Our rights do not originate with government, but they are to be "secured" by government.
Formerly: Libertarian Party of Citrus county

Friday, October 30, 2009

The Purpose of Government.

This country is in a epic struggle, probably much more severe than any of us is willing to admit. It has not yet come to blows, but I fear that it may. There are two competing ideas on the purpose of government.

One the French idea as in their 1789 Rights of Man. “The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation. No body nor individual may exercise any authority which does not proceed directly from the nation,” it states. “Law is the expression of the general will.”

An extension of this principal is the belief that liberals espouse. The purpose of the government is to make laws benefiting society.

The other idea came from the same era and was the founding idea of the formation of this country. John Adams said it best in the Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, ratified in 1780. "All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness."

The extension of this principal is the belief that libertarians (and some conservatives) espouse. The purpose of the government is to secure these individual rights.

I believe if we continue to allow or government to make rules that benefit society at the expense of individual rights, we will have neither the benefit to society nor individual rights. The "great society" program of LBJ is a perfect example, instead of less poverty and better living conditions, we have more poverty, more broken families, and have had to throw billions more dollars then ever projected.

Look at all the state bills, resolutions, and laws that have been introduced in the past year, to support thier 10th amendment rights. Google search the news, CLICK HERE, and there are pages and pages of links to current references.

The States are starting to push back; the people are starting to push back. If rights are unalienable and people are free to pursue happiness and secure their own safety, where does the government get the right to force individuals to pay for the security of those who have chosen not to pursue their own safety and security?
“Life isn't fair, get over it.” ~ Bill Gates

The rule of law is applied equally to every individual, and all individuals have the right to better themselves to the best of their ability. Because everybody doesn’t have the same natural talents, abilities, circumstances the outcome of exercising liberty and freedom will not be equal. It’s not fair that I, a 5’7” 180# out of shape white guy and can’t get a job as a professional football player. Why should Warrick Dunn, who is a 5’8” 180# black guy, extremely athletic, and worked very hard every day to make himself one of the best at what he does, worked hard at marketing himself, worked hard at entertaining millions of people, be allowed to have a career I could never have? Why is it fair that he has better insurance, cars, housing, access to better education for his kids, than I do. Should Warrick Dunn have to give me his car, his house, pay for my sons to go to college? Of course that’s a stupid idea; what right do I or anybody else have to his property. Warrick Dunn has the riches, fame, and security that he earned for himself and his family in the pursuit of his own happiness by being allowed freedom and liberty.

He should be free to use the fruits of his labor the way he chooses. Like all liberty loving people who have been successful, Mr. Dunn knows and understands that the voluntary help and hard work of his mother, and of others who know it is best to voluntarily help their neighbors. Ask any of the single mothers who now have a fully furnished house because of Warrick Dunn if they would rather live in government housing. He personally does more to help society without government force than the government could ever do if they took his money and redistributed it. Warrick Dunn foundation

Every person should be free to pursue happiness, it is the choices people make in their lives that determine where they end up. If you don’t know Warrick Dunn’s story find it and read about it. His growing up and circumstances weren’t fair, but the choices he made, benefited himself, and through the pursuit of what he thought would make him happy has benefited all of society.

A government that secures individual rights will produce of Warrick Dunn’s, Bill Gates’, Henry Ford’s, Carnegie’s, and other successful people who will offer jobs, charity, and support for those less fortunate. There are hundreds of individuals in this country whose stories of generosity are world famous. Maybe it’s just my American naivety, but I can’t think of a French entrepreneur in recent history whose know for his generosity, nor a Cuban for that matter. Over and over again the people of this country have and do show their generosity, voluntarily, to those less fortunate. The private response after Katrina, the Tsunami, etc. shows that the people of this country will take care of those who through no fault of their own are in trouble.

A government whose purpose is to make laws that benefit society, socialism, like France, China, and Cuba results in death and suffering for all of society. France had tens thousands of people die from a heat wave, similar heat waves in the USA do not produce such death. China purposefully starved tens of millions of its people to benefit society. Cuba went from being one of the wealthiest islands in the Caribbean to being a poor, third world hole, whose people routinely try to escape.

I leave you with two fundamental questions. What do you believe is the purpose of government? and Do individuals have the right to protect their unalienable rights?

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Liberals are not Rational

I'm trying to understand why liberals don’t think rationally and why they just want to do things that "feel" good rather than work. How can a rational person look at the facts and think that the government taking over 1/6th of the US economy is good much less necessary.

Fact: Current US run health care systems, Medicare and Medicaid, are economic failures near collapse.

Fact: When heath care markets are free and open to competition prices go down and quality and service go up (look at plastic surgery, Lasik, etc.).

Fact: Every social program enacted by the federal government has exceeded its initial cost estimates by huge amounts.

Fact: Significant numbers of Doctors have said that will change careers if the government takes over health care, which will result in a shortage.

Fact: Government's own estimates show that we will still have 10 million people uninsured when health care reforms are enacted.

Fact: Citizens are up in arms over closed door meetings where the liberal leaders are trying to force government health care upon them.

Fact: Current Democrat leaders will not allow the citizens ,or for that matter members of congress, to have time to read the proposed healthcare legislation before it is voted on. (Please would somebody explain to me how allowing time for both congress and the people to review proposed legislation is a bad thing, and why the Democrats won’t allow changes to rules/bills to insure that both congress and the people understand the details of such a huge change in the way we do health care before it becomes law?)

Fact: The Government exempts itself from the proposed health care legislation.

We all would like to hope our government would do what’s best for its citizens, but no place has it shown any evidence that it will change its ways and become trustworthy. We have the same lies during campaigning followed by more and bigger government and less liberty and freedom for the citizens regardless of whether a democrat or republican wins.

Why isn’t Obama insisting on CSPAN coverage of the health care bills in committees? Pelosi said the house would be the most honest and transparent in history. How can any person Libertarian, Conservative, Independent, or even Liberal support our federal government’s current proposals for health care reform, under the circumstances that the government will not let us see or know the details until after it has become law? What are they hiding in the details that they don’t want the people to know? Obama is lying right to our faces, yet liberals for some reason trust him and the Democrats to be honest and transparent about health care reform.

Do we trust the government not to torture captives in the war on terror? Do we trust the government to protect individuals over protecting big businesses? Do we trust the government to not violate our civil rights? Do we trust the government to fairly collect taxes? Do we trust the government to be honest with us? I don’t care if the government is run by Bush, Clinton, Regan, Carter, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Truman, Lincoln, or Obama it has proven itself over and over again not to be trusted. Our forefathers divided the government’s powers, put limits on the government not the people, created a bill of rights, and warned us not to trust government, even the one they created.

The fact that the Democrat leaders don’t want either the congress and senate to be able to review the entirety of health care reform, nor to allow the people to see what they are doing, should be enough for every person to be up in arms. What has the government ever done to deserve such trust that we should let them just take over everybody in the nation’s health care? How can any rational thinking person examining the facts and then trust the same government that purchases $600 hammers to oversee the entirety of health care in the US?

The Ant and the Grasshopper

Consider Æsop’s timeless fable.

Æsop. (Sixth century B.C.) Fables.
The Harvard Classics. 1909–14.

“The ant and the grasshopper”

In a field one summer’s day a Grasshopper was hopping about, chirping and singing to its heart’s content. An Ant passed by, bearing along with great toil an ear of corn he was taking to the nest.

“Why not come and chat with me,” said the Grasshopper, “instead of toiling and moiling in that way?”

“I am helping to lay up food for the winter,” said the Ant, “and recommend you to do the same.”

“Why bother about winter?” said the Grasshopper; “we have got plenty of food at present.” But the Ant went on its way and continued its toil. When the winter came the Grasshopper had no food, and found itself dying of hunger, while it saw the ants distributing every day corn and grain from the stores they had collected in the summer. Then the Grasshopper knew:
“It is best to prepare for the days of necessity."

Like all Æsop’s fables this one as a timeless lesson that used to be taught to our children routinely. In terms of modern liberal philosophy, how does this fable compare? How does this fable compare to traditional American values? Here are some moral and ethical questions that can be applied to the Ant and the Grasshopper.

  • Is the ant being greedy?
  • Is it “fair” that the grasshopper didn’t have a share of the corn?
  • Is there a moral obligation for the ant to feed the grasshopper?
  • Should the ant be punished for having such wealth?
  • Should the grasshopper have been forced to work?
  • Who is responsible for taking care of the grasshopper?
  • Whose fault is it that the grasshopper starves?
  • Is it morally acceptable to use force to redistribute the ant family wealth regardless of the wishes of the ants?

    How does Æsop’s fable compare to today’s healthcare debate? Should the 97% of citizens who have health care or can be taken care of through existing government means, have to provide health care to the 3% who don’t.
  • Monday, October 26, 2009

    Publicly Legitimate Ideas

    The left clearly sees that using civil discourse to debating their ideas is not working. They no longer want to allow individuals to use logic, reason, history, nor their own personal experience, life goals, and dreams to judge the ideas. They find when having to debate their ideas openly and honestly, they are not garnering enough support. It seems people actually want to be able to advance themselves in voluntary exchange of goods and services, and don't really want the government to do more than keep a fair playing field for everybody. The people threw out the corporatism of the Republicans (they certainly aren't conservative), because rather than a level playing field the Republicans have been working towards offering big corporation unfair advantages in the free market.

    The pesky constitution keeps getting in the way of liberals. Although he can't outright jail or imprison those who don't agree with him, Obama both directly and through his administration is attacking anybody who doesn't agree with him. This is hardly the open and honest debate he promised, but then lying and obfuscation has been his pattern since long before he was elected.

    Members of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) beat senseless protestors because they didn't follow the liberal line, and what did the health care chairman of the SEIU do about it? He denounced conservative "terrorist tactics" aimed at derailing debate on healthcare. What the Hell! It’s OK for SEIU members to beat people who don’t agree with them because being a peaceful protestor, if you’re not liberal, is now defined as a terrorist.

    Rush who is decidedly not a libertarian, and definitely not a liberal, has on occasion been critical of the ideas of those who may be considered left of center. He is also somewhat critical of the Obama administration. Rush has a little 3 hour radio show in the afternoons where he exercises his first amendment right and expresses his ideas. He's been doing so for around 20 years and I hear has been able to sell commercials for his broadcasts and done fairly well. His success is based on people freely choosing to listen to his ideas. Liberals don’t like his ideas so in communist authoritarian style, they have attacked him with made up quotes and lies about what he said, and using those to defame him, and have succeeded in denying him the right to purchase partial ownership in a private business. So you are no longer allowed to purchase a part of a business if you express your opinion and the left doesn't agree with it.

    Harvard business school professor Rosabeth Moss Kanter justifies the depiction of tea partiers as racist buffoons because they are enemies of America. Kanter in Politico writes, "President Obama is marginalizing not just his enemies but those of the American people. He is attacking organizations standing in the way of progress toward reforming health care or cleaning up the conditions that led to the financial crisis. He is putting on notice advocates of greed - instead of the greater good - that they no longer have public legitimacy."

    Aren’t America's enemies Islamofascists, people who would force Islamic law on everybody, who have called for the destruction of America? Aren’t our enemies those people who would silence free speech, and take away our unalienable rights? According to liberals American citizens who disagree with the president or the government elite are now the enemies of America. The ideas of the left can't win in reasoned debate and civil discourse so they simply declare any idea that is contrary to their agenda as not having "public legitimacy". Just try and ask Nancy Pelosi to constitutionally justify the Democrat’s health care legislation, “are you serious”. You see questions like that are not legitimate.

    The liberal agenda appears to be ending free enterprise and individual achievement and consolidate power in the hands of elite leaders. So to further their agenda, they are now working as hard as they can at silencing opposition, attacking the individuals and groups who don't agree with them, rather than debate the merits of their agenda. Liberals have found that they cannot honestly debate and compete based on ideas. Violence is OK, dismissing and degrading those who don't agree is OK, denying people there rights is OK, as long as the violence, and attacks and violated rights are not liberal. If you’re a libertarian your really in trouble, as the ideas expressed by libertarians, ideas for liberty, and personal responsibility, are ideas liberals cannot tolerate and liberal leaders will not debate and if possible will not even allow others to hear. You see libertarians believe that in a free society, as long as an individual’s choice doesn’t infringe upon the rights of another, individuals are free to choose what’s best for them, and if an individual chooses poorly others are not forced to pay for that poor choice. That is an idea that the left has worked decades to silence, and cannot tolerate or allow to re-ignite, as it would put power pack to the states and the people, which is antithetical to their obvious goals.

    Obama Administration Caught in Another Lie

    The Obama administration is verify ably lying to us.

    The Bureau of Economic Analysis has determined that the GDP for the first three quarters was a negative (Q1 -1.1%, Q2 -3.3%, Q4 -3.9%) Economic growth was non existent and the economy has contracted for the first three quarters this year.

    President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, headed by Christina Romer,on Oct 22, said Thursday that the $194 billion already spent from the $787 billion economic stimulus gave a jolt to the economy. Noting that it contributed to growth in the second and third quarters of the year.

    How does a decrease of over 3% in GDP in the second and third quarters translate into economic growth or a "Jolt" to the economy?

    Romer also said that so far spending has saved or created 600,000 to 1.5 million jobs. Tell that to the 15 million workers unemployed. Unemployment has climbed to 9.8%, the bureau of Labor Statistics reports show that 2.7 million jobs have been lost since the stimulus was passed. No matter how you slice it there is no way the administration can say the spending has saved or created a million jobs. Again Obama lies.

    Anybody who still has faith or trust in Obama and his administration, is blind to reality.

    Saturday, October 24, 2009

    Does the Constitution Matter?

    If a person not purchasing a product or service can be regulated under the interstate commerce clause, then there any limits to what the federal government can do, and our constitutional republic is dead. If the government can force individuals to purchase health insurance because by not doing so they might become a burdon on society, then can't they be able to force women who get pregnant to marry the father, because by not doing so their fatherless children may become a burdon on society?

    Obviously the constitution prohibits the government from forcing people to get married. But what is obvious to just about any person who has read our constitution, that the federal government has specific limited powers, is beyond the our currently elected leaders.

    When Asked Where the Constitution Authorizes Congress to Order Americans To Buy Health Insurance, Pelosi Says: 'Are You Serious?'

    Obviously the Speaker of the House, Democrat, doesn't think that the constitutionally of laws enacted by the house are serious.

    Nancy Pelosi responded to written follow-up questions from CNSNews.com with email stating the authority to mandate that people purchase health insurance from its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce. So if an individual chooses not to purchase a product or service that choice not to do something can be regulated by interstate commerce?

    Sen. Leahy said that "nobody" questions that Congress has the authority to force Americans to buy health insurance, Republican members of the Senate Finance Committee did question whether Congress had that authority when the health-care bill was being debated in their committee. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah) tried to offer an amendment that would expedite judicial review of the bill were it enacted, but was ruled out of order, because that wasn't a pervue of the finance committee.

    On Oct. 1 when trying to offer his amendment in the committee Hatch said, "If we have the power simply to order Americans to buy certain products, why did we need a Cash-for-Clunkers program or the upcoming program providing rebates for purchasing energy appliances? We could simply require Americans to buy certain cars, dishwashers or refrigerators."

    Obviously the Democrates don't care about the constitutionality of the laws they are making. Obama in an august town hall meeting noted that the Constitution was a "problem" to inacting major reforms. The Republicans are spineless and only stand up for whatever corporation is lining there pockets. We the people by electing people who regularly ignore the limits our constitution has put on them, and by not holding them accountable have thrown our our constitutional republic.

    How does my decision not to put a lawyer on retainer effect interstate commerce? How does my decision not to purchase a winter coat effect interstate commerce? How does my decision not to purchase a bottle of Jack Daniel's Old No. 7 Whiskey effect interstate commerce?

    I'm trying to figure out how me sitting on the deck in my back yard enjoying a cool fall evening, not doing anything, affects interstate commerce.

    Thursday, October 22, 2009

    Yet again, more evidence Obama is a Marxist.

    I may have been wrong in previous articles, calling Obama a fascist. It appears as though he is using fascist methods to achieve communist goals.

    In and August town hall meeting Obama noted that the Constitution was a "problem" in implementing big changes. It's that pesky bill of rights, and limited specifically delineated federal powers keeps getting in his way.

    Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom the press. So unlike Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Castro and Chavez he cannot eliminate media that he doesn't like. Fox news isn't on the Obama cheerleading team unlike the majority of OldSchool media, so he's declared them not to be a "news network".

    It seemed as though the media were the adversaries of government, it leaned left but didn't overtly try to promote and protect any specific political party or movement. Now NPR, CBS, ABC, NBC, NYT, and the rest of the alpabet media are now just the mouth piece of Obama.

    The Media used to be watch dogs of government. Only after being foced did the alphabet media cover:

  • the Green Czar is a self proclaimed communist.
  • ACORN (where BHO got started) has been aiding and abetting child prostitution
  • White House Communications Director Anita Dunn, who told graduating high school seniors that one of her "favorite philosophers" is the mass murderer Mao.
  • Dunn boasted that during the campaign that the Obama people "controlled" the news media.
    There is a lot more to list but you get the point, it's not a failure to vet if a significant portion of your advisors are communist, or idolize communist leaders.

    Fox news is doing the job the broadcast networks and big newspapers should be doing if they weren't deeply in the pockets of this president. Because of this they are treated the way dictators who desire control over the flow of information treat the press in communist countries.

    Obviously there are topics and information that the Obama administration doesn't want the public to be talking about or know about. I can only surmise that if Fox news was not effective at exposing the Obama administration, bringing to the people topics and facts the Obama administration wishes the public wasn't talking about or even aware, the Obama administration wouldn’t be attacking them. If it weren't for that pesky constitution which is a "problem" to making big changes in society, the Fox news network would probably be gone. It worked for Castro.

    None of the other networks have commentators that actually talk about the constitutionality of Obama policies and ideas. None of the other networks challenge Obama on anything. Maybe that's why Fox news is flat out kicking the other networks collective asses in ratings and viewership.

    Obama is acting very much like communist dictators trying to control the media so that the people only hear what the governments wants them to hear. Attacks on Fox and any media that don't support Obama are examples of the communist attitudes and beliefs of the Obama administration. Notice that the Obama administration is attacking the messenger, and not addressing the issues brought by Fox and the non cheerleading media.

    I think the problem is that if they told the truth, the people would be up in arms, and when they lie they get caught. So if you can't tell the truth, and you can't lie, you attack the messenger to avoid the discussion. Or better yet take over the media, internet, etc. and keep from having your actions and ideology exposed, and the discussion from ever happening.
  • Tuesday, October 20, 2009

    Obama Admin does something right!

    Damn, Damn, Damn, Damn, Obama deserves credit.
    Federal drug agents won't pursue pot-smoking patients or their sanctioned suppliers in states that allow medical marijuana, under new legal guidelines to be issued Monday by the Obama administration. Two Justice Department officials described the new policy to The Associated Press, saying prosecutors will be told it is not a good use of their time to arrest people who use or provide medical marijuana in strict compliance with state law.

    OK it’s not legalizing pot or ending the failed war on drugs but it is a step in the right direction. I have give credit where credit is due. The Obama administration is moving in the right direction on this one.

    Government Help

    The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.' ~ Ronald Regan

    LBG started a program in the 60's called the "Great Society". It was supposed to help the poor. Its cost trillions more than estimated.

    In an OPED piece today, Cal Thomas asked: "Did we have fewer poor people before government stepped in to "cure" poverty? Do we have fewer now?"

    The government acting with good intentions in trying to help the poor but the results can be clearly seen in Walter Williams documentary Good Intentions (click to watch) based on his book State Against Blacks (1982). Literacy, wages, and hope are all much worse for our poor than before government help.

    The current attempt in Washington is to force health care reform down the throats of Americans, even when all the polls show that the majority of us don't want it. I believe most in Washington are doing this because of "good intentions". My question is why are they not even trying to talk about getting people out of poverty so that they can afford health care? Could it be because the government’s actions to reduce poverty can clearly be proven to have increased poverty?

    The government's actions to promote home ownership resulted in Fanny and Freddie bringing the entire banking industry to its knees.

    "No Child Left Behind", a program to assure that all children get a good education, as resulted in the same or worse performance for poor students, and the degradation of education for advanced students. This program is better translated as "No Child Get's Ahead". Unable to bring lower level children up to advanced children, it has resulted in bringing advanced and average level children down.

    Government was established to protect the rights of individuals, so that based on their own natural abilities are not suppressed by others in their pursuit of happiness. It was not established to make sure everybody had the same riches, education. It was not established to take care of every individual, but to promote the general welfare, so that all individuals could succeed or fail on their own. Instead we have a government that is in bed with big-money big-corporations doing its best to make sure that nobody has more than the poorest of us. It punishes those who excel with higher taxes, and special protections for big business. It's create a system of "Corporatism" not free enterprise, and no longer cares about or protects the rights of individuals.

    The unintended consequences of the good intentions of our government has resulted in more poor, more people dependent upon the government, more difficulty in starting your own business, more difficulty in getting ahead, a virtual nanny state. History has repeatedly demonstrated that the more government provides, the less freedom and liberty we have. The unintended consequences of the government taking over health care will not be better health care for all, but less health care for most, and minimal health care for those who have none.

    You know the old joke’s punch line “I’m from the Government and I’m here to Help You”. All the jokes that use that as a punch line are funny because of the truth in the fact that when the government helps things always get worse. Ask yourself why our leaders in congress are exempting themselves from the healthcare plan they have designed and required for the rest of us? If they don't believe it's in their own best interest, why do you think it's in your best interest?

    Monday, October 19, 2009

    What are They Trying to Hide?

    Why don't Pelosi and company want to allow the people of this country to be able to read what they are planning before it's voted on?

    Brian Baird (D-Wash) introduced HR 554 on June 17. This is the law that would require a 72-hour reading period for all non-emergency legislation before a vote by the House of Representatives.

    Since HR 554 is stuck in committee G. Walden (R-Ore) has started a discharge petition to force a House floor vote on the resolution, it has only 182 of the required 218 signatures, to force a vote on HR 554.

    What are the "elite" leaders in Washington trying to hide?

    Obama promised open honest debates on CSPAN concerning health care, and 5 days before signing bills so people could express their opinions before they become law.

    What are the "elite" leaders in Washington trying to hide?

    Why such a rush, from what has been leaked out of the health care bills, nothing really happens until 1013 (after Obama starts his second term - if elected again). Obviously waiting a few days will make no difference.

    What are the "elite" leaders in Washington trying to hide?


    I urge you to write, call, fax, email, or personally go to your representatives in Washington and ask them why they won't allow the people to read what they are doing before they vote on it, or more importantly, allow enough time for your representative and/or their staff to read proposed legislation themselves. They must me trying to hide something. What? and Why?

    I would like to have the open and honest government Pelosi promised, more important the open and honest government Obama promised, isn't that why you voted for him?

    Sunday, October 18, 2009

    Sr. Citizens are Whiney Brats

    This blog has tended to make a lot of people mad over the past, mostly liberals, but not always, law and order conservatives got real mad over my Prohibition article.

    I will now make Sr. Citizens mad as well. They are whiney little brats. They are up in arms over not getting an annual cost of living increase to their social security checks. They think they are entitled to a raise just for living another year. They are not.

    The fact is the Consumer Price Index has dropped by 2.1 percent. There won't be a raise to offset inflation for the simple reason that there has been no inflation to offset. So in the coming year, Social Security payments will stay the same and be worth more than they used to be.

    Why the gripe from AARP and company? Retirees have a real good deal, the get more money when prices rise, but they don't have to give any of it back when prices fall.

    We wouldn't be having this discussion if Social Security was privatized, instead of doled out as another government program used to try and control "we the people".

    Their whine has been successful. Obama and Co. with both the Democans and Republicrats are trying to bribe senior citizens with a $250 dollar payment.

    Wednesday, October 14, 2009

    Fundamental Questions

    Here are some fundamental philosophical questions that I'm curious as to other peoples opinions.

    1) Are rights "unalienable" or are they privileges granted by the government?

    2) Should laws and rights insure equal treatment or equal outcome?

    3) Do groups have rights that supercede individual rights?

    4) Do individuals have the right to the labor or property of other individuals by means of force?

    5) At what point does an individual have the right to use force against another individual?

    6) Should the "rule of law" be applied to everybody equally, or does "might make right"?

    7) Does society have the right to force individuals to be charitable?

    8) Is there a right for individuals to use force to protect themselves, their family and their property?

    9) Obedience to the Government
  • Should all laws be obeyed?
  • Is civil disobedience justifiable?
  • Should jury's be allowed to acquit the accused if they believe the Law is unjust?

    10) Knowing that you could lose your life, be injured, or imprisoned:
  • Would you fight to protect your basic rights and liberty?
  • Would you send your child to fight for basic rights and liberty?
  • What rights would you fight for?
  • What rights would you abandon before fighting for?
  • US Constitution vs. Chicago

    Eric Allie's cartoon sums up the upcoming Supreme Court case concerning Chicago's stance people having the means to protect themselves.

    What part of "shall not be infringe", doesn't Chicago get. SCOTUS case District of Columbia v. Heller, where the desenting opinion of Justice Breyer states:
    I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes: (1) The Amendment protects an "individual" right -i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred.

    Where can the Public get Honest Answers?

    John Hawkins in an oped piece today LINK listed 20 questions journalists should be asking Obama. These are questions the American people should have honest answers. Don't hold your Breath?

    These questions are all directed to President B.H. Obama, they are:
    1) Back in 2008, you said that "Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." Surging electricity rates would seem to be a bad thing under almost any circumstances, but given the state of the economy today, why do you think it's necessary to see electricity costs dramatically escalate?

    2) Even before the stimulus bill, the CBO predicted the economy would recover in the 2nd half of this year. Since we're already getting to the point where the economy is on track to recover if there had been no stimulus at all, doesn't that mean the stimulus was a waste of money?

    3) Since spending for Social Security and Medicare have gotten so large and out-of-control that it's imperiling our nation's financial future, can we really afford another massive new government health care program that has the potential to eventually dwarf both of them combined in cost?

    4) Even your own economic team is predicting that you will run large deficits throughout your entire presidency -- even if you serve two terms. Given the size of our debt and the nervousness about it around the world, couldn't that policy have frightening economic implications for our country?

    5) You've been publicly advocating allowing people who are in the country illegally to remain here and in many cases, start on the path towards citizenship. Setting aside how good of an idea that is in any case, why do you support a policy like that when the unemployment rate is 9.8% and every job held by an illegal means one more American will be out of work?

    6) Your administration has been fond of saying that you've "created or saved" jobs. Aren't those numbers made-up and completely unverifiable?

    7) When do you anticipate having the government completely out of GM and Chrysler?

    8) Doesn't the special treatment that unions have gotten in the bailout of GM and Chrysler smack of favoritism and political corruption?

    9) You've imposed certain limits on executive pay. Do you think we should have limits on what actors can make? How about lawyers? Union heads? Musicians? How about how much money someone should be able to make from speaking fees or book royalties?

    10) Can you discuss the role you played at ACORN and whether you believe they should be able to receive any federal funds given the enormous ethical problems in that organization that have recently come to light?

    11) Aren't you trying to get around the "advise and consent" clause in the Constitution by hiring so many czars?

    12) Isn't it true that many of your czars have such controversial backgrounds that they couldn't have been confirmed, even by a heavily Democratic Congress?

    13) So far, you have signed a number of bills that no one in Congress has read before they were signed. Do you think a member of Congress is being irresponsible if he signs onto a bill without reading it or at minimum, having a member of his staff read it?

    14) Would you be willing to publicly ask your supporters to stop accusing people who disagree with your policies of being racist?

    15) You have harshly criticized George Bush for putting prisoners at Gitmo. However, closing the facility turned out to be much tougher than you thought it would be and now, you are not on pace to meet your goal to close it within a year. Do you now believe your criticism of George Bush over the issue was misguided?

    16) Given your lack of accomplishments on the world stage, shouldn't you have refused to accept the Nobel Peace Prize?

    17) Many people fear that Manuel Zelaya is a wannabe dictator who was and is still trying to subvert the democratic process in Honduras. He appears to have been thrown out of office in accordance with the Constitution of that nation and moreover, he would have been term limited out of office in November. Why is it important to your administration that Honduras risk its democracy to reinstall Manuel Zelaya as president?

    18) Our allies in Eastern Europe feel, with more than a little justification, that we have betrayed them and abandoned them to the Russians by refusing to build out our missile defense program in their countries. At this point, nobody seems to know what you got in return for this. So, what did we gain from Russia in return for throwing our Eastern European friends to the wolves?

    19) Iran seems to be slowly, but steadily moving towards building nuclear weapons. Were Iran to acquire nukes, it would lead to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, a dangerous conflict with Israel, and it could potentially lead to terrorist groups acquiring nuclear weapons. Yet, so far, you seem to be doing nothing of significance to stop Iran. Are you still willing to publicly guarantee that you will do whatever it takes to stop Iran from getting nukes?

    20) Time and time again on the campaign trail, you talked about the importance of the fight in Afghanistan. Now, when your general in charge of the country is telling you what he needs to win, you seem to be wavering on giving it to him. Was all your talk about getting the job done in Afghanistan just a cynical political strategy?

    I would add one more.

    Where is the open and honest debate on healthcare to be televised on CNN as you promised during your campain?

    Thursday, October 8, 2009

    What is a Citizen?

    What is a citizen?
    Or what does it mean to be a good citizen?

    These are questions not asked much by schools or society anymore. The answers to these questions used to be part of the fabric of America. Post-modern answers aren’t the same as just a couple generations ago.

    In 1902 Teddy Roosevelt said this about citizenship: "The first requisite of a good citizen in this Republic of ours is that he shall be able and willing to pull his weight." Obviously Teddy didn’t have much of a “victim” mentality.

    Researching citizenship, and trying to find what made a good citizen, I kept ending up with references to the Boy Scouts. I was a Boy Scout so that is part of what shaped me. Traditionally what it means to be a good citizen was and is hammered into Boy Scouts. The stuff scouts had to memorize, their Oath, Law, and Motto, are the basis of a good citizen.

    Scout Oath:
    On my honor, I will do my best
    To do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law;
    To help other people at all times;
    To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight.

    Scout Law:
    A Scout is: Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, and Reverent.

    Scout Motto:
    Be prepared!

    Obviously if we all acted and took seriously what Boy Scouts strive for we'd live in a more charitable nicer place. If we look closely at the Scout Oath, Duty is important. What should a citizen’s duty to their county be? I think that it is to be charitable to their fellow man. A citizen should first exercise charity by training himself to be self-reliant in ordinary things, not out of pride, but out of a sincere desire to free others up for their own duties, and to free himself for things that are not ordinary.

    One of the best, if not the best, compliment I ever got was when I changed the tire for a mature lady who had a flat (pre cell phones). About 9pm heading home I saw her on the side of the road, stopped and changed the flat, her car wouldn’t start because she’d been sitting there with her lights on and the battery was almost dead. I got out the jumper cables and got her started and on her way (total time at side of road for me was around 10 min, tire and jump). When it was all done she offered me a couple bucks, which I declined. She then said, “You were a Boy Scout, I can always tell. Thank you.”

    I said “Yes maam, how’d you know?” She replied, “Because you followed Scout motto and were prepared for all my problems, not just your own, and you were following the Scout Oath, “helping others at all times”, and you were “Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, and Cheerful”. I’ll bet you already have or will demonstrate the rest before the day is over. All my boys were scouts; it helped to make them good men just like you.”

    When I was in high school they taught AVC (Americanism vs. Communism), by the time I graduated the course was replaced with CPS (Comparative Political Systems), you had to take history, civics, and AVC. Now all that is required is American History and a ½ semester of Economics. You can graduate high school and not have ever discussed the facts behind anarchy, despotism, socialism, communism, fascism, and capitalism. Much less understand them. The term “free enterprise” is never uttered nor critically compared to the alternatives. Sorry, but our current system of corporatism is not free enterprise.

    Our schools now teach that the government grants rights.( LINK) Our Leaders tell us that people who are self sufficient (read that as tax payers) got there by luck not hard work and effort, implying it is only prejudice and circumstance that keeps people from being independent. Our schools are burdened with "No Child Left Behind", meaning that no child can get ahead. Our government rewards bad citizens, and punishes good citizens. The leaders in Washington call those who would hold them accountable, luddites and worse.

    A traditional belief in citizenship, and the meaning of liberty should be taught in our schools. More importantly questions like these:

    Is a good citizen dependent upon their neighbors to provide for their food?
    Is a good citizen dependent upon their neighbors to provide for their housing?
    Is a good citizen dependent upon their neighbors to provide for their protection?
    Is a good citizen dependent upon their neighbors to provide for their health care?
    Is a good citizen dependent upon their neighbors to provide for their retirement?
    What does your neighbor owe you? Why?

    Obviously the answer to all of the above is no, and just as obviously at some time may good citizens will need the help of family and neighbors temporarily. No good citizen would accept or be dependent upon their neighbors for their food, housing, protection, health care, all the time. A good citizen will voluntarily care for his neighbors, especially those who can’t do for themselves, like orphans, widows, etc. A good citizen like a good Boy Scout will be prepared; will have storm supplies, to provide for himself and his family in time of natural disaster; will have either adequate savings, or insurance to cover health, and other emergencies; will work and do all that he can to not be a burden to his neighbors; will help his community when it is in need; will stay informed on issues, vote, and make sure his leaders know what he wants; will not leave politics to so called “experts”. Lastly a good citizen will have the means to protect himself, his family, and those who can’t protect themselves.

    If we could instill the basic beliefs that the Boy Scouts strive, into every person we would have a much better place to live. We can’t, people are not inherently good, they don’t “help other people at all times” nor can they be forced to. But failing to educate our children what a good citizen is, teaching them that the government gives them rights, not holding people accountable for their actions nor ever letting them suffer for the bad decisions they make, is a failure of good citizenship on us all.

    Tools to "Teach" Citizenship

    Why so many are upset about our education system.

    Here is an example of teaching aids from EdHelper.org, an example of how citizenship is taught in the USA LINK

    Being a Good Citizen
    By Phyllis Naegeli

    1 What is a citizen? If you were born in the United States, you are a citizen. That means you are a member of our country. Sometimes people who are not born here want to become citizens. They do this by asking the government to make them a citizen. This is called naturalization.

    2 When you are a citizen you have rights. Rights are special privileges the government gives you. In our country, you have free speech. You are also given the right to choose a religion. In America, the press is free to tell you what is happening in the world. The Bill of Rights lists the freedoms given to citizens. These rights are very important. Many people in the world do not have freedoms like we do.

    3 Because the government gives us rights, we have the duty to be good citizens. But, what does it mean to be a good citizen? How can you be a part of giving back for the freedom you have?

    A right is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others. The concept of a right carries with it an implicit, unstated footnote: you may exercise your rights as long as you do not violate the same rights of another—within this context, rights are an absolute.
    Since when did rights become "special privileges the government gives you"?

    Forget what the Declaration Of Independence says, Forget what the Constitution says, Forget what the Federalist Papers said about what the constitution means.

    Our schools are teaching our children that the Government grants rights, therefore you have a Duty to the government.

    Kids can and do get through high school without ever reading the Declaration of independence. They are taught and believe that the Government gives them rights, and that the Government has power over individuals, not that the government is grated very limited powers from the people for specific purposes.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

    Not being taught these words and what they mean it's no wonder the young people today don't understand Liberty. They don't even understand the fact that We the People not the government have the power and authority. That we created a constitution so that, the people, not the government, are in control of our own lives.

    The people established a constitution that gives the government a few distinct and limited powers. Not that the government has all the power and gives rights to the people.

    The preamble establishes why and what kind of government we wanted.

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    How do we ever expect this experiment in liberty called the United States of America is to ever survive, if we are teaching our children that rights are gifts of the government and not unalienable?

    Brain Farts

    This is a bunch of random musings from reading the news today that has come to mind.

    Obama is the "Leader" of the USA, he promised transparency in government. Why doesn't he ask the legislature to allow the people to see the healthcare bill before it's voted on?

    Obama in earlier times publicly and privately associated himself with people who have professed to hate the USA; Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Father Pfleger, etc. Obama's biggest international fans are Chavez, Castro, Qaddafi, and Putin (well they all publicly praise him). These same international Obama fans can arguably be the biggest enemies of freedom and democracy in the world. Obama's wife actually said she was ashamed of the USA (until her hubby was nominated for Pres.). Pres. Obama himself said that the "Constitution was a problem" in implementing big changes. Obama himself says he doesn't want to hear from those who oppose his views. Why when anybody adds up all the facts and says Obama is against the individual liberty, individual rights, the US Constitution, and the American Dream, they are called alarmist, racist, dumb, etc. ? Are liberals afraid of the truth? Why not say they are for Big-Government Corporatism, and reduced rights for individuals?

    Oliver Wendell Holmes said, ""Think things, not words." In words, many see a need for "social justice" to override "the dictates of the market." In reality, what is called "the market" consists of human beings making their own choices at their own cost. What is called "social justice" is government imposition of the notions of third parties, who pay no price for being wrong."

    What happened to open debate on health care on CSPAN like Obama promised?

    The Nanny State is here. In Philly, principal's not parents are now responsible for making sure kids get breakfast. LINK This is the problem with our society, nobody is held responsible for their choices they make in their own lives, parents aren't responsible for their kids, the government is now responsible to take care of us. Just like when you are a kid, your parents are responsible for you can tell you what to do, you have no say, as a society if we are no longer responsible for ourselves then the whoever is responsible can and will tell us what to do, regardless of what we want. Think Mayor Bloomberg, who has made it illegal to cook with lard, smoke in the park, and is spending $24million to add more cameras to monitor everybody in midtown.

    I loved this one liner from Thomas Sowell - "The older I get, the more I learn to tolerate human shortcomings-- and the less I tolerate bad attitudes."

    Questions neither republicans nor Democrats will answer.
  • What party actually stands for Liberty?
  • What party believes in individualism, self-determination, and autonomy?
  • Why should corporations get tax breaks that individuals are not allowed?

    One of the major points form a new book on leadership, Master Leaders, by George Barna is that candor and transparency are characteristics of successful organizations and companies. Obama talked about and promised transparency during his campaign, but his actions are anything but candid and transparent. The obvious failure of his stimulus, failure of auto and bank bailouts, and failure to keep the jobless rate from going over 8.8% are evident. Although charismatic he is demonstrably not a leader.

    What is Obama's vision for America and why hasn't he clearly articulated it?
  • Tuesday, October 6, 2009

    Healthcare PSA

    W.C. Fields Had it Right

    An independent tax commission in California has analyzed the state's tax sources. In the Golden State 144,000 people pay 1/2 of all state income taxes. With a population of 36,757,000 (2008), that makes 36,613,000 people dependent upon 144,000. When the state of California is dependent upon 0.4% of it's population to provide 50% of it's revenue there is a problem. It some of that 0.4% of the population decides to take their money and go to another state like say, Nevada, which has not income taxes, then California loses a significant amount of revenue.

    Such a small tax base has lead California to become bankrupt. Because people have the constitutional right to move from state to state, you can, and do, see people moving from high to low tax states. Florida, has increased it's property taxes to the point that people are leaving for the first time in history. NY is now famous for famous rich people leaving. I wonder why when Intel expanded it didn't do so in Silicon Valley but did so in Colorado Springs? I think saving millions of dollars every year on your income taxes may have been a reason.

    The prime example is Detroit, which doesn't even have a single new car dealership from any of the Big 3 automakers anymore, or for that matter any new car dealerships at all. A city with a population of around 1 million people and not a single new car dealership. "MotorCity", the home of the modern automobile, has ZERO new car dealerships while in little ol' Citrus County Florida with a population of 140,000 you can find 8 new car dealerships. It makes no sense to open a profitable business in these hi-tax regions of the USA when there are other regions where you are allowed to keep what you earn.

    The entrepreneurs cannot and will not pay more in taxes, they can and will move their business and investments to where they can make money and provide jobs. Who would invest in something when they know that 1/2 of all they earn will be taken away in taxes? The cost/benefit ratio is not there.

    We currently have liberals in congress and the white house, not because the people of this country voted for liberals and wanted their policies but because the people voted against what we had. As W. C. Fields put it "Hell, I never vote for anybody, I always vote against."

    We cannot give everybody health care, and do all the "change" Obama has promised and only tax those who make more than $250K. It is not possible, as there is not enough money available to tax by people making more than $250K, and if they are taxed more they will change their behavior so that they either make less than $250K or go to where they are not taxed so much. Rewarding bad behavior (being dependent upon the government or somebody else to take care of you), and punishing good behavior (working hard to provide for yourself), will result in more people dependent upon the government for their livelihood, and less people actually working and generating wealth. This is a recipe for disaster.

    Unfortunately Obama and company are basing their actions on another famous W. C. Fields quote “If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.”