhead commercial service doors, etc. The architectural components address architectural elements and materials.

As a home or business owner, you have really got to love that "potentially discretionary criteria". It can really add some excitement to your life! And as an architect, it has got to be a relief that the form, elements and material design choices will now be made for you by a government agency rather than being a decision formulated between you and your client — much as medical decisions under nationalized health care will now be dictated by a bureaucrat rather than resulting from a consultation between patient and doctor.
Here are some additional comments from the Brave New Codes article:

"A lot of times, [the zoning codes are] just telling you what you can't do." [Peter] Park says Denver's form-based code tries harder to guide developers and designers toward what they can do, mainly by being a very visual document.    [Emphasis added]

So instead of being left free to do anything other than what is specifically restricted, the new codes turn western culture upon its head by actively prohibiting everything except that which is explicitly allowed. Your right to use your property is now being placed in a straitjacket where a few subjective, discretionary strings are then loosened to allow you some very restricted range of motion, based not upon what you desire, but upon what others deem is best.

"If the architects could understand that they're part of a larger effort of placemaking, and it's not just a restriction like any old code, I think that they would have a good time working with form-based codes." "Often 'design freedom' becomes another term for 'anything goes' solutions that contribute little, if any, to the collective enterprise," Jimenez adds. "Limits are not the curtailing of freedom, but rather opportunities to transcend them."

Translated, this means that, as an architect, I will learn to enjoy my new role as an implementor of their rules, as soon as I come to accept my proper place as a comrade in the collective enterprise of state-mandated placemaking. These people have covered all the bases and their actions would bring a smile to Ellsworth Toohey's face.
This collective premise is so pervasive in our society that many people are not even aware of the extent of its effect upon them. For example, in another article in Architect magazine titled If a Tree Falls, the author, Lance Hosey, discussing the ecological benefits to using regional construction materials, makes the following offhand statement:

How would the construction industry change if builders were limited to what's in their own backyards?

Notice that he didn't say "if builder's limited themselves", but "if builders were limited", ignoring the possibility of using persuasion and immediately assuming that external force should be applied against all builders in order to achieve his desired results — a result which apparently is to be taken as self-evidently correct and proper. For the collectivist, individual choice and personal freedom are nonexistent concepts, and all that matters here is an economic calculation concerning the use of raw materials. Trees and water are precious. Humans are beneath consideration.

Which brings us to the real purpose of this piece. From an article written by Bob Livingston, it came to my attention that back on August 6, 2009, Christopher Dodd submitted to the Senate S.1619, a bill titled the Livable Communities Act of 2009, which was followed on February 25, 2010 by the companion House resolution H.R.4690, the Livable Communities Act of 2010. On August 3rd, 2010, S.1619 was released from committee and sent to the Senate and is currently awaiting a vote. Let's examine the major provisions of this legislation.
• Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities
  This establishes another huge federal bureaucracy with broad powers applied at the state, regional and local levels, to promote planning and construction meeting federal guidelines for sustainability, energy conservation, affordability, and mass-transportation.

• Implementation of Grant Programs
  This sets up a huge sub-bureaucracy for various grant programs used for the distribution of federal tax dollars to state, regional and local governmental organizations, as well as to private consultancy groups. This is the carrot used to induce participation and the hammer which elicits cooperation, and ultimately submission, to federal authority.

• Interagency Council on Sustainable Communities
  This establishes an executive-branch council that coordinates and oversees the operations of the entire program. Of course, there would be one or more new czars installed to oversee the overseerers.

• Funding
  The initial appropriation through 2013 is in excess of $3.7 billion.
As has been the case with all recent congressional legislation, the bill deals with the establishment of a large and complex bureaucratic framework intended to implement goals which are merely hinted at within the text. At this point there is no direct way to gage the intentions of, or the specific actions that might be taken, by those ultimately chosen to staff this operation. In this way these bills can be made to appear as all things to all people, while being immune to meaningful criticism. Nevertheless, I think we can draw a few broad generalities based upon the goals of those sponsoring this initiative.
• The creation of a federal planning and development agency would be a new and significantly greater infringement upon the remaining property rights of individuals and businesses.

• The additional bureaucracy and costs imposed by this bill would create a substantial new impediment to economic recovery and future economic growth.

• A large segment of the grant funding can be predicted to go to eco-groups who will be eager to finally be able to impose their "green" policies upon everyone else.

• The sustainability and energy conservation goals of this legislation would significantly increase the cost of construction and energy in an effort to drive development in a different direction.

• The mass-transportation goals of the bill would result in strictly controlled development corridors of high-density housing, serviced by rail. Gasoline prices would be forced significantly higher to discourage the freedom of automobile usage.

• The affordability goals of the bill would be used as another tool for the redistribution of wealth in the country.

• A long term goal might be the elimination of all suburban or rural homes, with these citizens being forced into cities. This could easily be accomplished by a congressional act condemning these properties and then razing the structures, just as we have seen demonstrated repeatedly by urban planners of the past.
If central planners of the past were able to create such devastation in the wake of their grand schemes, imagine the magnitude of harm that could be unleashed by placing this much power in federal hands.

Dodd's bill is the first significant piece of legislation introduced in the United States which attempts to implement the goals of Agenda 21, described by the UN's Division for Sustainable Development (A division of the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs) as follows:

Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment. Agenda 21, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and the Statement of principles for the Sustainable Management of Forests were adopted by more than 178 Governments at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janerio, Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992.

During that conference, Agenda 21 was signed by President George H.W. Bush.
A review of this document reveals the following goals:
• Unite all nations in a common effort for sustainable development, with the UN ultimately acting as a super-government having authority over the remainder of the world's national governments.

• National governments are required to "strengthen institutional structures to allow the full integration of environmental and developmental issues, at all levels of decision-making".

• A massive redistribution of wealth from the rich (developed) countries to the poor (undeveloped) ones under the guise of creating "a more efficient and equitable world economy". In other words, eliminate world poverty in the name of promoting sustainable livelihoods and reduce the standard of living in developed countries as a necessity for reducing environmental stress.

• Developed countries are to provide health care for undeveloped countries.

• Global financial institutions are to be funded by rich countries in order to implement the environmental policies dictated by the UN.

• By recognizing the "increasing interdependence of the community of nations", and working to "overcome confrontation", "foster a climate of genuine cooperation and solidarity", "strengthen national and international policies", and by adapting "to the new realities", strong countries are to be subjugated to the weak.

• Use the UN's now discredited IPCC report as justification for throttling the economies of developed countries.

• Adjust all land-use and resource policies to mitigate changes to the atmosphere, promote bio-diversity, conserve resources, minimize pollution, promote sustainability, provide shelter for all, promote sustainable construction, energy distribution, and transportation.

• "Transfer" environmentally sound technology from the developers to those with a need. (Steal it.)

• Promote education, public awareness and training. In other words, an active propaganda campaign.
Agenda 21 is nothing more than a capitulation of the good to the bad, the rich to the poor, the strong to the weak, the productive to the unproductive, the creative to the uncreative, and the free to the unfree, all under the pretense of a global warming disaster which has been thoroughly debunked as one of the worlds biggest lies.

As was the case with Health Care, the Disclose Act and Finance Reform, the Livable Communities Act is likely to be another piece of legislation that will be attempted to be pushed through the Democratic Congress with little regard for the impact upon the constitutional rights of the citizens of this country, or upon the fragile state of our economy. This is an administration focused upon one goal only — that being the consolidation of power — and this bill would expand federal power into devastating new areas. I encourage everyone to spread the word about this bill, and to contact your Senators and Representatives and tell them to vote NO when this Act comes up for consideration.

I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is "needed" before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents' "interests," I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can. -- Barry Goldwater (The Conscience of a Conservative, 1960)

Dear Mr. Brown: Congratulations on your win last night. I was one of the many from outside MA that provided financial support for your campaign leading to this great day for both you and the entire country. But Mr. Brown, please do not let us down. You have been sent to Congress for one purpose: to do everything you can to stop the socialist juggernaut from crushing the spirit of America. Your job is to defend the rights of every individual and to cut the scope of government back wherever possible, doing what you can to return it to its singular function of protecting our rights, and nothing more. So once you have cast your vote against the health care legislation as you have promised, remain true to the principles of the people who elected you and continue the valiant fight to uphold the U.S. Constitution. If you do that, you will stand at the forefront of the Second American Revolution and earn yourself a place in history. Do not be seduced by the congressional seat and decide, as so many others have, that being elected has somehow granted you the wisdom and the powers to assume the role of making decisions for and manipulating the lives of the citizens of this country. Always remember that we are each sovereign individuals with the constitutionally guaranteed right to our own lives. We are not wards of the state. This means that we each get to make the decisions for ourselves as we best see fit, and that right is not limited to health care, but to every aspect of how we pursue our lives and every decision we make in disposing of our earnings. As the Constitution states: "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;" — Fifth Amendment "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." — Ninth Amendment "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" — Tenth Amendment The United States government was not granted the powers to make health care decisions for the citizens, and therefore, it remains a right of each individual. And that same reasoning holds true whether it pertains to deciding whether to invest in an energy efficient appliance, a fuel efficient car, determining whether and what type of mortgage to obtain, and whether we wish to provide financial help to a poor individual, a failing company or a foreign country in the aftermath of an earthquake. Always remember that the products of each person's efforts are their property, to dispose of as they - and only they - see fit. And the choices that they make are their means of pursuing their own happiness. The single proper role of federal government is to be a protector of the rights of the citizens. Every time the government steps outside that role and passes legislation to regulate business or personal actions, it has transformed from a protector into a violator of those rights. The majority of the text of the U.S. Constitution was written with the express purpose of constraining government so that it would not violate its mandate and become an agent of oppression. As you can clearly see, those protective measures were long ago breached and this country has been on a rapidly accelerating slide towards totalitarianism. Please make it your single-minded purpose to go to Washington D.C. to put the governmental genie back in its bottle and restore the right of every citizen to determine their own future. So again, I send you my best wishes for your victory and am excited to see you head to Washington and help us all in the struggle to recover our lost liberty. Sincerely, C. Jeffery Small

Scott Brown's website:	www.brownforussenate.com
Scott Brown's email address:	scott.p.brown@state.ma.us
Scott Brown's street address:	200 Reservoir Street Needham, MA 02494

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

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

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

Do These People Really Have Your Best Interests at Heart?

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

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

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

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

• Petitions
  • Please Stop Lying About the Tea Party Movement

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

"This is the moment at which we turn and face ourselves. Here, in the plastic corridors and crowded stalls, among impenetrable texts and withering procedures, humankind decides what it is and what it will become."

"The meeting at Copenhagen confronts us with our primal tragedy."
"Now we find ourselves hedged in by the consequences of our nature, living meekly on this crowded planet for fear of provoking or damaging others. We have the hearts of lions and live the lives of clerks."
"The summit's premise is that the age of heroism is over."
"[I]t is ... a battle between two world views. The angry men who seek to derail this agreement, and all such limits on their self-fulfilment, have understood this better than we have."
"[F]ossil fuels have granted the universal ape amplification beyond its Paleolithic dreams. [... allowing] us to live in blissful mindlessness"
"The angry men know that this golden age has gone; but they cannot find the words for the constraints they hate. Clutching their copies of Atlas Shrugged, they flail around"
"All those of us whose blood still races are forced to sublimate, to fantasise. In daydreams and video games we find the lives that ecological limits and other people's interests forbid us to live."
"There is no space for heroism here; all passion and power breaks against the needs of others. This is how it should be"

"Man is the only living species that has the power to act as his own destroyer — and that is the way he has acted through most of his history."

[Sorry. Cartoon has gone missing!]

A PATRIOT'S OPEN LETTER By Bradley Harrington "I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." — Thomas Jefferson, Letter To Benjamin Rush, 1800 — An Open Letter To Our "Representatives" In The United States Government: As a patriot, and as a former military veteran, I need to tell you a few things. I know that you folks have a lot to do, and don't really want to take the time to listen to me. But I strongly suggest that you do; for that attitude, you see—of being to "busy" to listen to the people who populate this country—is part of the problem I need to discuss with you. For hundreds of years, people like me have kept this nation strong and free. Many of us are currently serving America in the Middle East; a lot of us still surviving served in Vietnam. Our fathers served in Korea; our grandfathers in World War II; our great-grandfathers in World War I. All the way back, we have fought, sweated, battled, bled and died to protect our nation from attack. Whenever you called upon us to serve, we were there. We didn't question your right to send us off to war; we assumed that you had our ideals at heart; we believed that you knew what you were doing, and we unhesitatingly took out whoever you named as our enemies. Hundreds of thousands of us were killed in that process—but, as long as we knew that we were defending liberty's torch, even the laying down of our lives was not too high a price to pay. In the Revolutionary War, we fought to separate ourselves from the tyranny of King George III and to establish this nation, "conceived in liberty," as a safe haven for individuals to peacefully live their lives and pursue their happiness. Those were, and are, our ideals, and we have always viewed America, her history and her institutions as mankind's last, best and greatest hope. And, for many decades, our efforts and achievements enabled our nation to shine as a magnificent beacon to the "poor and huddled masses" yearning to be free. "Patriotism," to us, you see, is not blindly following our leaders wherever they might lead: it is respect for, and admiration of, the principles of freedom that animated the creation of the United States. It is a profound passion we have, at the very core of our souls, in regard to man's unconquerable mind and the indomitability of the human spirit. Patriotism, to us, is not loyalty to a government, but loyalty to an idea, and it drives all of our thoughts and actions: the idea that men and women have a right to be free. Have you been doing your job as well as we have been doing ours? Have you been as true to the ideals our nation was founded upon as we have? Or have you used your power to "engage in a long train of abuses and usurpations?" (Declaration of Independence, 1776.) Today, we observe that you and your laws have reduced our economy to a shambles; have aided and abetted the destruction of our social order; hampered the processes of our courts; stifled our productive capacities; and ensnared the citizens of this nation in a web of offensive and arbitrary decrees that can be designed for one purpose only: to turn us into serfs. And, now, as you sit in your citadels of power in Washington, D.C., you tell us, when we protest, that you are "busy." Busy doing what? Taking away our liberties and turning this once-proud, once-free nation into a shoddy, second-class "welfare" state? I respectfully suggest that you'd better think again: for not all of us are mindless automatons to be led like sheep to the slaughter. Many of us know our history, and have read the Declaration, and are fully aware of the part that says: "That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it..." We military patriots haven't perished in one war after another so that you, our so-called "representatives," could destroy the ideals we have always combated to defend; we fought one revolution to protect those ideals in 1776. So, take notice: if you, in your colossally arrogant, controlling ignorance, continue to take us down this corridor of coercion, we might just decide that it is time to do it again.

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

If we want a Republic, we have to work to keep it. Now, more than ever, more Americans realize the truth of this and are taking action. We will succeed. As one Albuquerque Tea Party member recently said, "I will never give up. Never. We will take back our country." Yes, we will. It's up to us to restore and keep our republic.

"From October 19-25, More Than 60 Network TV Shows To Spotlight The Power and Personal Benefits of Service EIF is mobilizing the entire entertainment community around the ground-breaking, multi-year I PARTICIPATE, which will promote a new way of thinking about service and seek to persuade millions more Americans to volunteer regularly. To jumpstart the campaign, Entertainment Industry President and CEO Lisa Paulsen, Tyler Perry and Ashton Kutcher announced its 2009 centerpiece: a week-long television event running from October 19th to the 25th, when America's most-loved TV shows on ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC and other broadcast networks will spotlight service through scripted programming, segments and PSAs with inspirational messages and storylines about volunteerism. Randy Jackson (FOX), Christine Baranski (CBS), Tim Daly (ABC) and Michelle Trachtenberg (NBC) also participated in the announcement. "We think hearing that from the cast members and characters on shows like Mercy, American Idol, Private Practice, Ugly Betty and The Good Wife will help millions of viewers consider volunteerism," said Tony Award Winner Bernadette Peters. "I think it's important to help people and causes that need our help. The I Participate campaign will ultimately involve all segments of the entertainment community including film studios, the recording industry, Broadway and others." Network shows that will feature volunteerism in some way during the week of Oct 19th include: ABC All My Children, America's Funniest Home Videos, Brothers and Sisters, Castle, Cougar Town, Dancing With The Stars, Desperate Housewives, Extreme Makeover: Home Edition, Flash Forward, General Hospital, Good Morning America, Grey's Anatomy, Hank, Jimmy Kimmel Live, Modern Family, One Life To Live, Private Practice, The Forgotten, The Middle, The View, Ugly Betty CBS Cold Case, Criminal Minds, CSI: Miami, CSI: NY, Gary Unmarried, Ghost Whisperer, Numb3rs FOX America's Most Wanted, Bones, Brothers, COPS, So You Think You Can Dance, Til Death NBC 30 Rock, Access Hollywood, Community, Days of Our Lives, Heroes, Parks and Recreation, The Biggest Loser, The Office, Today Show

– Showrunner Document – "Play your Part America" (Working Title Only) Answering the Call President Obama has called for a new era of responsibility — recognition of the part of every American that we have duties to ourselves, our nation and the world to serve others. It is the price and promise of citizenship. We can turn up the volume for service and volunteerism, engage more people, make it part of who we are and what we do to bring the country together. Campaign Elements Ideally, storylines will touch on one or more of the key issues that have outlined as the country's priorities for services: Education and children Health and well being Environmental conservation and reduced energy consumption Economic development and financial security Support for the military By connecting characters and storylines to broad themes around service, and/or providing messaging through the casts, a picture will be painted of what service and volunteering can look like today, and inspire viewers.

"basic training, civil defense preparation and community service."

"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."

"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's time to talk about community service.
We all know you've heard about it a million times and that you have to complete at least 200 hours to receive a diploma and graduate; well this year it's no joke.
Prior to this year, the alumni of Robert F Kennedy Community High School took community service lightly and didn't always complete their hours; the administration was lenient and allowed students to graduate, but the buck stops here.
Some students are disgruntled about the recent announcement.
"If students from years before were able to graduate and didn't complete all their hours, it's not fair that the same policies do not apply to us," said Hawa Faiq, sophomore.
On the contrary, some students seem un-phased by the new enforced policy.
"I've always known that I had to do all 200 hours so it's not a big deal to me; community service is a good thing and it looks great on college applications," said junior Daoud Noori.
So if you're feeling inspired, it's time to sign up for walks, participate in school activities and talk to Mrs. Henry or Mrs. Lang to make sure you get those hours done and those time sheets filled out.
Remember, you won't get your diploma without it. So RFK, it's time to get serious; get inspired, help your community, and complete those 200 hours!"

"Hey kids, I have a somewhat different message for you. The United States Constitution (did you ever study that is school?) guarantees each of us the right to our life, liberty and property. Yes, it's true! Right there in the Fifth Amendment, it states:
"No person shall be [...] deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
Well, according to the Constitution, your "life" is yours, to do with as you see fit. This means that you -- and you alone -- decide the goals you wish to pursue. And your "liberty" is the freedom to act independently, based upon your own judgment. It seems to me that your parents, teachers, school administrators, politicians, and Ms. Mendez may have all forgotten this. Maybe you should remind them, and let them know that you do not delegate to them, the authority to determine the course of your life.
And, of course, there is that other pesky amendment #13 which states:
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
Kids, what do you think slavery and "involuntary servitude" mean in this context? Do you think that forcing every child to complete 200 hours of community service in order for them to pursue their education qualifies? How do you feel about this? It's one thing to allow students to truly volunteer for any activity that they find worthwhile, but to require you to perform these services -- to use force to compel those of you to participate when you would otherwise elect not to do so -- doesn't that seem to qualify as involuntary servitude and violate your individual rights? It certainly does to me.
And on a more practical note, if you were not being forced to spend your time on these community service activities, you might instead invest those hours in an after school job. The minimum wage is currently $7.25/hour, so the time that your school forces you to work for the community amounts to a minimum of $1,450.00. Maybe you should send them a bill!
Some people think that performing community service will make you a more well rounded person and a better citizen. Maybe, maybe not. Personally, I think that any endeavor you pursue that teaches you to use reason, develop your analytical skills, think for yourself and challenge authority, are activities of considerably more value to your personal development, and would certainly make you be the type of person that I would welcome into my community.
Give it some thought. And if you are interested in a more in-depth analysis of this subject, check out my writings at:
http://go-galt.org/Galt_Pledge/
So kids, I send each of you my best for a long and successful life. And for those of you reading this who see that there is another side to this issue of mandatory service, I encourage you to stand up for your rights. They are valuable, and if you preserve them, they will serve you well.
Regards,
--
C. Jeffery Small"

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

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

"The country is losing 17% of its qualifying doctors every year and, in the four years since 2005, nearly 1,000 new doctors did not register to work, according to government figures."

"It mirrors the depth of dissatisfaction among doctors over South Africa's public health system."

"Community service doctors and interns are crucial to the public health system, which suffers a 40% vacancy problem. Newly graduated doctors are expected to 'give back' to the community, and they are often deployed to very remote and under-equipped hospitals where their skills are most needed. Working conditions are often extremely difficult."
"South Africa employs 18,000 doctors in state-run hospitals — or one doctor for every 3,800 people without medical aid"

"Considering the money they will earn after five years, new doctors might run away even before they enroll for community service. The remuneration that they get is not enough for some to pay back loans that they would have borrowed."

"One way of trying to ease the medical brain drain is to select students who display social responsibility and a commitment to the country and to communities, especially in rural areas."

"South Africa has been experiencing a brain drain for decades, undermining the regional economy. Previous studies have shown that 25% of medical graduates have been lost to the US alone. And it is not only doctors who move to greener pastures. Official statistics estimate that between one and 1.6 million people skilled in professions and managerial occupations have left the country since 1994, the year South Africa became a democracy."

"Drivers and passengers in vehicles who fail to use seat belts should be slapped with community service along with the maximum RM300 fine to raise awareness on the seat belt ruling."
"For example, seat belt offenders should be asked to do 20 hours of community service before being let off."
"[Road Safety Department director, Rano Aylwino Akat] said the majority of drivers and passengers used seat belts out of fear of being summoned and not for their safety."

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

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

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