Article Archives by Subject: Rights
Permalink
Rand Paul |
Subject: Action Alert
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:
|
|
Permalink
|
Subject: The Straw
Back on September 17th, during his weekly radio address, President Obama proclaimed that Americans must finally start paying their "fair share" in order to reduce the federal deficit. Of course this is all just verbal misdirection used to hide the fact that what he is actually talking about is merely another run at one of the most important goals of his administration — wealth redistribution — from those who have earned it to those that covet it, with the ruling government class taking their usual handling fee in the process. And who is it that is not paying their fair share? Of course it is certainly not the virtuous bottom 50% of wage-earners who contribute little to nothing in income and payroll tax. (The bottom 47% pay no income tax at all, and that is precisely what makes them virtuous!) No, according to Obama, it's the greedy, cheating, wealthy households and businesses — the now famous 1% — that have been holding out on the rest of us, and justice demands that they must finally be forced to pay up. And how are the top 1% fleecing us? By currently carrying only 40% of the total income and payroll tax burden (up from 18% in 1980). And if you increase that pool to the top 1.5% of households, representing the magic $250,000 income number, then that group pays roughly half the total. (For more details, see this article.) So one is forced to ask, in Obama's mind just what level of tax burden does he deem to be fair to impose upon that small minority of Americans? Is it sixty percent? Seventy percent? More? He never tells us, because there is no hard and fast answer. For Obama, merely earning more than someone else is all the evidence required to condemn that person and justify the use of government force to confiscate their ill gotten "surplus." Billionaire businessman Warren Buffett seems to agree with Obama's egalitarian philosophy, and famously issued his call to "Stop Coddling the Super-Rich", demanding that the government raise taxes on him and other wealthy people. Taking up the cause, a group of twenty-four "Patriotic Millionaires" descended upon the Capitol to demand that Congress raise taxes on the wealthy in order to deal with the serious federal budget deficits and growing national debt. And just how serious were they? When confronted by reporter Michelle Fields of The Daily Caller (video below) and offered the opportunity to use their great wealth to make a voluntary debt reduction contribution to the Treasury Department, they all refused. And neither can I recall Buffett volunteering some or all of his fortune towards that end. It does make one wonder whether these patriots are truly concerned about the debt. Or instead, is it possible that their actual motives are not quite so altruistic, having more to do with seeing the chains restricting the freedom and property rights of others pulled ever tighter, even if it ends up impacting them as well?
"Patriotic Millionaires?" In 1957, the author and philosopher Ayn Rand published the novel Atlas Shrugged, depicting the consequences that inevitably result from government intervention in the realm of economics. As that story unfolds, we see the government exerting more and more control over business activities. However, instead of achieving the promised improvement, we observe conditions continuing to deteriorate at an ever accelerating pace. As government policies tie the hands of competent business leaders, making it increasingly difficult for them to act on their independent judgment and in service of their own goals, we do not find them running to the politicians and begging to be altruistically sacrificed on the pyre of subjugation as we witnessed with our patriotic millionaires. No. Possessing far too much integrity to abase themselves in that way, these men and women decide to go on strike by simply disappearing and leaving the problems of managing economic production to those who condemn them for their ability to successfully do so. Over the past few years more and more people have been shocked to see in how many ways Atlas Shrugged has proved to be prophetic in anticipating the specifics actions and consequences that have resulted from bad political actions driven by an underlying evil philosophy. And the idea that men of ability, when pressed too far would choose to strike, is one literary device that has dramatically presaged today's reality. As Rand put it in a conversation between her characters, Francisco d'Anconia and Hank Rearden:
Here are some examples of real-life strikers in action: Stealing from the rich isn't an idea original to Obama; people have been trying it ever since Ogg caught his first wild boar and Yuup decided that he would like his "fair share" of that. But hiring a group of thugs, called "politicians", and getting them to do all the hard work for you was certainly a civilizing advancement! In 2008, the Maryland "Yuups" identified their "Oggs", and they were called millionaires. Here's what happened, as reported in the Wall Street Journal:
Push too hard on your victims, and just like Keyser Söze, "Poof, they're gone!" On occasion, a few of these individuals will make public the reasons for their departure, similar to the radio address delivered by John Galt towards the end of Atlas Shrugged. Here are excerpts from two such letters:
The same story has played out over and over again in New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Illinois and elsewhere. And it's not just wealthy individuals, but entire businesses which also look to relocate when the burden becomes too great. As reported in CNN Money:
Or another example from the Wall Street Journal:
Contrary to what progressive state politicians repeatedly try to tell themselves, so long as alternatives are available, intelligent individuals and businesses will not merely sit back and "take it", but will continue to pursue what is in their best interest. When one state acts abusively, there are 49 other possibilities to explore in order to locate a healthier environment. However, when the federal government gets involved in imposing its punitive taxes and regulation across the entire country, then options become much more limited, difficult and costly. For certain large scale industries and very wealthy individuals, there may be the possibility of moving business or investments offshore. But in many other cases, the problems created by political intervention simply outweight all of the alternatives. The tipping point is finally reached, and the most sensible path is to simply call it quits — a phenomenon that has been accelerating in recent years and has come to be known as "Going Galt". In the Tri-City Herald we here the story of Bob Bertsch:
On David McElroy's Blog, he recounts the words of Alabama coal mine operator Ronnie Bryant who, after having listened to two hours of business-bashing by the public, environmentalists and politicians, had this to say:
Zero Hedge posted the letter that hedge fund manager Ann Barnhardt sent to clients, announcing the closure of her business. Excerpts follow:
The Hazleton, PA Standard Speaker reports that Dr. Frank C. Polidora, an orthopedic surgeon, quits:
The Wall Street Journal discusses Thomas Depping's decision to close Main Street Bank:
Jerry Della Femina tells his story in the East Hampton Independent:
For every newsworthy story of an individual or business that decides to throw in the towel, there are untold others that go unreported. Many businesses — and sometimes entire industries — are destroyed by a burden of taxes and regulations that simply cannot be borne in a market-driven economy. This much is at least clear to some. But what gets little discussion is the psychological toll that all of this government intervention takes. What few seem to understand is that for the small minority who are prepared to accept full responsibility for themselves — living by their own thought, judgment, goals and actions — each unreasonable tax is not merely a burden, but is seen to be a gross injustice; every new piece of legislation is another set of circus hoops through which one is forced to jump; regulations are a leash, and every regulator a self-appointed master with a whip in hand. For the independent man or woman, government intervention attempts to reduce them from their stature as fully human, to some form of caged beast under the constant control of others. Government intervention is the supreme demotivator! It hammers away at passion. It undermines creativity. It erodes drive and the will to succeed. It destroys the joy found in action and the pride realized through success. To put it simply, it drains the fun out of life. In an attempt to place a monetary price tag on our economic losses, enormous energy is invested by bureaucrats, analysts, pundits and the media in calculating debt ratios, unemployment levels, energy costs, borrowing fluidity, and any number of other metrics. All the while the real price being paid — the total loss of human motive willpower — dwarfs all of those calculations, but goes unacknowledged. Go back and reread the stories above and look for what they all have in common. These once productive individuals, all of them wealth and job creators, have pulled the plug on their endeavors. And why? Because, thanks to government intervention, they can no longer find the joy that their work once brought them. The rewards of hard work have been lowered while the costs have increased, to a point where further effort is no longer justified — at which point, it's time to shrug. If you see the issue in this light, then you can understand why, when Ayn Rand spoke of the struggle for our future, she did not describe it principally in economic or political terms, but instead framed it as something much more important: a moral battle — a fight for the true nature and soul of mankind. At its most fundamental level, each person must strive for their passion — their joy — their happiness. And they must oppose anything that stands in the path of those pursuits. Today, the greatest obstacle standing in our way is a government that has escaped its constitutional straitjacket and become an oppressive monster, injecting itself into every crevice of our lives. If we are to move forward along a path to where we once again can assert ourselves as individuals, in full control over our own destines, then it is imperative that each political action we take be directed squarely at that goal. Half-hearted stop-gap measures will not solve this problem, and are in fact, partly responsible for what led us to this moment. It is time to apply the ultimate litmus test to every statement uttered by every person aspiring for political office: Does this candidate articulate a consistent set of well defined policies that support my personal independence? If he accomplishes the things he is proposing, will this maximize the opportunity to pursue my life passionately, allowing me to set my own goals in service of my own definition of happiness? I suggest that if you cannot respond with an unreserved "Yes!", then this is not a candidate worthy of your support. Reject him or her and seek out another who has earned the right to represent you by demonstrating that they fully understand and respect the right to your personal independence. Never compromise when extending your political support, for doing so is simply an indirect way of compromising on your own life, your values, and ultimately your joy. Always consider just what you demand of yourself when pursuing your goals, and then be sure to never settle for anything less from those in whom you are prepared to vest with political power as your representative. This is the only strategy that has any long range hope of correcting our current situation. Anything less is a recipe for our continued cultural descent.
|
|
Permalink
Michael Wolfensohn |
Subject: We've Got a Social Disease
We hear the message from every quarter: "Help thy neighbor", "You are your brother's keeper", "It takes a village". These are all expressions of the philosophy of altruism, which prohibits a self-interested and therefore a self-responsible concern for one's own wellbeing, substituting in its place an external focus on the welfare of others. In the personal arena, a constant exposure to this message results in a society where people are trained to pay very close attention to the actions of their friends, neighbors, and even complete strangers. Since they have been instructed to be responsible for the safety and wellbeing of others, it often becomes necessary to intervene in their lives in order to advise against mistakes or actions that are judged to be foolhardy or dangerous. And this leads to the establishment of the busybody as an accepted social norm. Do you choose not to wear a bike helmet, or recycle, or shop at the local organic grocery store? The busybody has no hesitation in informing you of your error — and feeling great about it — regardless of whether or not you desire and have invited their input. After all, it's only for your own good, and they have been told that this "selfless" intrusion into your life is the essence of the morally good. However, there can be a problem. Sometimes the other person — the object of these good intentions — simply will not listen to and adopt the recommendations that are being offered, so generously, in their own best interest. It can be frustrating when someone else doesn't see, understand and accept what is so clearly the proper way to think and act. Maybe their problem stems from a poor upbringing and exposure to the wrong influences. Or possibly they are distracted by other concerns, leaving them with a dangerous blind spot. Or, as is often judged to be the case, they may simply not be smart enough to work out out the optimal course of action on their own. Whatever the reason, the busybody, looking for other ways to help, turns to government — the repository of force — in order to make sure that these misguided people are made to do the right thing. Here are a couple of examples:
Hello there my Samoan brother. Can't you see that you are being exploited by the capitalist oppressors runing the tuna industry? They offer you jobs in their canning factories at wages that I would not allow them to pay to my dog! Why do you not rise up and demand to be treated fairly? Well, if you will not stand up for yourself, being the busybody and savior that I am, I will do it for you by making sure that the U.S. Congress raises the minimum wage to acceptable levels. What? Starkist and Chicken of the Sea just moved their operations to other countries and now you are unemployed with no other jobs available? Well, at least you should be happy that you are no longer being oppressed! And have no fear my friend, for my love and concern for you is boundless and I will not let you starve. Please accept this can of dog food, complements of the compassionate American welfare system. My mission here is accomplished. Onward and upwards. Busybodies in private life are annoying, but when these same people move into government where they can impose their views upon others, not through persuasion, but by force, they then become a very real danger. This country was founded on Enlightenment principles which held the sovereign individual, in possession of inherent rights, as the fundamental unit from which more complex social organizations were then formed through mutual voluntary association. However, the influence of altruism has slowly transformed our culture towards a collectivist view, where many people now see "society" as the preeminent social unit, with the individual citizens as subservient components, each owing a moral duty to the group. And where political leaders were once seen as representatives, entrusted with the task of protecting the rights of all citizens so that they might determine their own course through life in pursuit of their own definition of happiness, the collective shift has created fertile political ground, allowing the busybodies to acquire positions of power, transforming them into totalitarian masters intent upon ruling over the lives of their subjects. Over the years, like a Chinese water torture, the transformation from freedom to oppression has occurred slowly, drip by drip, so that each incremental change was never large enough to cause the American people to rise up in rebellion. Starting out with a limited mandate to manage the post office and post roads, governments, without any express constitutional authority, simply started to assume control over all manner of transportation from cabs to buses, to trains to subways and air travel. Aviation and shipping ports, along with most utilities and communication mediums were nationalized. Total control over the money supply was achieved through the creation of a fiat currency coupled with regulation of the banking system, after which they began branching out to regulate industry after industry, until they had accumulated the power to effectively intercede across the entire economy. Not satisfied with that, the autocrats also wished to control even the most minute details of our personal lives. Under the guise of "public safety", they began to regulate and license one occupation after another. Starting with medicine, profession after profession fell under government control, granting to these political rulers the power to decide if, and under what conditions, we would be allowed to practice our trade. And once the licensing system was firmly established, the fiction of public safety was dropped, and controls on up to 500 occupations including manicurists, flower arrangers and fortune tellers were implemented. And while they were cementing their ability to dictate our means of earning a living, these politicians also created legislation giving them the power to manage our education, retirement and medical care while redistributing wealth to control the housing and feeding of some, at the expense of others. Today, they instruct us on how we may transport our children. They tell us what we can eat, drink and smoke. They determine how and what we may build on our property, and require us to seek supervised permission should we wish to remodel a bathroom. We must submit to being groped at an airport, and our computer can be confiscated and searched at will without a warrant. School children are forced to perform mandatory community service, and two years of mandatory national service is currently being proposed for all adults. And on and on it goes. Every step in this abusive accumulation of power and exercise of control, has resulted in the loss of each citizen's individual rights, while always being justified by the altruistic claim that it is done with only the best interest of others as the goal. Could that be so? Even if we disagree with the results, are the politicians truly well-meaning in their intentions, having only our best interest at heart? Every once in a while an opportunity presents itself to strips away the facade, allowing us to see the true nature of those politicians who claim to be our benefactors. Such an event recently took place in New Castle, NY, as reported here and here. Four thirteen year old boys had a dream of becoming entrepreneurs by buying a hot dog cart and starting a small business venture. In order to purchase the cart, they would need to save a fair amount of money, and so, with their parent's approval, they decided to spend their weekends making cupcakes, cookies and other baked goods and selling them at a nearby park. During their first outing, the boys had great success, earning $120 in sales. On the following Sunday, two of the boys returned to the park and set up their table. A man with his wife and two children was passing by. He stopped to ask the boys what they were doing, and they eagerly explained. He then walked away to make a telephone call. The boys assumed that he was calling his friends to come down and support their cause, but instead he had phoned the police who arrived a short time later and told the boys that they were breaking the law and must stop. It turns out that in order to sell cupcakes, they would have to obtain a two-hour vendors permit from the city at a cost of $175, as well as provide a certificate of insurance for $1 million. So much for the entrepreneurial plans of four enterprising youth. And who was the individual who ratted them out? None other than New Castle Councilman Michael Wolfensohn. Did Mr. Wolfensohn care enough about the boy's dreams and the lessons they would learn from their hard work to simply let the matter slide and instead help them by purchasing a few of their goods? NO. Did Mr. Wolfensohn make an effort to explain the need to obtain a permit and then help the boys navigate the bureaucratic system and find a way to continue without breaking the law? NO. Did Mr. Wolfensohn have the simple decency to talk directly with the boys, explain his concerns, and ask them to please halt their sales activity? NO. With all of these possibilities available to him, what Mr. Wolfensohn did was treat these innocent children like common criminals and, like a snitch, turn them in to the cops. And now, Mr. Wolfensohn is puzzled, because, of course, he only did it for the public good! Wolfensohn is your typical busybody, who, by being elected to even the modest post of town councilman, has been transformed into a petty tyrant, able to inflict great harm within his domain. He see it as his mission to monitor the actions of those around him and make sure that they never step outside of the straitjacket of rules and regulation he so cherishes. Only a person who thrives on power and control over others could act as Wolfensohn did in this circumstance. But the important lesson here is to recognize that Wolfensohn is merely showing us the honest soul of a great many politicians, including that of our current President. Remember this the next time you hear some politician tell you that the seatbelt law or the health care legislation is something that they support because it is in your best interests. The truth is that while they speak, they are actually dropping the noose around your neck and in a moment or two, they will be yanking on the other end of the cord. Yes, we have a serious social disease, and if we do not inoculate against it very soon, it is going to kill us. Here is a copy of the letter I sent to Mr. Wolfensohn and published on various public sites.
You can share your own thoughts with Mr. Wolfensohn by sending him an email message at: mbwolf@town.new-castle.ny.us
And if you have a comment for one of your Senators or Representatives,
you can find their contact information at: Congress Merge
|
|
Permalink
Pruitt-Igoe |
Subject: Your Property and Property Rights Are Being Dynamited!
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." — George Santayana
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, raise 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.
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.
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 sited 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:
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.
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:
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.
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 learn 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:
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.
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.
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:
During that conference, Agenda 21 was signed by President George H.W. Bush. A review of this document reveals the following goals:
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 a vote. |
|
Permalink
Investors.com |
Subject: 20 Ways ObamaCare Will Take Away Our Freedoms
To get a quick overview of how pervasively the new health care legislation will reach into your pockets and exercise control over your life, read the article, 20 Ways ObamaCare Will Take Away Our Freedoms by David Hogberg. Then get out your wallets and onto your feet and do what you can to fight back against those, whether in Washington or living next door, who have demonstrated a total lack of respect for your constitutional rights and wish to enslave you in service of their desires. These people are not your friends, and they are only just getting started. |
|
Permalink
The Rights of Man |
Subject: The Rights of Man
There is a new activist website titled The Rights of Man which, as the name implies, is intended to promote the spread of ideas in support of individual rights, as articulated in the U.S. Constitution. The main thrust of this site is directed at the creation of letters which can then be easily mailed to selected recipients such as politicians or media contacts. Additionally, letters made public on this site may be reviewed by others, and if desired, signed and mailed by them to the recipients, thereby increasing each letter's impact. I encourage you to visit this site and craft your own contributions in the battle to restore our freedom and rights. |
|
Permalink
Scott Brown |
Subject: My Direct Letter to Scott Brown
I just sent Senator-Elect Scott Brown the following letter.
The election of Scott Brown is a watershed event with many positive consequences. But Brown has demonstrated with his actions before the election, and comments made afterwards, that he is not a person who sees the relationship between a government and its people as it was intended by the framers of the Constitution. I suggest that everyone who supported his election write their own letter to Scott Brown, letting him know that he is representing all citizens of this country, not just those of his home state, and explain to him your views and expectations for his term in Congress. Let's make sure that as he heads off to Washington D.C., he goes with a clear understanding of his proper role.
|
|
Permalink
The Christian Science Monitor |
Subject: Too Fat To Fail!
An article by Paul Hsieh in The Christian Science Monitor titled Universal healthcare and the waistline police starts out:
This is the fate in store for all Americans if we fail to stop the current health care legislation from passing, for if it does, the government will finally have a very powerful tools at its disposal, allowing it to reach into the personal lives of each citizen and control our actions as it sees fit. Paul concludes:
Read the entire article. Paul has it exactly right, except that I would challenge him on one important point. By categorizing our government as a "nanny state", he makes the common error of giving the benefit of the doubt to the government by assuming that its motives are all directed in our best interest. Nothing could be further from the truth! Our president and members of Congress know nothing at all about you and your unique circumstances, and could care less about your personal wellbeing. They have no interest in being you caregiver. That is simply a convenient fiction to conceal their true intent, which is to gain control over your actions and direct your life in service of their agenda. And their agenda is nothing more than raw, naked power. To them, you are merely a natural resource to be mined until your productive vein runs dry. Look at all recent actions taken or proposed by the government and identify the common denominator as it pertains to the American public:
And the list goes on. This is on top of the government having already nationalized the education, utilities and transportation industries, and heavily regulating the agriculture, manufacturing and pharmaceutical sectors, to name but a few. Where once we were a free people in a free country, able to pursue our lives in whatever manner we chose, so long as we didn't violate the rights of others, today our lives are so managed that it is extremely difficult to find some area where an individual may act without first seeking permission, paying a tax, or worrying that some agency might come behind and judge those actions to have been in violation of one of the unfathomable number of regulations that have been enacted. Don't oppose health care reform because it is bad medicine. Fight it for all you are worth because it is you personal freedom — and the freedom of all of your family members — that is at stake. And that is something worth fighting for!
|
|
Permalink
LA Times |
Subject: Don't Worry, Be Happy! Yeah Right!
In a recent piece in the Los Angeles Times titled Researchers say it's official: TGIF, baby!, Shari Roan reports on startling research that reveals that "People are happier and feel better on the weekends". Who knew? The article reports:
So, this research from the University of Rochester has concluded that people find pleasure in "freedom", "personal autonomy", and "self-determination". Stop the presses! Maybe someone should inform the people in Washington D.C. that their intrusive meddling into the lives of the citizens, with their policies to regulate our every decision and action, is a clear violation of our right to the pursuit of our own happiness. In fact, let's start with the abomination known as health care reform which is explicitly designed to eliminate self-determination and freedom of choice for every one of us, destroying our individual autonomy and instead, treating us like a herd of cattle. Let's all make one final effort to contact the White House and our congressional representatives and let them know, in no uncertain terms, that their actions are making us VERY UNHAPPY, and that we DEMAND that they stop violating our unalienable rights and begin protecting them as they swore an oath to do when they took office. Oh yeah, and don't forget to let them know that now we have scientific proof backing us up! :-) |
|
Permalink
Brad Harrington |
Subject: The Hugest Heist in History
Bradley Harrington writes another excellent open letter regarding the problems that we face in light of the Obama administration's spending over just one short year.
Bradley Harrington is a former United States Marine and a free-lance writer who lives in Cheyenne, Wyoming. As Brad asks, "what do you intend to do about it?" In addition to the usual actions of writing and speaking out against the policies that are leading to the decline and fall of America, here are some activist-oriented organizations to investigate. If you find one that meets your requirement, join in and add your efforts to the cause of restoring liberty to America.
If you know of other good activist organizations or actions that you would like to recommend, please sent them to me and I will include them on this list. |
|
Permalink
The Declaration of Independence |
Subject: The Second American Revolution: It's Time To Make Your
Stand
Today, Ben Nelson, the senator from Nebraska, declared that he is going to support the Senate's health care bill as the 60th member of a Democratic coalition that has no Republican support. As reported in The Huffington Post:
Other concessions? What could those be?
So taxpayers in other states will now also pick up the cost of expanded health care for Nebraska's residents similar to provisions that Harry Reid managed to write into the bill for Nevada citizens. Well, why not? It's all in keeping with the Obama administration's master plan for wealth redistribution. You still have some wealth left, and therefore it obviously needs to be redistributed to others. But is that the only last minute piece of pork added to the bill? Of course not.
Read Robert Tracinski's article, You Will Lose Your Private Health Insurance for a concise summary of the true implications and impact of the final legislation that will soon be voted on once the House and Senate bills are reconciled. With the imminent passage of the health care legislation, it is finally time to take a firm and uncompromising stand. As was stated over 233 years ago in The Declaration of Independence:
Unlike the TARP bailouts, and other incursions into the US economy, which, with stretched-to-the-limit incredulity, might charitably be credited as horribly misguided efforts with underlying good intent, no such claim could possibly be made for the Congressional health care bills. These are nothing more than a naked power-grab, granting to the government a significant increase in the direct control over the personal lives and decisions of every in America, intentionally destroying individual liberty. It is time to choose a side of the single greatest issue facing America, and declare your allegiance either to tyranny or to freedom. The time for the Second American Revolution is now at hand. It is up to every freedom-loving person to commit all of their intellectual, physical and financial resources to the cause of liberty. We must retake control of a government which no longer represents us - or else, we must abolish it. As we have seen demonstrated time after time over the past year, the opportunity for reasoned debate with the opposition has long since passed and the moment has arrived to pull out all of the stops and take forceful action on every possible front. Remember Ayn Rand's observation:
Those committed to destroying the US Constitution and enslaving all of us into serving their tyrannical ends will only succeed if we stand by and allow them to do so. Recognizing this fact, it is up to us to mount counter efforts. While new opportunities for action are being organized and put into effect all across the country, there are many things that can be done immediately. Here are some suggestions:
Working together, we will form an irresistible force that will beat back the destroyers of freedom.
In Liberty, |
|
Permalink
Brad Harrington |
Subject: A Patriot's Open Letter
This open letter, written by Bradley Harrington to our political representatives, is an excellent articulation of the most fundamental issue currently facing our country. We are in nothing less than a battle for the enlightenment ideals of individualism, unalienable human rights and liberty that is embodied in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution.
Bradley Harrington is a former United States Marine and a free-lance writer who lives in Cheyenne, Wyoming. |
|
Permalink
Joe Galloway |
Subject: Thanksgiving: Learning How to Appreciate Your Rights
Joe Galloway is a combat journalist and author of the book "We Were Soldiers Once ... and Young". On a recent book tour through Lubbock, TX, he offered his views on military conscription, as reported in this article from Texas Tech:
In a video interview attached to the article, Mr. Galloway states:
This got me thinking about the issue of Americans appreciating or failing to appreciate certain aspects of their lives, and I am in agreement with Galloway that many people in the U.S. have no real understanding of the nature of their individual rights, including their liberty, and therefore fail to properly appreciate them. But I cannot agree with Galloway's solution — the same one being proposed by the Obama administration — which is to violate those very rights in an effort to teach people to treasure them! The "right to life" identifies that each person's life is sacrosanct and may not be violated by another, while the "right to liberty" means that each individual may select their own goals and pursuits in accordance with their will, free from external compulsion. I am sure that it is true that if you conscript a person into national service for a few years against their will, command their every move during that period, and place them in combat situations where their very life is in grave danger, if they survive the experience and are once again freed, most people will come away with a deeper appreciation for their life and their liberty. Of course, the same thing can be said for a survivor of a Siberian Gulag, and, in principle, there is no real difference between these two situations, as both are violations of the rights of the individual. I also disagree with Galloway's interpretation of the Founding Father's intentions with regards to our rights. The Declaration of Independence states that we possess:
which means that these rights are absolute and an indivisible part of our human nature. Quoting from unalienable.com:
Clearly, if our rights are inherent, unalienable and exist outside of the Constitution and any formation of government, then they are not something that need to be earned. As the Declaration of Independence clearly states, governments are not formed in order to dispense rights, but instead:
The original purpose of our government's formation was to protect and defend the individual rights of each citizen. It is some twisted form of Orwellian illogic that concludes that those fundamental rights are protected by their violation! And it is the cruelest perversion when this method is applied to young, developing minds as is currently being done in public school civic classes all across the nation. In the name of "service-learning", school children are forced to perform hours of "community service" work while any discussion of the nature of individual rights and the guarantees of those rights in the U.S. Constitution are buried. And this is after these same children have already been conscripted into forced education. People's gaps in knowledge, resulting in a corresponding failure to grasp the true value of a thing, is certainly not limited to the abstract concepts of individual rights. If one believes that it is the government's function to determine what is of value for each of us, and that it is the government's further role to educate us to appreciate those values, even if force must be applied to achieve that goal, then, in the spirit of the Thanksgiving holiday, let's consider another program that might be implemented. I suggest that every American be required to live in an isolated log cabin in northern Minnesota for a period of two years: heating their home with wood that must be cut, hauled and split; getting water from a stream which must then be purified by boiling; using candles or open pit fires for light; butchering their own meat; plowing, planting, growing and harvesting their own crops; and maintaining the structure as required, including building an optional outhouse if desired. Of course, everyone would be encouraged to explore sources of alternative energy, sustainable forestry, organic farming, low-impact waste management, and energy conservation in their spare time. I know with absolute certainty that anyone surviving this wonderful experience would have "earned" a much greater respect and honest appreciation for: the hot dog that they purchase at their grocery store; the gallon of gasoline that they pump into their automobile; the flush of a toilet; the flick of a switch that floods the room with light; the push of a button that raises the room temperature by a few degrees; the convenience of picking up the telephone and calling a roofer when a leak is discovered; the simple pleasure of a conversation with another person; and so much more! If forced military, national or community-service are good ideas that are justified due to their beneficial effect upon the conscriptee, then I can see no argument against this proposal which would have considerably more beneficial impact. Impact being the operative word! Of course, I'm kidding. I would never suggest that a program like this was in any way justified in being imposed upon citizens of a free country. I was just making a point about individual rights and why conscription is wrong in principle. However, if someone were to suggest that we make this a requirement for anyone running for political office, then you would have my attention! Happy Thanksgiving! |
|
Permalink
Opinion Piece |
Subject: We Own You. Get Used to It!
On today's OpEd page, a Wall Street Journal editorial
highlights the true goal of ObamaCare, as articulated by one of its
supporters, John Cassidy of the New Your Times.
So there you have it. It's OK for the politicians to lie to us, because they own us and operate from a position where they can freely make critical decisions about our lives without regard to our own personal thoughts, beliefs and desires. Truth is reserved for those possessing the right to self-determination, so let there be no illusion that the concepts of the right to one's life, liberty and property have anything at all to do with what is now occurring in this country. We are effectively all slaves of the state and subject to whatever whim it manages to concoct and ram through as legislation. The limitations on allowable government action that are delineated in the US Constitution are being totally ignored by all three branches of our government. We are rapidly becoming a totalitarian state. Sign the John Galt Pledge and then contact each of your Senators and Representative and let them know, in forceful terms, that you are not asking, but demanding that they adhere to the intent of the US Constitution and expect them to protect and defend your constitutional rights. It is time to let everyone in Washington know that you are mad and have reached the limits of your patience. |
|
Permalink
Slaying Leviathan |
Subject: Involuntary Servitude for All
Reader Leslie Carbone, the author of Slaying Leviathan: The Moral Case for Tax Reform, brought to my attention an interesting article that she wrote back in November 2008 titled, Emanuel Proposes Slavery. In this piece she discusses Rahm Emanuel and Barack Obama's call for the creation of a "Civilian National Security Force" that would conscript every American into a mandatory period of national service for the purpose of:
With terms like "basic training" and "community service", it's duces wild as to what the government could do with – or to you during your period of conscription. Now Rahm is a nice guy, and he is only proposing a three month period of mandatory service. And if you buy that, then you must think that the top income tax rate is 7% and that your Social Security number will never be used as a means of identification. A program like this is always proposed as a small thing, which then quickly expands to feed the bottomless pit that is our federal, state and local governments. There were a few issues raised in the comments section to Leslie's article that I would like to address here. A couple of the readers complained about the use of the term "slavery" being applied to this proposal, when it was simply "temporary compulsory service" and, as one reader put it, "that's all." . Well, this sort of semantic argument is about as interesting as calculating the number of angel dancing on the head of a pin. The 13th Amendment to the Constitution states:
Emanuel's plan certainly qualifies as involuntary servitude, so it is clearly unconstitutional. And as far as I am concerned, every form of involuntary servitude is a form of slavery and vice versa. The duration of the servitude is immaterial because we each possess an unalienable right to our lives - and that is an absolute. And so long as we refrain from violating the rights of others, no entity, whether they be another individual, a group or a government, may morally lay claim to one one moment of your life. Some of Leslie's readers also commented on the fact that we have had compulsory military service in this country, on and off, throughout our history, and what Emanuel is proposing is nothing different. Of course, these arguments were meant to defend this new form of conscription on the grounds of "tradition". But that argument doesn't hold water if you read the 13th Amendment. It contains no exception to the ban on involuntary servitude, other than as punishment for a crime. The truth is that military conscription or a "draft" is unconstitutional as well. As one of the commentators put it: "Compulsory military service IS involuntary servitude, which IS slavery". The use of conscription in this country has been a travesty to our rights and any future attempt to reinstate a draft must be opposed on constitutional grounds. Now, I am a huge supporter of our military as an absolutely essential institution, required to protect our lives, rights and freedom, and I have deep respect for anyone who commits themselves to that job. But the fact that I see this function as important, does not somehow grant me the special privilege of then being able to force someone else to provide that service against their will. The only proper way for a free people to interact with one another is voluntarily, with the initiation of force prohibited. And this is especially true when dealing with the government, which is charged as the repository of retaliatory force, to be used strictly in service of our protection. When the government steps over that bright line, as ours did long ago, and begins to initiate force against its citizens, then it is time to do what our forefathers once proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence:
Whether our current form of government can be salvaged, or whether it has become so corrupted that it must be replaced, is something worth carefully considering. |
|
Permalink |
Subject: Lockport Township, IL High School Moves Towards Mandatory
Community Service
As reported today in The Homer Horizon:
Board members voted 5 to 2 to approve the first of two steps that would enact the policy to require community service hours of students, with a final vote on the matter scheduled to take place at the next board meeting on Monday, Oct. 19. Under the policy, the mandated service hours would be phased-in to all classes beginning in the fall of 2010. Seniors (Class of 2011) would be required to complete 10 hours of service, juniors 20 hours, sophomores 30 hours and freshmen 40 hours. [...] Michael Lewandowski and John Lukasik voted against the policy, with Lewandowski speaking out against the proposal during discussion at the Sept. 22 meeting. "Should we encourage our students to help the community? Yes. Should we force them to help the community? No." Lewandowski said. "Doing this voluntary is one thing but forcing them to do it is another. "We shouldn't force our students to do something against their will in order to graduate." Lewandowski worried the policy would provoke "incrementalism." "We've all seen how the government can creep into our lives," he said after reading to the board the 13th Amendment. "I don't want the federal, state or local government to say, 'well, the school district have approved this, so we can, too.'" Board member Angela Kamely responded to Lewandowski's statements. "We're doing this as a graduation requirement, not as a right to live," she said. "I support helping make a more well-rounded student." And with that mere flourish, Ms. Kamely brushes away the 13th Amendment and the rights of the students. Hey, it's only their education, not their lives! And just as a reminder: The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution states:
Oh well, it's just a technicality. What's more important is to shape a "more well-rounded student" — in Angela Kamely's image. |
|
Permalink |
Subject: The Purpose of The John Galt Pledge Initiative
The United States of America is at a tipping point, where individual rights and personal freedom now hang precariously in the balance. As we move forward, will we be the masters of our own lives, deciding for ourselves what goals to pursue and how best to allocate our personal resources in service of those goals? Or will we allow ourselves to be treated as children, handing more and more of the decision-making over to the government, demanding that it assume the obligation of providing for all of our wants and needs? The price for abdicating responsibility for one's life is the forfeiting of one's freedom. Those of us committed to the path of personal autonomy must fight for our freedom if we are to retain what remains, and regain what has been lost since the founding of this country. My purpose for this site is to create another effective tool in that battle for liberty. There are many avenues available for engaging in this struggle. Writing letters-to-the-editor, op-ed pieces, articles for magazines, blog entries or forum posts is one. This is a one-to-one type of activity where the individual writer communicates directly to the individual reader. Another is the use of organized protests. The Tea Parties are a good example of this technique, and on September 12th, many citizens will descend upon Washington D.C. to march in protest against the current administration's policies. This is a many-to-one activity, where the ultimate effectiveness of the action is directly proportional to the number of participants. For example, if 300 people show up in D.C. on the 12th, that might generate a page six mention in most newspapers. However, if 80,000 people march, then it becomes headline news which will have a profoundly greater impact. [OK, I guess I was proven wrong on that count. You can ignore 80,000 people. You can even ignore a million! All the more reason to make sure that we do get our message out.] The goal of this initiative is to create a permanent public record of protest that can later be referenced as a kickoff point for many different types of campaigns. But where the message of the Tea Party protests have been diffuse, I want the ideological message of this site to be strictly focused upon one critical point:
In order to have this demand taken seriously, it requires an outcry of protest loud enough that it cannot be ignored. So just as with the gathering in D.C., the number of people signing up here to show their agreement with the fundamental principle of the sovereignty of the individual is critical. And that is why I encourage you to participate, and then do what you can to make other like-minded individuals aware of this opportunity to also engage in this action. Once a critical mass has been reached here, showing broad-based support for our constitutional rights, I would then encourage all of us to continue to become involved in other forms of education and protest that are of personal urgency. This might include arguments against nationalized health care, wealth redistribution, corporate bailouts, government control of the money supply, interference in the economy, national service, cap-and-trade, etc. Regardless of the specific topic, I would suggest that as part of the analysis, it should be shown that the proper position to take is the one which supports the rights of the individual, as delineated by the U.S. Constitution. And this site can be referenced to show the level of support that exists for making the protection of our rights a key requirement when considering any piece of legislation. The value of this approach is that it provides an ideological basis for every issue, which is ultimately grounded on an unassailable constitutional foundation. Those arguing from a different viewpoint can then be reduced to either having to defend the Constitution themselves, or acknowledging their lack of support for that document. If this approach is used effectively, the entire tenor of the debate could be shifted from an ever evolving discussion of numerous pragmatic concerns to a very focused one of fundamental principles. And I can guarantee that those who are currently working feverishly to destroy our freedom cannot stand up to the scrutiny of fundamental principles. So the goal for this initiative comes in two parts:
In closing, let me add one additional point. It is important to
remember that, as individuals, each of us speak only for ourselves.
By signing this personal Declaration of Independence, each
person is indicating their support only for the ideas explicitly
expressed in the pledge, and not for the words or actions of any
other person. Please feel free to reference the
list when
making a point about the level of support for our constitutional rights,
but do not assume or assert that anyone on the list supports your
personal approach or viewpoints in fighting the battle for freedom.
I am very interested in receiving feedback and suggestions
regarding this project, and I would enjoy hearing any ideas you
may have for related activities. Interesting ideas, suitable
for a wide audience, will be displayed on this page. Click on
the button below to contact me by email.
|
