Friday, April 16, 2010

Tea Party on tax day

Awesome day at the Tea Parties today.
The day began with several hundred in the early afternoon in St. Charles, and while the conservative estimate for the evening St. Louis Tea Party in Clayton was 1,800-2,200, from my vantage point, circulating through the crowd, signing people up for activist training, to be local block party captains, and to help ensure that the Nov. 2nd, 2010 election whacks the socialcrats at the ballot box, I put the number between 2,500-3,000, but no matter, an excellent turnout all the same.

We did have a couple of infiltraitors (correct spelling), but with the welcoming committee of folks like Adam Sharp of SharpElbows (video), they weren't feeling the love and soon skedaddled. Dana Loesch has a similar report with a repeat offender in St. Charles, and Jim Hoft has a post up on Gateway Pundit about other infiltraitors here and around the country... while it's true that you can't fix stupid, you can sure have fun laughing at them!

Jay Stewart

Michelle Moore of A Traditional Life Lived has the full evening online (I've got a few short clips below), including speeches from John Burns, Stephanie Rubach, Adam Sharp, Gina Loudon, Lyda Loudon, Jay Stewart, Jim Hoft, Mo Lt. Govenor Peter Kinder and a pair of particularly rousing efforts from St. Louis Tea Party founders Bill Hennessy & Dana Loesch. (If you're on Facebook, Keyboard Militia has some quality pictures)

MO Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder
Gina Loudon
Stephanie Rubach
John Burns

We got several score of tea partiers to sign up for duty on the front lines, as well as for training classes (check St. Louis Tea Party for upcoming info)... the kettle's on the burner, time to turn up the heat!

Two dad's with son's in bootcamp, myself and Bill Hennessy

Dana Loesch as the Tea Party winds down

Newly discovered New Dad to be, John Burns and myself packing up

I got to tag along to a local nightery for food and adult beverages, with the Loesch & Loudon families, John, Bill, Jay Stewart, and a few others which my feeble ability to recall names forces me to leave blank, but it was a fun end to a promising day. Even when winding down, there are still points to be made...

Some short video clips of the day:

Peter Kinder

Bill Hennessy

Jay Stewart

Gina Loudon

Dana Loesch

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

No Representation Without Taxation!... Yea...(blink)... WTF?!

No Representation Without Taxation!... Ye...(blink)... WTF?!
Well, another post developing out of some replies. The rapid fire and usually sure shot Gunslinger had a post which, while I fully understand the sentiment, I very much disagreed with. Responding to some truly aggravating news that nearly half of US Households pay no Federal Income Tax, The Gunslinger fired off a shot in response, that if you don't pay the taxes the rest of us do, then you shouldn't be allowed to vote,

"You don't get to decide who pays how much in taxes, what it goes for, and to whom... if it ain't your money."
There was some back and forth between a number of us, over everything from the danger of giving the ability to determine who would be 'allowed' to pay taxes - and so vote - and who would be conveniently loop-holed out of the electoral process... it would be a proregressive's wet dream.

The immediate backlash of maybe excluding anyone who depends upon Gov't for their income, likewise ran into other obvious issues (which I missed) such as what about the military?

But I think the post was simply an understandable outburst at the general injustice of the current system, and as she noted later in the comments,

"Actually, I think the whole problem is the monstrous government we've allowed to grow.
If we had a Republic that ran according to, I don't know, the Constitution of the United States, for example, the government would be too small and powerless to bother bribing and trying to influence."
Which is exactly so.

The only 'safe thing' would be to restore the property qualifications (economic property, not only real estate) which were originally in place in all states, you had to have attained a minimum threshold of property, indicating a sober amount of ties and responsibilities in the community and so a direct interest in seeing that government remained good government, government which was respective of, and diligent in respecting the property rights of its citizens... and so you can guess which measures were among the very first targets of early proregressives, yep, striking all property qualifications for voting from the constitutions of all of the States.

A worthy goal for the near future perhaps, but other issues are on the boil at the moment.

There is another angle from which the issues of Representation and of Taxation bears watching though, the cry of the original Sons Of Liberty, was "No taxation without representation", not because the taxes being imposed upon them were of such ruinous percentages - they were laughably small compared to what we pay - but because they were imposed upon them without their having any voice in the process; they were not represented in the decision, and so they began to realize that the government ruling over them was not theirs since they were barred from being a part of it - they were not of the body politic which had power over them. Soon after that, they realized that not only were they were not of the body politic which controlled them, but that they were thought of by that body as being merely a convenient body to be fed upon by it - and that they didn't like. Not one little bit, and so the Boston Tea Party soon led to the confrontation on Lexington Green, and the rest is history.

I've certainly no, zero, zilch, interest in seeing that bit of history updated and replayed out again. No Thank You.

So I ask you, as we hit the point here today, where one portion of the body politic is coming to the realization that not only is it being unfairly used for the support of others, both big businesses and little leaches, but also that our voice is not being represented in the process (two or three thousand page bills unread before being voted upon by our 'representatives' allows NO representation, not for Republicans, not for Democrats and not for Independents)... what do you suppose the result is going to be?

TEA Anyone?
As upside down as "No Representation without Taxation!" is, that perverted view is and was but a mile marker which we are already rapidly moving past, and we are now coming full circle towards the point where "No Taxation without Representation!" is becoming relevant once again.

And I noted that while on the one hand, we've got congresscritters who think like this genius from across the river, Rep. Hare (D), who neither knows nor cares about the constitution, but on the other hand, and why I don't see the inevitability of history exactly repeating itself, is that we've got people, very many people, more each day, who are like this guy that embarrassed the hell out of Rep. LoBiondo (r) at his town hall, they know, or are learning about our Constitution, and they don't like what is being done to it.

These folks aren't beholden to party politics and the status quo, they don't give a rats ass whether you've got an 'r' or a 'D' or an 'I' after your name (or their own), if you don't care about the constitution, they're coming after you.

And for the people whose historical knowledge was vacuumed out by public schooling, a great many of us are offering and teaching classes on a weekly basis on what the constitution is and means, and people are showing up for them, young and old, and are themselves talking about what they learned with their friends, etc.

Will this make a difference? Well, we'll see... are the odds against us? Sure they are. Are they as stacked as much against us as the were for us in 1776? Well, I said that if you think that things are as dark today as they were then, then you're a girly man! We've already got the Constitution we want in place, we've already got the right to peaceably assemble and demonstrate and challenge our elected officials. We've got ready and easy, easy access to every bit of wisdom and argument to refute our opponents spin as anyone could ever hope to have.

And we've got not only a fixed constitution, but one that is repairable - one that was deliberately designed as such - so that when things get out of whack, we can amend it - if the amendments prove faulty or stupid, as did the 18th (prohibition), we can repeal it with another, as we did with the 21st.

People get entirely flummoxed about the thought of something requiring a constitutional amendment - what is the big deal about constitutional amendments? Do realize how many were passed in just the last 100 years? We've had something like 10 or 11 passed in that time, with five in the last fifty years, It's not easy, and it shouldn't be, but a shaking in your boots type of daunting task?

Gimme a break.

At the risk of getting all Nike on you, all we have to do is to just do it!

However others have a problem seeing that as feasible. I've had exchanges with Trubolotta about the nature of power before, I say at root, it's Ideas that move things, even armies, he says it all comes down to money, force or the threat of it. Trubolotta zinged his point in with,

"Prior to 1776, the American colonists fought a war of words against the greatest empire on earth. King George and the British Parliament, seeing the wisdom of those words, gave the colonies representation to participate in the process of formulating the laws under which they would live. Of course it never happened and someone had to fire that first shot heard around the world."
, and that Gandhi wasn't entirely successful in peaceful revolution in India,

"...Britain responded to civil disobedience with violence and Indian patriots were killed, maimed or jailed. That brought the British people and Parliament to their senses in granting India independence."
, and that our Civil Rights movement required years of unrest, double dealing and unfulfilled promises before,

"... the conscience of a nation was awakened by the brutal response to civil disobedience.

In each case, the girly men were still talking while real men (and women) put life, limb and property at risk."
Well, those are all good points, if, with the partial exception of the Civil Rights movement, a bit out of context with our world today. But even so, what are we to do about it? Dump Chevy's into Lake Michigan?
Or to those chattering about secession and revolt, are you really going to face down Apache Helicopters and M1 Abrahm tanks with shotguns on the village green? My Son and yours will be piloting them - and you're damn sure not getting my support with that, will you even have your own?
If those are the ideas you've got in mind, you really need to have another look at history. Ladies and Gents, we all know the phrase that those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it, but part of the lesson that should be learned from watching history, is that history doesn't repeat itself like episodes of Gilligan's Island, it repeats similar themes in different settings, nothing but the plot remains the same - the characters and setting and action change even more than did Cyrano here and Roxanne there, it is far more a case of Rhyming, as Mark Twain said, than repeating.

So what are the new historical plot devices that are to take the place of stores of ammunition defended upon Lexington Green? Well, first I can tell you what it's not, it is not piles of black powder and lead shot. That was for the time of a traditional war for the control of real estate - that is not the battle suited to the struggle over America's soul. America is not a nation of boundaries or blood types, it is a nation of ideas, and that is where the battlefield is, and as is true of every war, that requires weapons suited to the landscape.

The oldest mistake of those who plan for the next war, is to do so with the tools and strategies of the last one.

The last one doesn't apply anymore. The new battleground is the same one on which we have been fighting on, unawares, for the last nearly two centuries - the field of ideas.

What are the tools suited for such a battlefield? First of all of course - Ideas. Second of all, the communication of those ideas. Third, just as overrunning the enemies territory is demonstrated in traditional war by capturing some plot of land and planting your flag, in this modern revolution, we must demonstrate the breadth of ground which your ideas have taken control of, and that is done here in America, through the Vote.

Ya Can't fight city hall - what use is one vote?... and other concessions to the enemy
Another commenter to the exchange though, John, came in from a different angle on this, he said,
"I understand, but that is how democracy is designed to work." and also "Voting, I think, is going to fail America, and a more voluntary system of societal cooperation must be instituted. This needed change will be difficult, at times chaotic, but it can only occur if individuals voluntarily agree to the change needed.
I don't have all the answers as to how to make this happen, but I am doing all I can, voluntarily, to make it happen. I won't vote on it."
Well the first thing I thought needed to be done there was to remind all that we are not a democracy, but a Constitutional Representative Republic, which I won't rehash here, having done so recently, but his actual view, and that of Tubolotta, turned out to be not that we were designed as a democracy, but that our Republic is no longer one because it is being run as if it were a democracy. Now there is far more truth to that perspective than the other - but IMHO, to think that is a fixed matter of substance and fact, is to mistake mere appearances for facts, which is just what those slight of hand artist's who deal in appearances, such as Houdini and Obamao, would be very pleased for you to accept as fact.

It is not.

And every time attention is drawn to some 'new' boondoggle or abuse of power (such as the Corn husker Kickback, etc), there is a flurry of action and words trying to either recast it, or express shock over it and move it as quickly out of the spotlight as possible. But back to that in a moment.

Another thing that concerned me about that comment, was the whiff I thought I detected coming off "a more voluntary system of societal cooperation must be instituted", which if I'm correct, needs to be identified right off as some hint of ultra libertarian anarcho-whateverism (anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-syndicalism, and so on), which to give just a brief check to here, I said,

"There is no surer prescription for the complete loss of liberty, than a Rothbardian form of libertarianism.

And it isn't 'Voting' that has failed America, it is Americans that have. Americans who have allowed themselves to forget the meaning of their Constitution, and why it is the greatest political document ever written. I don't have all the answers either, but knowing the next guy, I'm pretty sure I'm closer to getting them than he is, and IMHO, I think the road goes through the repeal of the 17th amendment, and the 16th amendment, and then, bit by bit, nearly all of the legislative output of the 20th & 21st century."
John replied that,

"Voluntary cooperation between individuals must start somewhere, no matter how small.

I think you, I, Gunslinger, and other individuals are standing at the same barricade attempting to restore liberty and freedom in America, even though our weapons of choice may differ."
I read through a number of his posts and links (including some to Ed Cline, whom I generally like a lot), and his post is worth reading, a well written vignette of how things should be between individuals - how one should seek to help them self, and how another may choose to aid him - and the truth of the message that people should be decent towards each other, is, I hope, obvious - but that is not enough in itself, and while such voluntary cooperation and generosity which John and his unknown friend displayed is vital (and was once far more the norm than the exception (before govt agencies inserted themselves between the charitable and the grateful recipients - more later)), and I'd even say such habits and sentiments are necessary for a society to have any hope of remaining one, but even if such good will was the norm, it would still not be sufficient to replace Laws or the Rule of Law. More to the point though, it also points towards why the anarcho-x theories won't work, and would be more likely to result in the doom of liberty in society.

Individual decency and a sense of justice is not sufficient to maintain the peace, for as his own post showed, he was mere split seconds away from a misunderstanding - an honest misunderstanding - but if he had spoken first with the sharp words he had in mind on answering the door the second time, the scene would have gone differently, even though it would still have involved two, decent, honest, well intentioned people. Now, very likely that instance would have quickly resolved itself into a similar conclusion; but such things often do not resolve themselves well, and so they escalate, and without the existence of a single entity which both parties involved, and those who may be observing, can turn to for either arbitrating the dispute, or reining in anger and retribution, even a society of good and decent people would soon reduce to the tribal warfare which Hobbes represented as lives that are

""solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short", and eventually, after untold bloodshed, a Hobbesian State, where the Sovereign is all powerful, and no Rights exist but what he divines to be useful."
For those reasons and more, Laws are necessary for a peaceful society, and a government is needed to declare and maintain them (which I touched on in "What does Athens have to do with Justice?"), ideally that should be a government rooted in Reason, Natural Law and the consent of the governed. By far, of course, the best system ever constructed to "promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" was that of our Constitution (I will defer the rest of the argument on the hyper libertarian view of anarcho-whateverism issue to the end of my series on Justice, since that was the very issue which prompted it in the first place, and which I'm still building up to an answer for - a short answer is totally inadequate).

If a Vote is cast in an election, and nobody pays attention to it, was a Vote ever really even cast at all?
Though the Vote of the people was, and should be, a much more limited and defined qualification (such as some property measure of your means) for being exercised (which unfortunately was cast aside early on by We The People in our own States - most of these issues, such as property qualifications, were repealed in the states - they can be re-amended and done so far easier(we've nearly got one finished here in Missouri, and several other states have amended their constitutions to conflict with ObamaoScare on grounds of the 10th amendment) than the 21st amendment corrected the idiotic 18th amendment to the US Constitution), and a lesser input into the system, it is still a vital component of our system as a Constitutional Representative Republic, and its importance extends far deeper than a recorder of yays and nays.

"America was designed to be a Constitutional Representative Republic, but today America is far from that."
Well... the fact is that even with the damage of the 17th amendment, America is still a Constitutional Representative Republic... on paper... it's just that We The People have allowed those we Vote into power, to ignore that fact and to do as they please, because We The People were pleased to let them do it, we were foolish enough to think that Laws existed on paper - they do not. They are recorded on paper, but they must exist in the hearts and minds of the people, they must live there, or they do not live at all and can exercise no restraint on power at all.

It is not the Vote that is the culprit here, and the Vote alone will not be the solution. The Rule of Law requires that the the Law should live in the hearts and minds of the people... for the law to have the true force of Law, it must be a...

law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts...Jeremiah 31:33
No matter how fine and pure the Constitution and it's Laws are on paper, if the people are not intent that it be revered and followed, then you will have in its place, the rule of Men, not of laws.

Where I just asked "If a Vote is cast in an election, and nobody pays attention to it, was a Vote ever really even cast at all?", I didn't mean that if you vote, and your representative doesn't listen to your vote, then the system is broke - no - I meant that if you vote (or not) and do nothing else at all to communicate with your Rep to let him know your judgment and that you are paying attention to his votes and reasons for them, and if you do nothing to ensure that others in your community keep at least some focus and input into the system... then YOU failed the system, YOU let your vote fall unheard into the system, and if that is the case, then it is YOU who are the problem... not your crooked congressmen, he's just the one with the wit to take advantage of your moral and civil negligence.

No matter the two and three thousand page bills or blatantly unconstitutional statements and actions your congresscritter may engage in, if you let that happen, then something like the 'Pottery Barn rule' applies, you accepted it being broken, and so you are paying for it.

Oh, is it hard keeping tabs on politics? Wahhhhh... poor baby. Shut up, stand up, look in the mirror "You are a Girly Man! We must pump your civil sense up! We must put muscles on your voice and make it more powerful! You are WEAK! But vee vill pump you up!

Pumping up the Voting FUNduh!Mentals
Starting with some basic reps... grab those dumb bells, here we go. Voting, Rights, Law and Govt are all derived from our nature as human beings, from the observable requirements of living a human life, and I think I need to make a quick review of that process.

  • Our Rights begin with thinking. As with a cow in a snow filled pasture which its said will starve to death, being unable to think of looking under the snow - no thinking, no eating. But thinking alone won't do it, it's got to be productive - you may not get much for your efforts if your thinking tells you digging & refilling a ditch will spontaneously produce food and shelter - don't laugh, FDR based a program on it - your thinking has to respect reality, be purposeful and to be effective it should follow orderly methods of self checking to make sure it's worthwhile from start to finish - in short Reasoning.

  • Respectful awareness of your surroundings is vital for creating any wealth - wealth being food, shelter, relationships, gizmos to perform tasks efficiently and productively - aka Property, and our individual lives as well as society, are based upon it.

  • To be able to reason, and to be reasonably productive, you have to not only be able to act on your conclusions, but to do so without being forced to act against your own reasoning. You have to be able to say what you think needs to be said, do what you think needs to be done, make the choices which you see and believe need to be made, without being forced to act against your own better judgment.

  • Being free to think and act to produce property is all intertwined with your need to confidently retain what you've spent your time and effort in producing, confident that your efforts won't be stolen from you, and in realizing the necessity of that, you must recognize the necessity of extending the same consideration to others - in order to enter into civilization, rather than just preying on it.

  • All of your productive actions are based upon, and directed towards getting, keeping or consuming the wealth of property which you have created, and you have succeeded in doing so to the extent that you see and respond to the nature of things as they are - what is true, benefits you, what is false, hinders or harms you. Honesty and integrity contributes to the wealth of all in society, while thievery steals from all in society.

  • Thievery, legal or otherwise, destroys not only your wealth, but the purpose of all of your practical actions and thoughts, which are required by your nature and ability to live as a human being.

  • To prevent or deprive someone of their ability to think and act as they see fit, and retain what they've produced, is no different than plucking the wings off a bumble bee or removing the fangs & claws of a lion - neither would then be able to do what they need to do in order to live as their nature requires.
So in that rapid fire summary of our Rights and Liberties and the criminality of violating them. Our Rights are nothing but the recognition of what is required by "nature and natures God" in order for us to live as Men, and from that fact we are able to derive our rights of property, free speech, self defense, sanctity of contract - and most important of all is the fact that all of our Rights come not from words on paper, but because of the nature of being human - Natural Rights from Natural Law.

It is because of not seeing, or denying, those simple facts that entire societies have been condemned to rise no further than that of tribal savagery and piracy and widespread poverty.

It was the recognition of these basic rights to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' in our Declaration of Independence, and given structure in the Constitution and particularly the first 10 amendments to it in the Bill of Rights, for all to see, know and follow - that has formed the basis of our nation and our laws to translate those Rights into the guardrail rules for societal interaction known as Law, and Govt is the institution for upholding and enforcing them within society. Just don't mistake the means of recording and displaying the law, for the real law itself.

Clearly defined laws animated by the spirit of these rights, written and enforced by some few whom most agree will honestly oversee them, observe the laws to settle disagreements and misbehaviors, and this gives us the incomparable value of objective law, and that institution charged with maintaining and applying it - government.

Note that Govt produces nothing itself, but it enables a sense of trust and security to be enjoyed by all people, enabling them to work, to safely live in proximity to each other, to invest in each other, and to grow their society and expand their wealth and prosperity.

Any honest study of political science and fact based economics, will show that infringing upon or forcing someone out of their basic rights and property, will damage or destroy their prosperity, lives, families and eventually their entire society.

The Vote
However, however fine and well reasoned those documents and rules are, People will have to administer them, modify them and/or add to them, and monitor the administering of them - and one of the most absolute genius features of our Constitution is how those people are to be put into place, and how they are to reach their decisions regarding them - by Vote.

It shouldn't be necessary to say, but we are not a direct Democracy we are a Constitutional Representative Republic, and in our Republic the Vote is used to transmit the reasoned judgments of a representative group of the population at each level of government upwards, and then back in the form of law, which is to be respected and obeyed by the people, in order to open and close a reasoned circuit of judgment from the individual, on up into the govt and back down into our lives.

There are a number of layers within our representative republic within which voting occurs, each is an attempt to guage the optimal level and quality of decision making appropriate for the quantity of citizens represented within it. That process begins at the individual level as we vote for our local and state legislators and executives, as well as our Representative to the U.S. House of Representatives. Within those bodies there are other layers, such as in the States house and the U.S. Govt House of Representatives who vote and send the bill up to the next layer, the Senate, and again with the President - and there is a feature which allows the people to engage with the finished results of the layers, by calling a piece of legislation to the attention of a meta-layer in the Supreme Court (since the collosally bad judgment of the 17th amendment, the Senators are voted upon directly by the people, upsetting the structure structure of checks and balances so carefully crafted... another amendment to be repealed).

Did I leave a position out of who we directly vote for? The President? No, I didn't. Your vote isn't cast as a vote for the President, your vote is talleyed and guides the vote of an Elector in the Electoral College, and the electors of your state then cast their votes for the President, and yes, it is a good thing that it is done that way.

The President is not elected directly by popular vote alone! Leaving out the issue of delegates, the popular vote determines who the states delegates will be awarded to, and it is not only very possible, but has happened several times, that the candidate elected President, is NOT the one with the most popular votes, but the most delegates via the states - or maybe more to your understanding, the President is elected via the popular vote within the states, and then (typically) by the majority of the total votes of the states - as determined by each State.

There is a purpose behind this, though every few years, some would-be demagogue makes another stab at eliminating the Electoral College (I believe Hillary made a few speeches to that effect). You ought to ask yourself why.

Their purpose is, that by making it possible to eliminate the necessity of getting votes from the interior flyover states like Missouri, Nebraska, Idaho, etc, you could elect a president through the most populous states like New York, California and a few of the urban areas of major cities (read: likely by fellow elites and easily swayed poor inhabitants), and the rest of the counties and suburban areas, and indeed entire states themselves, could safely be ignored.

If the president was elected by popular vote alone, there would no longer be any need to refer to him as the President of the United States of America, but as President of a few populations centers and the rest of the states be damned! One way you can identify would be tyrants in America, is by their eagerness to push for, and rely upon, the 'popular vote!' (btw, the 17th amendment was their last big victory).

Try as the Progressives have to eliminate the states influence in the federal government (we came perilously close to having the electoral process dumbed down to your level in 1970), they do still play a major part in our federal system.

The Point of the Vote
The important point to take away from this review, is not that Votes are used to elect people and pass or fail legislation, the Vote is used as a method for the transmittal of judgment, which, as on the part of the elected officials IS NOT to tell them what to do, but selects them as being who the voters judged to have the values, ideals and ability of judgment they think will enable them to vote and act in a way worthy and justifiable.

NOTICE: to my fellow Tea Partiers, even if everybody in a district told their Representative they want him to cast his vote a particular way, while that may influece his judgment, he is IN NO WAY obligated to vote as the vast majority of his constitutents demand he does. Not even if a million plus show up on the mall in Washington D.C. shouting "Kill The BIll!" (as I did locally). Candidates aren't voted for so that they can behave as virtual vote-a-grams, delivering this or that vote as a majority of their constitutents demands, but to use his own judgment to vote as he sees best - just as it is wrong for them to force us to buy their obamaocare, it would be wrong for us to force them to vote against what they saw fit - they are Representatives, not proxies. Now, it might be politically wise for him to consider his constitutients views, especially when it came time to vote again come election time; if the constitutency disapproves of their voting record, then they are free to exercise their vote for or against the person, and that is part of the due diligence each voter owes to his vote in each election.

The Vote doesn't garauntee that elections will go your way often or ever, it only garauntees you an opportunity to participate in the process of governance - how much you participate in the process, is up to you, but rest assured, punching the ballot card, or carrying a protest sign - or sitting it out - are the barest minimum of input open to you.

That is a dead Parot! It couldn't oomph those bars apart with 3,000 votes!
But, again, we are NOT a direct Democracy, and not only for reasons of size and practicallity, but because we are a representative republic, we elect our officials to use their judgment as they see fit, within the structure, rules and guidelines of the constitution.

We do not vote to elect parots. We cast our votes to become part of a process of reasoning, not as an exercise in bubble testing.

If you feel your vote didn't matter, there are two likely reasons in play, one, you never understood the place of the Vote - or that of yourself - in the process in the first place, or you didn't pay enough attention to the principles and character of the person you voted for, and/or the person you voted for felt no particular requirement to present himself honestly to you, or to pay attention to the constitution which should guide their reasoning and actions.

If your representative doesn't feel concern over his office when you are displeased - it is probably your fault for not giving him Reason to - Note: Reason - not threats or threats of force, Reason.

The real problem here is those of us who have enabled this disregard of the part of the office holders for their constitutents and our constitution by not ensuring that these officials remain fully aware of the need to present their opinions and beliefs to the voters in an election. Those who not only pay little attention to their vote, but who enable their elected officials to think there is no need to worry about paying attention to them or the constitution, are at the root of our problem today.

If you pay little attention to your vote, and/or if you pay little attention to seeing that your elected official is aware that you will hold them responsible for their actions, and if you pay little attention to ensuring that your fellow citizens are aware of the candidates and issues, or if you cast your vote, by NOT voting, for officials to have even less concern for their constitutents, issues and constitution - then when you next moan that the system is broke, you can easily discover how and why it is broken by following these steps:

  1. Walk up to a mirror.

  2. Open eyes

  3. Gaze into your own eyes - quary found, mystery solved.
The Vote is not simply a mechanism for tallying checkmarks, it is also a mechanism for registering the will, or lack of such, of We The People. Yes, quite often, our vote for candidate or issue "A" or candidate or issue "B", may both damage our freedoms, but that doesn't mean opting out of the process is a sensible option. If the issue on the vote is to put you to death by chugging bleach, or by injecting you with a long term degenerative disease - and your not voting is not going to take the issue off of the table - the issue is still going to be voted on - then voting for the long term degenerative disease is your only rational option - however, it would be irrational to leave the issue there, pleased and satisfied that you've bought some time before being put to death, which has been the behaviour of Republicans and of many Conservatives as well.

If the only issues on the table are a swift and gruesome death or a prolonged and lingering death, then it is your responsibility to, at the very least, to do your best to see that another issue is put upon the ballot, that of promoting Life. And it is up to you who see the problem to rouse those who haven't been aware of the issues being voted upon at all, to open their eyes and see what they've been allowing to occur through their negligence. It is up to you who are aware and who do see the danger, to slap into awareness those who were mindlessly comfortable and satisfied with the prospect of a lingering death, to snap out of it and realize that that is an idiotic position to hold, and that a healthy political life, because it does affect your actual Life, is worth demanding and fighting for!

It is up to you to not only wait and see what other such choices the ballot will bring next, but to attempt to affect the available options that will be considered for putting onto the ballot (LOCAL ELECTORS). But even more important than that, it is up to you who do see, you who are aware, to educate your fellow citizens to understand that it simply isn't enough to have an option to choose between instant or slow death or life, and that it is insane to allow such a decision to even be considered. Issues of sudden or lingering death are entirely inappropriate issues to be debated at all, but in order to do that, you've got to help make your fellow citizens become aware of what the requirements are for Life, before they'll realize the folly of even considering choices that can only lead to their deaths.

Casting your ballot is the least part of the voting process. Learning about the candidate, the issues, communicating to your fellows, letting your officials know that you are, and if dissatisfied, taking part in the process, are all needed for a balanced political life.

There Is No (long term) Political Solution
The System doesn't create the people, the people create the system - or through innattention, abandon themselves to it, but even so, it IS answerable to them, and the way it is seen to be answerable to them is through voting. Voting, and working to affect what will be voted upon, and working to have the best options win the election are vital things to do, but they are short term tactical actions, they are not a long term strategy - win the battle, yes, certainly, but don't forget that there is a war going on.

The United States of America is at war, and though it may be a news flash for many, it was invaded, long, long ago. As with our situation with the islambies where we were being warred upon long before we finally became aware of it on 9/11, We The People have only recently roused ourselves to realize in the last two years, that there is an enemy is here among us, but it didn't just parachute in two years ago, it has been here and warring upon us for a very, very long time, at least 200 years, and here in strength for 150 years.

The enemy we are at war with is a smart one and the battlefield chosen by this invader has had nothing to do with territory, either real estate or electoral - those are just where the smoke from the skirmishes become visible, it has been attacking us in the only area that any enemy ever could have hoped to damage a nation founded upon Ideas, laws and liberty - on the field of ideas - in a sustained attempt to invade and topple the American mind.

Anti- and Pro Americanism
Generally speaking there are two tactics people will tend towards, or away from, which whether or not the people involved are philosohpically aware of why they do so, nevertheless they still will, because of the philosophy which influences them (knowingly or not), itself inclines towards; and those are on the left hand

  1. laws which are based upon opinion and legislation, and opposed to Natural Law

  2. as well as a fetish for x-spurts and consolidation,
On the Right hand they will

  1. tend towards Natural Law, reflected in opinion and written into legislation,

  2. and a distrust of experts, preferring something which reflects common experience, as does the Common Law.
If the legitimate function of National Gov't, is to provide for the defense of the Rights of its citizens against enemies, foreign and domestic, and to arbitrate disputes, etc, that government which is closest to the people, their wards, townships, etc, is going to be most appropriate and able to properly make the arrangements they think useful for their general population, being more likely to reflect and be influenced by their common experience, but the further removed from their direct input, the more centralization and consolidation of power that takes place, and the less that individual interests and concerns can or will be reflected in them. This was a deep concern of the Founders, as Jefferson wrote,

"What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body, no matter whether of the autocrats of Russia or France, or of the aristocrats of a Venetian senate."
What we need to do today, is to focus on our concerns, not try to mimic their concerns and tactics - they don't fit together. The MSM has a near mania for trying to consolidate the various Tea Parties under one umbrella - they can't fathom it's decentralized 'structure', it is the very opposite of their ideals. We need to be thankful for that, and not seek their approval or be always looking towards top level ends like changing all of Govt, while we do need to do our best to halt it's advance, that isn't where we will win any long term victories.To win the war, we need to focus on changing not only govt on the lower and local level, but the minds and understanding of the people who make it work - only then can we work within the system, to bring the system into it's proper alignment with the rights of its citizens again.

DeToqueville remarked so long ago upon our willingness and ability to form voluntary association, we naturally seek to voluntarily associate with people who you may or may not know but are united on in one area of interest or another. Whether it be book clubs, church groups, Rotary Clubs, or Shriner's... people not so much concerned with fixing, as with doing what interests them... the American people tend to spontaneously unite along a shared interests and work together to promote those interests and goals and the Tea Parties form in the exact same way... a heartfelt issue draws people together from out of the woodwork, and soon you've got thousands of people joining together across the country, to accomplish something.

The progressive leftist can't comprehend this. The invisible dark hand of the anti-american philosophy instinctually attacks that local individual level of associating, they want to replace local concerns with national ones, They keep coming up with things like Coffee Talks, formed by A person at the top, looking to add followers to oppose Tea Parties... they don't work - to adapt to their mindset, it would need to have followers assigned and given tasks to accomplish, their concern is to Fix other peoples problems, not to pursue their own interests - other peoples issues are their interests - but with no pay, and no power to be gained or exerted, such efforts fall apart.

Such associations to be successful require self starters, and that also doesn't mesh with such groups.

But through the drumming in of the progressive, the proregressive, mindset in schools, govt, etc, that model has become the default assumption for how to get things done, even among those of us who dislike it, we find ourselves looking at our vote being ignored, and reach for a top down explanation "They control things", "They have the power", "They have Acorn and we can't fight that", or even "We must replace it from the top down"... snap out of it guys!

They don't have the skills, knowledge or mindset which we do, and as the Tea Parties over the last year have shown exceedingly well, with little or no coordinated or mandated effort, in less that a year we very nearly stopped the century long effort of ObamaoScare in it's tracks... we at the very least dragged out what was expected to be a slam dunk effort of a season, to a year long death march and from which Democrat Senators and Representitives are still dropping like Stupak flies from the exertion, announcing retirement, after retirement, after retirement.

We are winning. It is happening. But it needs your help, it needs your efforts, it needs your voice... talk to your neighbors, talk to the folks who come knocking on your door to offer their services - offer yours right back to them.

Our system is understandable, and theirs is easily demolished. Be a verbal wrecking ball to their ideas, and a sower of the ideas of our Constitutional Representative Republic of Natural Law, Liberty and Free Markets.

If you attempt to propose an alternative, an alternative is what you will end up with.

Friday, April 09, 2010

Mirror Mirror On The Wall, Who's The Biggest Tyrant Of Them All?

I received a number of messages last night and this morning, which in part said things like, "In the late 1800's , the US Supreme court ruled that corporations have the same rights as persons. That was all the corporations needed." something such as this one from an Amazon discussion (I'm in a number of the "Liberal Fascism" and "Liberty vs. Tyranny" threads there as "Stormcrow" ... long story) which says "... the major corporations buy off the government officials, and the government controls things on behalf of the big corporations." and so forth. Yeah... thanks guys, sorry though, no, I don't buy into the 'big bad corporation' beast spiel.

The problem didn't start with Corp's, but with Govt inserting itself as an impediment or advantage into their businesses; once that was allowed, in the short sighted view of most practical minded businessmen, the Govt became just one more thing to be managed and used - aka: Regulations. And many of them eagerly supported, and do support, Govt Regulators... sort of like a large mouth bass eagerly swallows a nicely baited hook.

In the late 1800's the US Supreme Court more and more began to buy into the idea that the Fed Govt had a role in regulating businesses, their practices, what they could buy and how they could sell, how they had to go about making their products, and in doing so the court began to demote businessmen's Rights to Property and to Free Speech and as a result, it really should be no surprise, ALL of our rights have been abridged.

Something which We The People are just now beginning to look around and wonder about "Wha...? Force me to buy healthcontrol? Force me to use special light bulbs? Force me not to speak in unapproved ways? Whu...? Where did this all come from?!"

Let me answer that for you. If you have ever supported Govt regulation of industries, SEC, etc, Campaign Finance, EPA, etc, and yet are now looking around you today and wondering who is responsible for your high taxes, wrecked economy and loss of liberties, well...

Find mirror. Look in. Search over.

I'll grant you that marketing slogans like this one from the Amazon UI (Useful Idiot) which say

"One flows from the other. the major corporations buy off the government officials, and the government controls things on behalf of the big corporations."

Are pretty slick con's, which is why they've worked so well and did so right off the bat, but in fact exactly the opposite is the case. Proregressives such as Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, etc, sold the regulation of business to the people as a way of preserving 'fairness', while they sold it to the corporations as a way to improve the 'quality' of their markets (which shortsighted businessmen very reasonably and moderately nodded at, while secretly seeing regulations, and those who wrote them, as useful tools to limit entry into their markets and hobble their competitors), but in fact regulatory agencies are primarily a way to expand the power of government bureaucracy and to erode our property rights - an absolute 'must do!' for any govt which yearns to grow bigger and more powerful - for a Govt that absolutely yearns to 'do good!', property rights are their bane. But what their idea of 'fairness' means in practice, is 'more' freedom for some, less freedom for all and the steady erosion of the Right of individual choice and free speech.

Buying into the Democrat party line on the "CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION " case (You remember, the one regarding which Justice Alito mouthed "Not True!" during Obama's State of the Statist speech), the Amazon UI laments that
"...they decided that government couldn't restrict corporate "free speech" rights..."
Well the fact that he put Free Speech in scare quotes gives you an idea of what their idea of freedom is... freedom for those they approve of, and restricted (at best) for those they don't - how again is that Freedom? Questioning whether some should be 'allowed' to have a right to free speech doesn't say much for their conception of what Rights are. And of course if they can just get enough people to be swayed to see things as they do, then 'fairness' becomes a justification for limiting the rights of any lesser favored few - which is easy enough when there is no longer an unquestioned Right protecting their (Our) liberties.

Helpful Hint: allowing the limitation of one person's rights, breaches the integrity of everyone's rights.

All political rights rest upon property rights, and especially in a system which has allowed the govt to infringe on your property, then you need more than ever, the right to speak freely against those who mean you ill, and for attempting to sway those who might be able to aid you. What 'We The People' are finally beginning to discover now, today, is that by our allowing govt to chip away at our once inviolate right to property, it has eroded not only the rights of the rich, but the Rights of all of us, all of our precious Rights have been diminished. And not only have the rights we have to our property been reduced, but now even our Right to choose whether or not we wish to buy healthcare, or not - our allowing them to 'come for the rights of the rich' has allowed them to come for the rights of all of us.

And then there's this:
"... and they are free to bribe our government officials all they want--in the form of campaign contributions..."

I am Shocked! Shocked I say! That those with money would try to use it to prevent those with power from taking their money! Wow! Why didn't those Proregressive strivers against corruption and seekers of 'Fairness' see that one coming? What IS shocking, is that those in business who first sidled up to and supported Govt Regulators, it is shocking that they didn't foresee that the edge they intended to get over their competitors through a politician in every pocket, would unavoidably one day become the edge that would be held to their own throats. Well, it's not quite that shocking, the Classical Liberal Educations which our Founding Fathers received, and been diluted and suppressed for at least forty years, by that point, and the proregressive "Centralize! Consolidate! Efficiency!" mantra had become the common theme across the nation.

Plus, businessmen tend to be so stupid as to think that money motivates everyone, blind to the fact that those in government, though always thrilled and willing to line their pockets of course, are actually motivated by power, and mere economic power - which ultimately rests on individual people choosing to make a purchase - is a feeble defense against governmental power - which is ultimately backed by physical force.

"... confusing "freedom" with corporate domination of our elected officials and our government."
Corporate domination... of... our... elected officials? You mean like how the CEO of GM dominated congress and Obama? Or did you mean the GM CEO he replaced the first one with? Or the one Obama replaced Him with? Those of you who buy into this notion, please take a close look at what it means - the ease with which you uncritically embrace such easy catch phrases should be a source of deep embarrassment for you.

If someone puts Freedom and Free Speech in quotes, as if they apply to some, and not all... that is someone you should be very interested in hearing what their conception of Freedom, Liberty and Rights actually are.

The obvious result, and very likely the intended result, of proregressive democrats and republicans who in the early 20th century had pushed for 'greater govt and business cooperation' through quasi-governmental organizations and regulatory agencies, was, and is, a system in which businessmen would have to bribe and favor politicians in order to secure somewhat more favorable terms in the latest regulation or legislation, just to be able to run their own businesses. That was the party line of such proregressives as Teddy Roosevelt(R) & Woodrow Wilson (D) & Herbert Hoover (R), and then just as now, the letter after their name is meaningless, it's the ideas behind their name that matters.

Ask Arlen Specter (R, D) if any further clarification is needed.

Once agreement has been reached that Property Rights are negotiable (meaning meaningless), as all the Proregressives, Marxists, Socialists, Communists, etc fully agree upon, then the rest is just a matter of personal style and 'smart' politics.

Our FF's astutely recognized that corporations pose a threat to democracy, and needed to be kept on a short leash."
What those of our Founding Father's who did buy into that didn't realize (and BTW, if that's referring to Madison's essay on Property or Corporations, that interpretation is way out of context), was that that leash would be turned into one gigantic noose for all of us. Once you concede to limit the Rights of some, you've begun the destruction of all of the Rights of everyone.

"There is the idea of the common good, versus the right of an individual to make a profit."
This is the theme of all of the left, and not a little of the little 'r' right. That was the same argument which Justice Taney made in the 'Charles River Bridge' case, that the 'common good' justified limiting the rights of some, for the benefit of the 'greater good', and it was the same case which on hearing the judgment, Daniel Webster lamented as being the "death of Property Rights". You DO remember Justice Taney, right? He was the same Supreme Court Justice who later ruled in the Dred Scott case that rights came from legislation and precedent ('Natural Law'?! Pshawww!) and it was for the greater good than one man should continue to own another.

"I believe that government has the right to restrict the rights of people, and particularly corporations, when they pose a danger to the rest of us. Just one example is companies disposing of toxic waste in a way that is cheap and easy for them, but may threaten the health and very lives of whole communities."
What such fine intentions have accomplished, is to reduce serious criminal actions to mere regulatory affairs, fines and loopholes. If a Corporation, under the knowing direction of it's officers, takes actions which endanger the lives and/or damage the property of those around them, they should be criminally prosecuted. Really damn fast, and severely at that. Such laws would be easily stated, comprehended and enforced, and no ones rights would be infringed upon in the process.

But to regulate those businesses? Why... that requires an agency, reams of codes and restrictions, an army of bureaucrats and holding corp's and their officers responsible not to those injured, but to answering, or evading, only those Govt rules and regulations. And then of course you'll need to have an entirely separate (and probably larger) agency, etc, for another sort of business, and so on. Not to mention the fact that such things create a guaranteed bribery income and favor pool for Numerous and ever expanding numbers of govt officials and functionaries.

Congratulations, your system 'works', the proof is all around you.

I've noted this before, but it bears repeating, that John Adams, in his consideration of constitutions throughout history, "Defence of the Constitutions", in Vol III he considered what must most likely happen in a society once property rights were allowed to lose the status and support of law, he said,

"...Property is surely a right of mankind as really as liberty. Perhaps, at first, prejudice, habit, shame or fear, principle or religion, would restrain the poor from attacking the rich, and the idle from usurping on the industrious; but the time would not be long before courage and enterprise would come, and pretexts be invented by degrees, to countenance the majority in dividing all the property among them, or at least, in sharing it equally with its present possessors. Debts would be abolished first; taxes laid heavy on the rich, and not at all on the others; and at last a downright equal division of every thing be demanded, and voted. What would be the consequence of this? The idle, the vicious, the intemperate, would rush into the utmost extravagance of debauchery, sell and spend all their share, and then demand a new division of those who purchased from them. The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If "Thou shalt not covet," and "Thou shalt not steal," were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free."
If you wish to understand our constitution today, it would be worth your reading what Adams had to say about the development and failure of constitutions in earlier days - what we have left of our Constitution today, depends upon it.

Wednesday, April 07, 2010

The Obamao Debt Star

Ok, what with a picture being worth a thousand words, I'll let this one say what needs to be said.

May the farce be with you.

Luke... Luuuke...

Monday, April 05, 2010

The "New" STD: Socialistically Transmitted Destruction

An interesting note, from a fellow named W.H. Mallock, an englishmen and favorite of American Conservative, Russell Kirk (HT: Mytheos Holt via Facebook), who wrote a number of books at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries, one of which was called "A Critical Examination of Socialism (1908)"

I thought it interesting that in this examination written in 1908, he notes at the outset in Chp. 1 that socialism was having its best success at taking root in - which do you suppose American city? Ring your bell if you guessed Chicago,
"... Socialism, on the other hand, has risen and spread thus far, not as a system which is threatening to supersede capitalism by its actual success as an alternative system of production, but merely as a theory or belief that such an alternative is possible. Let us take any country or any city we please—for example, let us say Chicago, in which socialism is said to be achieving its most hopeful or most formidable triumphs—and we shall look in vain for a sign that the general productive process has been modified by socialistic principles in any particular whatsoever. Socialism has produced resolutions at endless public meetings; it has produced discontent and strikes; it has hampered production constantly. But socialism has never inaugurated an improved chemical process; it has never bridged an estuary or built an ocean liner; it has never produced or cheapened so much as a lamp or a frying-pan. It is a theory that such things could be accomplished by the practical application of its principles; but, except for the abortive experiments to which I have referred already, it is thus far a theory only, and it is as a theory only that we can examine it..."

Over one hundred years ago it was already obvious that Socialism was a system of passions bereft of results and in fact fueled by it's failures, and that Chicago was a city primed for embracing it anyway.

America, if we embrace Chicago politics we risk catching a virulent STD from it - Socialistically Transmitted Destruction.

Inoculate yourself now with the only known antidote: Understanding the U.S. Constitution.

Saturday, April 03, 2010

Casting Bread Upon the Water: 'Canadian marxists, stay away from me/ Canadian Marxists, Obamao let me beee'

Well, this a bit of an odd post for me, a response to anonymous responses to the Tartan Marine at "The Old Jarhead", who recently posted a very good, if exceedingly pessimistic, comment about our many fast approaching disasters. An anonymous commenter, purportedly from Canada, has already prompted a few of my famously longwinded replies, but his latest drew triple the length than Blogger will allow me to vent in the comments. It concerns something I have been wanting to post on though, that of pleasant, well meaning people, who misplace their generosity and consent into the hands of thugs, who turn them into weapons against us all. So while not wanting to burden the Tartan Marine with my hemorrhaging of HTML to begin with, I'm going to move my reply from there, to here, as a post of it's own.

Let me set it up a bit first though with a bit of the preceding comments which began with Anonymous venting off a bit about the wonders of Canada and the ignorance of Americans, as in part,

"...Its all waste on insurance paperwork, premiums, blah blah blah, middlemen who add no value.
When will the US public get smart enough to embrace publice healthcare ?
Not soon I hope because it still leaves a huge competitive advantage to manufacturing in Canada because all healthcare is already covered..."
Always up for a bit of recreational slamming, I replied, "Riiight. It was nice to see your Prime Minister recently putting his heart into that message. ", which prompted a bit of pickiness from the anonomai,

"It was the "Premier/Governor" of Newfoundland(a province/state, kinda like Maine, who went to the US for heart treatment; not the Prime Minister/President.

Whlie I agree with most of your statements, I wish you'd grab a bit more intell before you make statements that make you look..........un-informed."
Uhm... it's Canada... I am uninformed about them, and intend to stay that way. If their prime premier needs to go to a country most of the Canadian politico's and media denigrate, to take advantage of the health care system we still have, because they've already destroyed their own in their country, and yet still speak so smugly about it and themselves... not to mention the fine example of free speech practice they performed on Marc Steyn... last year(?), or Ann Coulter last week... why would I care to get more informed than what can be unintentionally gleaned from a half overheard sound bite?

Now, if you want to chat about the U.S. Constitution, or Western Civilization in general, I'm there for you, but Canada? Take off eh.

Which unleashed a torrent of northern slights without the benefit of a single enter key,
"...America (as wealthy and prosperous as it is) is the only nation in the industrialized world that does not have some form of national health care plan for ALL citizens. And somehow the media and right wing conservatives have brainwashed the public into believing that a national health care plan (aka socialized medicine) is bad. What is so terribly wrong with ensuring all Americans have access to basic healthcare? Surely other Western nations can't ALL be wrong. Yes, it's expensive - but it's better than what America's got. Treating "socialized" medicine with such disdain - as if it were somehow inferior - is mind boggling. I suspect the average American has no clue what socialized medicine even means - talk about conservative propaganda! The ability to go see a doctor ANYTIME for ANY REASON and get medical attention regardless of how big your bank account is what socialized medicine means..."
,and on, and on and on. Get the picture?

So I replied, that I realize this might be difficult for a nameless aninnymouse to follow, since it requires thinking of more than one concept at a time, or rather it requires you to realize that one concept is deeply integrated with another concept, which is deeply integrated with another, and so on, but what is wrong with 'ensuring all Americans have access to basic healthcare', but the very least important issue is that it can only be done by forcing all Americans to purchase something they may not want - which is pretty darn bad all it's own.

Another slightly more important issue, is that the sudden flood of demand, with no increase in supply (the hours Dr's & Nurses have available, the facilities within which to see patients, etc), without the self regulating mechanism of those 'visits' costing anything, results in long lines, stressed care providers (who are receiving no incentive or compensation for the increased demand on their time and effort), less input from Dr's or patients as the 'system' tries to get things under control by saying who will receive what, why & where, and eventually rationing of one sort or another. Perhaps you Canadians enjoy your little raffle's to see who will get to see a Dr.... Americans? Not so much.

Which brings us to
"I suspect the average American has no clue what socialized medicine even means - talk about conservative propaganda!"
Forget about the 'medicine' part, and try focusing on the 'socialized' part, do you have a clue what that means? Or have you bought into the candy coating of getting goodies "ANYTIME for ANY REASON"... FOR FREE!!!.

There is nothing that is available for free. And the biggest cost of the attempt to act as if there is, is that you lose your right to your property, to control over your life, and give over your liberty to live your own life, to the vagaries and whims of those who have the power to decide what you can do, where you can do it, how much you can pay or be paid for it, but most of all you lose your right and ability to live your own life by your own decisions - without that, it is not your life that you are living!.

That may be ok for Canadians, your ancestors were too pansyish to stand up to the King George, you are probably just fine with being well cared for house slaves. We on the other hand, are Americans, and we are not ok with giving the responsibility for our own lives over to bureaucrats to plan out in exchange for their favors and best wishes.

Take Off!

"Sure we do...but how is this any different from waiting for your HMO to approve treatment?"
Who do you think devised the current HMO's? Private business had just about discarded them as wastes of money, when Govt proposed them... to improve healthcare and control costs. Care to bet what the result was?!

Oh, and I'd be happy to offer a quarter so you can buy a new ENTER key."

Well that actually brought about a decent reply from him - still wrong, but reasonable... it didn't lack the SHIFT Key. He said in part,
"That system you've put so much faith in, does'nt deserve your faith. BOTH sides of the equation need re-evaluations/re-construction in the worst way. They need a tertuary competitor.

It's corrupt from the ground up. Rotten to the core. Many people, though pure at heart,are mis-led, by thier love of the nation. "
To all the anonymai out there, I think you mistake what I put my faith in, and I assure it is not this or any system, certainly not how they are regarded and operated as today. While I do have a very high regard for the U.S. Constitution, it's not for the document itself, but for that which it is the finest expression of to ever have been attained by Man. The ideas it represents, those of Classical Liberalism (and by that I mean a very long line of development going back through Adams, Burke, Smith, Blackstone, Locke, Aquinas, Cicero, Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Sophocles, Aeschylus, Homer and a myriad of tributaries), which ultimately recognizes what is best and briefest expressed as,

  • "... that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
Over the last 20+ years of studying the roots of that in history, philosophy, literature, economics and politics, I've come to recognize that when Government is used to sway, prevent or mandate that it's citizens act against those choices which they would otherwise make (and were not themselves improper), it infuses into 'the system' rapidly spreading rings of error, falsehood, stupidity (though as a consequence of being unaware of the ripples, the decisions that are made as a result of them have the appearance of seeming 'smart'), and destruction which spreads through the peoples persons, relations, economy and culture.

Think of it as the Dark Invisible Hand of statism, that is opposed to Adam Smith's Invisible Hand of the Free Market.

This is an important point to grasp, I do not oppose any of the many variants of socialism & statism on the basis of any party or patriotic affiliation, but because I see them to be, at their deepest root, not only wrong, but evil. And yes, I'm very well aware that the vast majority of those supporting such measures are completely unaware of this, and are intending to do nothing but good. However, 'you know where' has a very fine road leading to it, paved with just such intentions.

I am also very much aware, through opened eyes and hard knocks, that the Principle that may be perceived in operation, is not necessarily the only principle involved, or even the most significant. I am very aware that at any time it may become apparent that I am missing something of importance, and I am always checking and self checking to see if that's the case.

Oedipus's high intelligence and self assurance should be a warning to all (One warning I've noted here).
"So you consider Canada inconsequential, maybe others see America on it's last legs.

Maybe the two nations should work together. Like they're doing in we speak.
Arrogance, is often confused with insecurity. Ever heard that?"
I'm also well aware that Canada, during the Great Depression, experienced little or no bank failures, while the actions of FDR's cocksure USA ensured the failure of thousands of banks and lives. Looking around us today, it seems as if we have not exactly learned much from that lesson. But have you Canadians learned from it either? I would love to see not only Canada, but the entire 'Anglo-sphere' working together, and I've no interest in putting "U!S!A!" above other nations for no other reason than I live here, I see these, and all other nations, in relation to those ideas I mentioned above, and those who corrupt or oppose those ideas, I'm confident will be reaping their own doom - ourselves included if we persist in them.

I don't hold that opinion out of arrogance, or promote it out of insecurity, but because all that I have experienced and learned, shows me that it is true. I would be eager to be proved wrong.

Unfortunately, it hasn't happened yet.

Which brings us up to the latest anonymous comment which I see not only coming from this Canadian anonymai, but from the left in general, from here and abroad. It's a view that America 'was once good', but is now bad - not because of it's vices (pragmatic foreign policy, socialistic/statist leanings, tendency towards moral relativism), but because of it's Virtues. We are today condemned, sniffed and sneered at because of those virtues we still cling to, principled actions, a foreign policy which believes that freedom, liberty and property need to be defended, and that those who assault them must be stopped and/or destroyed. The belief that Govt has no business being our substitute brothers keeper, that the Free Market and objective law rooted in a clearly stated and understandable Constitution, unchanging except by amendment, are the highest of ideals and not errors to be apologized for. And finally, far from the apparent beneficence which they foolishly believe National Healthcare to be, it is nothing but the means to disintegrate and destroy all of our Virtues.

Obamaoscare healthcontrol law is a vile evil which we must expunge.

So while the anonymous can and do say such seemingly fine sounding things such as this,
"I see deeper motivation in all this. I see a movement that not only involves the collapse of the US, but the collapse of democracry world wide.

Many people, myself included, see America, as the bastion of democracy. If America is lost.....then , also, is the idea of democracy,"
It is not the Virtues of the American Republic they are showing concern for, but for the disintegrating, anti-American proregressive statism which they see us fighting against.

Their concern is that the virus might be harmed, not it's host. Which is particularly disgusting and alarming when they then say something like this, that,
"Freedom loving people, world-wide, must know this, and rise, together to prevent the collapse of America."
Don't they wish. But the sentiment reveals something which they completely miss, and something which they, knowingly or unknowingly, believe, that America is the result of it's government, that passing laws can lead to prosperity, that more rules can create the materials which made us the most powerful nation on earth - they actually believe not only that Might makes Right, but that Might can create Might. It cannot. It can only feed parasitically off of the wealth which those few freedoms it allows, manages to produce.

They spend a great deal of time and effort on ignoring the fact that America did not rise to it's position of prominence and power because it was a massively regulated Bismarckian State, quite the opposite, America became America, because it's Govt stayed the hell out of the lives and business of Americans. Americans once knew and understood the importance of the ideas which it's Constitution was founded upon, and they insisted on those ideas not being violated by it's Govt. America is, was, and always will be (if it is to continue to be) a nation of Ideas.

America cannot be propped up with anything less than ideas, and that can only be done so through a sizable portion of the populace understanding and revering those ideas (to one degree or another, not everyone needs to be expert, some will need to fully grasp them, and some will need only the sense of it, as long they understand their importance and can and will pursue further detail if needed and pressed).

And just as importantly, the results of those ideas: our famed optimism, morality (much less visible today, I grant you) and generosity - are in fact results of our ideals,

  • "... that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
, and they cannot be willfully and consistently engaged in as if they will somehow produce their own foundation, as if tidying up the Penthouse will magically produce the skyscraper below it. The current focus of Glenn Beck on promoting "Faith, Hope and Charity" as a means of restoring America, is very disappointing, and frankly Stupid. Those very American traits only came to represent us, came to represent a Nation and it's people for the first time in history, because of the ideals those people first held and practiced. Thinking that we can recreate our National Character simply by aping the behaviors which were once overwhelmingly representative of us, is little more than a Cargo Cult mentality. I hope Beck soon gets over it.

Current Tea Party efforts (which I am a very small part of) can only at best establish temporary beachheads against the ongoing erosion of all we hold dear. I wish everyone who is concerned about America would think on this, grasp it and take it to heart: Unless America is reborn in the minds and hearts of the people through it's ideas, those ideas which are its roots and lifeblood... it will become just another country, with just another govt, and it will be one that is, temporarily, equipped with the greatest resources and military might in the world. This should not be a comforting thought for anyone.

Back to Anonymous, he goes on with,
"At the same time, America must bear the mantle of "father", NOT that of dominator."
(Must... resist... sharp tongue... reply...), (deep breath). American is not, cannot, and God willing, never will see itself as being 'father' to anyone. It is... distasteful... to think that other country's would view themselves as if children in relation to America. America stands as a beacon, nothing more. And if other nations manage to light one and hold it up as well, wonderful and welcome, the more the merrier. But don't dare attempt to hold us up as 'Father', you are not your children, and we will not care for you or coddle you, and to the extent that we may have unintentionally fostered that notion (assuming the defense of Europe), we should begin undoing that as soon as possible. I don't mean a Ron Paul sort of libertarian isolationism, but we do need to restore some balance and responsibility to the current status quo - which by the way is enabling the Euro-Socialist-Nanny State, and believe me, that is nothing but bad for us, for them, and for the world.

Anonymous continues,
"The reason that America is seen as a threat to world peace, is her current foriegn policy. That MUST change. People need to see America, as they did in times gone by...."
Personally, this 'impression' is of so little worth to me as to make mentioning it at all, an undeserved elevation. Our foreign policy should and must be directed towards protecting our valid interests and property, which as we stated in the Declaration of Independence at our first entrance upon the world stage,

  • "... hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends."
If your country should choose to be a threat to America, it's people, or its peoples proper and rightful interests, directly - as is Iran today, or indirectly as Afghanistan or even Iraq did by befriending and/or supplying those who had destructive designs upon us, then if all is well with America, your country should be prepared to be dominated with extreme prejudice. Severely. Don't think Iraq or Afghanistan... America is not right in it's self at the moment. Think Pearl Harbor and Hiroshima. And Nagasaki, or at the very least, Normandy, Hamburg, Dresden, etc.

No apologies. None whatsoever. If you, through your govt should choose tyranny and violence, you should receive the most un-moderate, un-measured, un-proportionate response available and swift destruction as a result.

The reason the 'world' sees America as a threat to peace, is because

  1. They've grown dependent and reliant upon America to defend them, and
  2. They want to appear kind hearted and swell and oh so sympathetic to the rest of each other and the world, all the while knowing that they can do so only because they don't have to (and can't) defend themselves, and that the hand they're biting, will continue to protect them.
If it were up to me, I'd remove that protection from them, if unappreciated and unwanted, pronto.
"Gen. Eisenhaur warned us(on TV) about the hazards of the future. I saw it, and was listening. Were you?"
I've read it. I assume you mean 'military industrial complex'? With all due respect to Ike (and that is a very great amount due indeed), his focus was blurred at best. The 'military/Industrial complex' is only an optical illusion, the actual threat is that of a Political/Corporate complex, which was the original, and still, Ideal of Progressivism, and I would think it would be obvious that because "Money, and the hope of riches, make men crazy", the notion of giving politicians both the opportunity and the means to affect business (and to draw inducements, curry favors, bestow rewards and punishments) through regulations - which whatever the leftist boilerplate spin says, never were intentioned to 'save the little guy' but to consolidate business, and/or labor, under the direction of 'experts' and under the control of government. That is what it was intended to do (read what the likes of Teddy Roosevelt, Herbert Croly and Woodrow Wilson actually said on the subject, Are you aware that FDR's 'Minimum Wage laws' were pushed through NOT for the benefit of the working man, but explicitly as a measure to protect Unions and to keep both youth and minorities out of the workforce. It worked), and that is what they have done, whether it be the EEOC or the SEC, look for who has benefited from them, follow the money and the power to affect the money, there you'll find who these agencies were erected to benefit - hint: it wasn't the productive Rich, or the honest worker. Add to that power the ability to direct the military, and you've got the seeds of impending disaster.

Far from your misplaced concerns being a result of any issue having to do with a free market capitalism, they are a direct result of progressive (and/or whichever variant of anti-property rights mentality you want to pick) measures.

It was precisely Eisenhower's 'measured' responses to Arab nationalists 'nationalizing' western oil companies property, which ensured that islamo-fascism would rise as it has to threaten the west today (I am though speaking of the direct issue in and of itself, Eisenhower may very well have had direct and valid concerns and needs to maneuver against or around the USSR which I am unaware of, and which were not published, and if so then it may have been a valid case of a Very Bad choice being chosen over an even Worse one).
"Money, and the hope of riches, make men crazy. There are people who play on that maxim, and use it to thier benifit."
Yes, again, that is true. And so the recommendation leftists put forward to lessen the abuse of power, not economic power (which in a free market rests upon individuals choices), but the abuse of actual power (resting upon the threat of physical Force - govt), is to give men who sought, seek and currently exercise Power, more, and more ability to direct (force) the actions (choices being discarded by their mandates) which people may or must be directed to make?

Your serious solution to lessening the abuse of power and drive for riches, is to give politicians the unrestrained ability via laws and regulations to control businesses, and to mandate the 'choices' which the people may or must make? That makes sense to you?

"Herr Gobblels invented the use of radio, and multi-media, to further the will of state. Today it is a science. He would burst with pride!"
If I take the obvious implied meaning of that correctly, if you were within reach, your face would be considerably wetter.
"It all comes down to responsability. Each, and every one of us is responsible for the health of the nation. YOU, ME, EVERY SINGLE NORTH AMERICAN!"
Canada and Mexico and Central America are responsible for themselves. Period. Should any of you become a threat to us, I'd sadly and fully support your being held responsible for that. And I would assume vice versa. Americans seek no 'union' with any of you, and because you show no respect for, or ability to apply, the ideas our Nation is founded upon, you wouldn't deserve anything of the sort if for some reason we were open to it. Neighbors are fine as neighbors, attempt to move into my house, or tell me what to set my thermostat at, and you become a pest at best, a trespasser at worst, and subject to experiencing the benefit of our 2nd Amendment rights.
"The reverse side of the coin of freedom is responsibility!!! If the nation ails.....WE are responsible! "
Individuals are responsible, nations, however, are powers, powers which can and should be expected to be responsible only for the lawful exercise of their power to uphold the rights of their people. There can be no 'responsibility' of a nation to violate the rights of it's own citizens. As Madison said regarding a proposed bill in congress to appropriate funds for the relief of refugees from what is now Haiti,
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
We, individually, on our own, are free to extend our aid and efforts to people in need, as we continually do from our own pockets whenever there is disaster around the world or here at home, and as we continue to do even now, with all the damage the govt has done to our private charities, and to each other. But the government has no right or business doing so itself.

Socialism, or any other 'ism which rests upon the dilution and negation of Property Rights, I repeat, no matter what your 'kind and heartfelt wishes', IS Evil, and I mean that in the deepest, darkest, most secular sense of the word (other senses are free to be applied as well).
"If every single human being, in North America desires freedom........IT IS THIER, INDIVIDUAL, RESPONSIBILITY TO SEE IT SURVIVE!"
Yes, if you desire to see freedom survive, then it is your responsibility to work to abolish your governments ability to abuse the rights of its citizens, it is your responsibility to try to turn your form of government into one more like America's original form of government. I am doing the same, to the best of my ability, here.
"If America collapses? Then ALL of us bear the responsability......equally."
If America collapses, then believe me - you're all hosed.
"It is incumbant on ALL of us who see, and recognize the present danger, to do our part to make it known to everybody. And to do whatever is needed to see that accomplished. "
Yep, as I said, it is your responsibility to work to abolish your governments ability to abuse the rights of its citizens, it is your responsibility to try to turn your form of government into one more like America's original ideals, glad to see you are finally getting behind liberty and the free market.

But of course, if that's not what you meant, then drop the swell sounding platitudes, and state clearly what you mean and intend. There is NO responsibility to be found from using the power derived from your fellow men to force your fellow man to be your keeper. There is no safety in undermining the source of prosperity and power, individual rights (which rest wholly and completely upon property rights), and the rule of constitutionally restrained law which protects them.

I won't dance around the point with niceties, although you may be well intentioned, what you propose is flat out evil - forcibly preventing a person from choosing their own actions in pursuit of their own life, plainly stated, the result of your good intentions can only be to replace the actions of the living soul of each person - their choices - with your own, you remove them from their own life.

Pure, unadulterated, Evil.

If unchecked, if will wreak destruction upon us all such as you cannot conceive. And for those, hopefully few, who are supporting these measures and actually understands what their notions truly mean to the free exercise of their and their fellow man's rights, yet advocate them anyway, they do, deeply, disgust me.