By Tom Rhodes, 5/31/2011
The Obama/ Progressive theory of exploitation can be summed up in this quote by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, "white folks' greed runs a world in need." No new thought here, according to Dr. Thomas Sowell this explanation of economic and other differences is among the oldest, and most factually discredited, explanations of such difference among all sorts of peoples in all sorts of places. Yet it is an explanation that has long been politically seductive, in countries around the world.
This idea has mass appeal, and satisfies an emotional need, to place the blame on others who have done better in the world for your not having done as well. It however runs contrary to history, and is an antithesis to the founding of the United States of America.
There is deep emotional appeal to this idea, and the plethora of evil deeds from every facet of society provides ample ammunition to support virtually any ideology which blames other people’s sins for their problems. This notion that the poor are poor because the rich have earned their riches on the backs of the poor is an ideological theme that plays well to the uneducated in Third World countries to explain why they lag so far behind the West.
Today and for the past couple of centuries, western culture dominates success compared to other cultures. This produces an image of rich European white people and poor non-white people. Many so called progressives try to blame this on race, and racial oppression. It completely ignores the fact that over human history this has not been the case. Northern white Europeans lagged far behind Eastern, Mediterranean and Middle Eastern cultures for centuries. As Dr. Sowell notes, “In a wider view of history, however, it becomes clear that for centuries before the European ascendancy, Europe lagged far behind China in many achievements. Since neither of them changed much genetically between those times and the later rise of Europe, it is hard to reconcile this role reversal with racial theories.”
We would all laugh at the idea if Europe of a few centuries ago blamed its relative poorness on China’s relative wealth. Europeans changed their culture, from a doggedly feudal society, with virtually no rights of individuals, and regular abuse by a few ruling elite to a more liberal society, which acknowledged individual rights. Expanding on notions like Rule of Law, and Equality Under the Law, and Property Rights. This ideology eventually lead to the end of acceptance of slavery, civil rights. This expansion of rights, lead to huge increases in wealth for most of Western civilization. It cannot be reasonably argued that the standard of living for the vast majority of people in western civilization is not superior to that of what is now considered Third World civilization.
Obama and other elitists, rather than try to promote the ideology and actions that created such vast wealth for such a huge segment of the world, insist upon using the old, disproven, but emotionally appealing notion that those who are prosperous got their by suppressing others.
“Exploitation” theory cannot be reconciled with the facts. If this theory were true, the collapse of imperialism, which returned many countries to self rule from former colonial rule by English, French, or Spanish conquerors, should have resulted in increased overall wealth for those countries. Today many Third World countries are poorer and more oppressed now than when they were ruled by Western countries a few generations ago.
For some strange reason Obama and progressive elitists, want to return to rule by a few elite, eliminate both equal protection and rule of law, and institute historically failed socialist ideologies, fostered by the factually disproven but emotionally satisfying “Exploitation” ideology.
Liberalism, now termed libertarianism, was an evolved ideology which lead to more wealth for more people of all types than any ideology in the history of man. Proof of the failure of “Exploitation” theory, can be seen in Dr. Walter Williams old but still relevant video series unintended consequences.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Monday, May 23, 2011
World Borders 2010
The borders of countries today are set for a variety of reasons; all the wars, politics, trading, and history have resulted in the borders we now see. Our President thinks that we should ignore the history of the past 45 years, and roll back borders to 1967. Not a well thought out idea; if we roll back the borders to 1967, does that mean the borders of Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Montenegro, East Germany, and Germany have to revert to the way they were in 1967? If not, then why not? Why should just one country have to ignore all the history of the past 45 years and reset its border?
Why 1967, why not 1959, I'm sure the native Hawaiians want their country back. Of course then Obama would be a Hawaiian not an US Citizen and have to give up his current job.
Why not go back further and give the Bohemians their old borders back. I'm sure the Saxons want their country returned as well. Is it fair that the Kingdoms of Naples don't have their old borders? I'm sure the Vikings miss not having the British Isles in their domain any longer.
Wasn't Israel and all of that area including Egypt once part of Rome? Wasn't Greece once part of the Persian Empire?
Many Japanese might think that early 1942 is where borders should be reset. Of course the people of Korea, Manchuria, Burma, Siam, Indo-China, the Philippines, and New Guinea might not like that, then again, considering today's economy they might. I'm sure Mongolia would like to set the boundaries at around 1264 or so.
History is not something we can ignore. It is also not justification for resetting today's borders to some past borders. Forcing Israel to revert to its 1967 borders is no different than saying the border between North and South Korea should be eliminated. Both ideas ignore the realities that war, politics, and history have done to change those borders. The 1967 Israeli border is no more valid today than are any of the historic former borders of Germany. Future wars, politics, trading, and changes in the people and fabric that creates history will mean that the borders we see today will not be the borders we see tomorrow.
Why 1967, why not 1959, I'm sure the native Hawaiians want their country back. Of course then Obama would be a Hawaiian not an US Citizen and have to give up his current job.
Why not go back further and give the Bohemians their old borders back. I'm sure the Saxons want their country returned as well. Is it fair that the Kingdoms of Naples don't have their old borders? I'm sure the Vikings miss not having the British Isles in their domain any longer.
Wasn't Israel and all of that area including Egypt once part of Rome? Wasn't Greece once part of the Persian Empire?
Many Japanese might think that early 1942 is where borders should be reset. Of course the people of Korea, Manchuria, Burma, Siam, Indo-China, the Philippines, and New Guinea might not like that, then again, considering today's economy they might. I'm sure Mongolia would like to set the boundaries at around 1264 or so.
History is not something we can ignore. It is also not justification for resetting today's borders to some past borders. Forcing Israel to revert to its 1967 borders is no different than saying the border between North and South Korea should be eliminated. Both ideas ignore the realities that war, politics, and history have done to change those borders. The 1967 Israeli border is no more valid today than are any of the historic former borders of Germany. Future wars, politics, trading, and changes in the people and fabric that creates history will mean that the borders we see today will not be the borders we see tomorrow.
Saturday, May 21, 2011
End of the Experiment that was America.
Article I, Section 8, of the US Constitution, clearly gives Congress the authority to declare war. In its wisdom, Congress allowed the president to initiate war action in certain circumstances, defined in the War Powers Act. Section 2(c) instructs the president in the use of War Powers:
"The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."
At the beginning of the U.S. military intervention in Libya, the Obama administration has cited the 1973 War Powers Act as the legal basis of its ability to conduct military activities for 60 days without first seeking a declaration of war from Congress. The military intervention started on March 19; Congress was notified on March 21. Those 60 days expire today.
Any further action by the US Military in Libya is in direct violation of the US Constitution and War Powers Act.
Have no fear, Obama's war will continue, the Rule of Law in the US is dead, Congress has no balls, and there will be no accountability to the Dictator and Chief Obama.
"The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."
At the beginning of the U.S. military intervention in Libya, the Obama administration has cited the 1973 War Powers Act as the legal basis of its ability to conduct military activities for 60 days without first seeking a declaration of war from Congress. The military intervention started on March 19; Congress was notified on March 21. Those 60 days expire today.
Any further action by the US Military in Libya is in direct violation of the US Constitution and War Powers Act.
Have no fear, Obama's war will continue, the Rule of Law in the US is dead, Congress has no balls, and there will be no accountability to the Dictator and Chief Obama.
Monday, May 16, 2011
The Police State of Indiana
On Thursday May 12, 2011 the Indiana Supreme court overturned 800 years of jurisprudence and common law. Dating back to the English Magna Carta, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that the subjects of the State of Indiana have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes. The court stated that if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner has no right to do anything about it, and is guilty of a crime if he attempts or to stop the officer’s entry.
"We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," David said. "We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest."
It’s hard to believe that here in America, the former citizens of Indiana, now the subjects of Indiana, have less rights than did medieval Englishmen. In Indiana a man’s home is no longer his castle. This decision isn't just incorrect, it is a monstrous insult to the Bill of Rights as stated in the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, to the American Revolution, even to the very idea of America itself. The Indiana court had determined that Indiana is a police state. This ruling is a travesty; it is a mockery of the very inspiration which America was created, to claim that this nation, born in violence against the establishment, does not have a right to resist the illegal actions of the establishment in their own homes.
These are the very form and composition of tyranny that resulted in the American Revolution. It was against this very type of tyranny that resulted in the creation of our Declaration of Independence, and our refusal to accept a constitution without the Bill of Rights. I hope and pray that apparent desire of those in power for a police state and control of the masses doesn’t persist. Americans will not tolerate a police state. The increase in police shootings is proof enough. As the police in the US militarize, they are no longer fellow members of the community, working to protect and serve, but now represent Them, an arbitrary government who would arrest a child on weapons charges for binging a plastic knife in her lunch box, and are no longer to be trusted.
The core and fiber of America, from our formation, is summed in what may be our most retold story, the story of the outsider who defeats the elites. America is a unique nation of outsiders. Just look at the theme of most popular movies, from old classics like Mr. Smith goes to Washington (and the various remakes); most of the entire nior genre of films; or the many retellings of the Robin Hood tale; too many westerns to count; Easy Rider; Rocky; the 1983 Coppola hit “The Outsiders”, which launched the carriers of Howell, Macchio, Dillon, Swayze, Estevez, and Cruise, all of whom have made carriers of playing outsiders; to the latest Disney movie “Lemonade Mouth.” You can even include the themes of our most famous comic book superheroes, including; Spiderman, Wolverine, Batman, Blade, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and The X-Men just for starters. Liberals and Socialists want to minimize the “rugged individualist” attitude of Americans, discounting that it is a spirit that runs deep in our veins. From the moment the Pilgrims, who were religious outcasts from the English religious establishment , set foot on Plymouth Rock, soon to become the Massachusetts Bay Colony, the eventual starting point for the actions of the Boston Tea Party, Lexington, Concord and the "shot heard 'round the world" which started the revolution that became the Great American Experiment, America has been the home of Outsiders.
Most Americans consider themselves outsiders are not impressed, nor pay much deference to the establishment. Most of America see the Establishment as snobbish with nothing to be snobbish about, unimaginative and all too frequently incompetent. As Tony Blair said "there is a "quite elemental" force in America that is instinctively anti-Establishment."
The rebellion against insiders who mandate a health care system that reeks of a European welfare state should be of no surprise. The very model of Obamacare, an elite Insider group of alleged health care experts calling the shots on your health care, is not tenable in American culture, because in the American lexicon it translates into some are more equal than others. The rush to exemptions, and exclusion of the government from being forced to participate, and the rash of special privileges granted to the establishment have alone doomed Obamacare to failure. In essence America will not long tolerate anything but Equality Under the Law. Not that the reality our past didn’t suffer slavery, and other heinous discriminations, our history is a long march towards the goal equal treatment for everybody, regardless of any station or circumstance in life.
Paul Ryan accurately described the “The Progressivist vision is to create a new American person who no longer strives to better oneself but accepts one's station in life -- and looks to government to help cope not only with difficulties but with every important personal decision….The passivity this way of living encourages means that most people abandon the right to govern themselves, leaving bureaucratic experts and political leaders in control of every important aspect of individual and social life. “
This vision is not compatible with America. I pray our republic can be saved, but if rulings like that of The Indiana Supreme Court stand I fear it will not. The Indiana Supreme Court’s ruling, put all Hoosiers in a virtual police state, will must not stand, if it remains as such, we may once again hear the outsiders that embody the great majority of Americans utter these immortal words.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government.
"We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," David said. "We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest."
It’s hard to believe that here in America, the former citizens of Indiana, now the subjects of Indiana, have less rights than did medieval Englishmen. In Indiana a man’s home is no longer his castle. This decision isn't just incorrect, it is a monstrous insult to the Bill of Rights as stated in the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, to the American Revolution, even to the very idea of America itself. The Indiana court had determined that Indiana is a police state. This ruling is a travesty; it is a mockery of the very inspiration which America was created, to claim that this nation, born in violence against the establishment, does not have a right to resist the illegal actions of the establishment in their own homes.
These are the very form and composition of tyranny that resulted in the American Revolution. It was against this very type of tyranny that resulted in the creation of our Declaration of Independence, and our refusal to accept a constitution without the Bill of Rights. I hope and pray that apparent desire of those in power for a police state and control of the masses doesn’t persist. Americans will not tolerate a police state. The increase in police shootings is proof enough. As the police in the US militarize, they are no longer fellow members of the community, working to protect and serve, but now represent Them, an arbitrary government who would arrest a child on weapons charges for binging a plastic knife in her lunch box, and are no longer to be trusted.
The core and fiber of America, from our formation, is summed in what may be our most retold story, the story of the outsider who defeats the elites. America is a unique nation of outsiders. Just look at the theme of most popular movies, from old classics like Mr. Smith goes to Washington (and the various remakes); most of the entire nior genre of films; or the many retellings of the Robin Hood tale; too many westerns to count; Easy Rider; Rocky; the 1983 Coppola hit “The Outsiders”, which launched the carriers of Howell, Macchio, Dillon, Swayze, Estevez, and Cruise, all of whom have made carriers of playing outsiders; to the latest Disney movie “Lemonade Mouth.” You can even include the themes of our most famous comic book superheroes, including; Spiderman, Wolverine, Batman, Blade, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and The X-Men just for starters. Liberals and Socialists want to minimize the “rugged individualist” attitude of Americans, discounting that it is a spirit that runs deep in our veins. From the moment the Pilgrims, who were religious outcasts from the English religious establishment , set foot on Plymouth Rock, soon to become the Massachusetts Bay Colony, the eventual starting point for the actions of the Boston Tea Party, Lexington, Concord and the "shot heard 'round the world" which started the revolution that became the Great American Experiment, America has been the home of Outsiders.
Most Americans consider themselves outsiders are not impressed, nor pay much deference to the establishment. Most of America see the Establishment as snobbish with nothing to be snobbish about, unimaginative and all too frequently incompetent. As Tony Blair said "there is a "quite elemental" force in America that is instinctively anti-Establishment."
The rebellion against insiders who mandate a health care system that reeks of a European welfare state should be of no surprise. The very model of Obamacare, an elite Insider group of alleged health care experts calling the shots on your health care, is not tenable in American culture, because in the American lexicon it translates into some are more equal than others. The rush to exemptions, and exclusion of the government from being forced to participate, and the rash of special privileges granted to the establishment have alone doomed Obamacare to failure. In essence America will not long tolerate anything but Equality Under the Law. Not that the reality our past didn’t suffer slavery, and other heinous discriminations, our history is a long march towards the goal equal treatment for everybody, regardless of any station or circumstance in life.
Paul Ryan accurately described the “The Progressivist vision is to create a new American person who no longer strives to better oneself but accepts one's station in life -- and looks to government to help cope not only with difficulties but with every important personal decision….The passivity this way of living encourages means that most people abandon the right to govern themselves, leaving bureaucratic experts and political leaders in control of every important aspect of individual and social life. “
This vision is not compatible with America. I pray our republic can be saved, but if rulings like that of The Indiana Supreme Court stand I fear it will not. The Indiana Supreme Court’s ruling, put all Hoosiers in a virtual police state, will must not stand, if it remains as such, we may once again hear the outsiders that embody the great majority of Americans utter these immortal words.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
The Spirits of Our Forefathers
Not my usual, but it's my blog and I think this is a good read.
The Spirits of Our Forefathers
By Tom Jewett
"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants to see us happy." (Benjamin Franklin)
"Wine is necessary for life." (Thomas Jefferson)
"My manner of living is plain...a glass of wine and a bit of mutton." (George Washington)
The above statements by three of the Founding Fathers reflect the prevailing attitude toward alcohol in the 18th century and throughout much of our country's early existence. Alcohol has played a major role in our nation's history, and its use is a part of our heritage. In colonial times, Americans probably drank more alcohol that in any other era. Spirits were an integral part of daily life throughout the colonies no matter the geographic or economic differences. It was reported that the average American drank eight ounces of alcohol a day. And it didn't matter what. Americans drank beer, and cider with breakfast; rum and wine with dinner; claret, ratafias, creams, punches, and other concoctions in the evening. (Robinson, 2001)
"Revolutionary War era persons drank a phenomenal amount. We have here an account of a gentleman's average consumption: 'Given cider and punch for lunch; rum and brandy before dinner; punch, Madeira, port and sherry at dinner; punch and liqueurs with the ladies; and wine, spirit and punch till bedtime, all in punchbowls big enough for a goose to swim in.'" (As cited in Washington and Kitman, 1970)
There are a number of reasons for all of this tippling. Our English heritage declared that water was bad for a person's health. Given the sanitary standards of the day this was probably true. Beer consumption especially, was seen as a healthy substitute for water. Beer was considered a food, which showed social status (only the most destitute drank water) and allowed for persons to put in a full days work. Franklin while working in a printing house in London was known as the "water American", because of his affinity to water, by his fellow printers who were
"great guzzlers of beer...My companions at the press drank every day a pint before breakfast with his bread and cheese, a pint between breakfast and dinner, a pint in the afternoon about six o'clock, and another when he had done his day's work." (As cited in Barr, 1999)
Americans of the period believed it was particularly healthier to drink lukewarm alcohol during hot weather rather than drink cold water. Signs were displayed at public wells warning individuals of the dangers of cold water during the summer. The rationale for this is that when a person sweated, heat was conducted from the inside of the body. Therefore, the stomach needed warmth, which could be provided by alcohol. (Barr, 1999)
The bias against water was so great that a recent immigrant from Italy, Phillip Massei, caused a stir at a large dinner party where he
"asked for a glass of water. I perceived some confusion among the servants, and the water did not arrive. The host, next to who I sat, whispered in my ear, asking with a smile if I could not drink something else, because the unexpected request for a glass upset the entire household and they did not know what they were about." (As cited in Barr, 1999)
Beer usually replaced water as the daily drink. An early morning tankard of beer was typical in colonial America, even for children. This tradition, as stated earlier, came from England. The Pilgrims loaded more beer than water on the Mayflower. And, there is some evidence that they were put off at Plymouth, rather than Virginia, because the ship's crew wished to make sure they had enough beer to consume on the return voyage. (Royce, 1981)
The ingredients for beer did not grow well in New England. As a substitute, the Puritans made do with hard cider. The many apple orchards of the area were planted for its production. Men usually began the day with a quart or more at breakfast.
Beer and cider were not readily available on the frontier. Settlers west of the Allegheny Mountains converted their corn into whiskey as a substitute and to make their crop transportable. Life was hard on the frontier. The pioneers called their whiskey the "Good Creature of God", giving them the strength needed to dull the pain of the brutal manual labor of making a home in the wilderness. (Powell, 1999)
"...there is unquestionably too much spirituous liquors drank in the newly settled parts of America, but a very good reason can be assigned for it. The labor of clearing the land is rugged and severe, and the summer sweats are sometimes so great that it would be dangerous to drink cold water..."(As cited in Barr, 1999)
The first businesses established on the frontier were often simple taverns located along trails and roads to take care of the needs of travelers. Tradition of the time dictated that a drink be had at every halt in a journey. One story tells of two travelers on a seventy-mile trek by coach who drank a quart of liquor at each of the eight stops that were made.
Tavern owners enjoyed higher social status than did the clergy during the colonial era. Taverns were the center of civic life. Because of this they were often required to be located near the church or meeting house. Religious services and court sessions were often held in taverns. Judges interrupted court to drink, and clergy were obligated to drink at every house call and were often seen reeling home. (Powell, 1999)
All of this drinking did not go on without some comment. John Adams stated: "If the ancients drank as our people drink rum and cider, it is no wonder we hear of so many possessed with devils." (As cited in History of Alcohol in America) But, among the founding fathers Adams stood pretty much alone. Washington, Franklin, and Jefferson all imbibed and enjoyed brewing or distilling their own alcoholic beverages.
Jefferson was one of the most knowledgeable wine connoisseurs ever to hold national office. And, he was the wine advisor for Washington, Madison and Monroe. He felt that wine was "...indispensable for my health." He further advocated the virtues of wine stating "no nation is drunken where wine is cheap; and none sober, where the dearness of wine substitutes ardent spirits as the common beverage." (As cited in Insiders Guide to Virginia Wineries)
Jefferson believed that wine stimulated conversation. There must have been quite a bit of talking at Monticello because there are records that he and his guests consumed 1,203 bottles of wine in just over two year's time. (Garr, 1997) Jefferson, though, thought of himself as a man of moderation.
"...you are not to conclude I am a drinker. My measure is a perfectly sober one of 3 or 4 glasses at dinner, and not a drop at any other time. But as to those 3 or 4 glasses I am very fond." (As cited in Garr, 1997)
Jefferson's interests in wine went far beyond just drinking. He was also involved in viticulture. He planted vineyards at Monticello and encourage others to take up the practice. Jefferson's attempts were not successful since the phylloxera louse, which was not discovered until the 1860s, attacked his grapes.
The sober picture we have of Washington is not correct if we are to believe anecdotes of his day. It was said that he could dance the night away with four bottles of wine under his belt. And, that his Revolutionary War personal expense account for alcohol from September 1775 to March 1776 amount to over six thousand dollars. (Washington & Kitman, 1970) He was a devout lover of beer; in particular a dark porter was always in ample supply at Mount Vernon. A typical Washington hosted dinner "included several wines, beer, cider." (Mount Vernon An Illustrated Handbook, 1974)
With all the drinking that went on during this era, one tends to agree with Adams' statement and wonder how we fought a war, won our independence, and established a government. Perhaps the Spirit of '76, which inspired our forefathers, was indeed spirits.
References
Barr, Andrew. Drink: A Social History of America. 1999, Carroll & Graff Publishers, Inc.
Garr, Robin. "Jefferson and Wine". 1997, www.winelovers page.com/wines/tjeff.
"History of Alcohol in America" (Cider). www.2020 site.org/drinks/cider.
Mount Vernon An Illustrated Handbook. 1974, Mount Vernon Ladies Association.
Powell, Stephen. "The Devils Drink: 1999, www.bluemoon.net/~spowell/cart.
Robinson, Matthew. : How To Toast Like Our Founding Fathers", 2001, Claremont Institute Publications, www.claremont.org/publications/Robinson 010118.cfm.
Royce, James E. Alcohol Problems: A Comprehensive Survey. 1981, New York Free Press.
"Thomas Jefferson: Food and Wine Connoisseur", The Insiders Guide to Virginia Wineries. www.blueridge/sb-wineries.
Washington, George and Kitman, Marvin. 1970, George Washington's Expense Account. 1970, Simon and Schuster.
The Spirits of Our Forefathers
By Tom Jewett
"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants to see us happy." (Benjamin Franklin)
"Wine is necessary for life." (Thomas Jefferson)
"My manner of living is plain...a glass of wine and a bit of mutton." (George Washington)
The above statements by three of the Founding Fathers reflect the prevailing attitude toward alcohol in the 18th century and throughout much of our country's early existence. Alcohol has played a major role in our nation's history, and its use is a part of our heritage. In colonial times, Americans probably drank more alcohol that in any other era. Spirits were an integral part of daily life throughout the colonies no matter the geographic or economic differences. It was reported that the average American drank eight ounces of alcohol a day. And it didn't matter what. Americans drank beer, and cider with breakfast; rum and wine with dinner; claret, ratafias, creams, punches, and other concoctions in the evening. (Robinson, 2001)
"Revolutionary War era persons drank a phenomenal amount. We have here an account of a gentleman's average consumption: 'Given cider and punch for lunch; rum and brandy before dinner; punch, Madeira, port and sherry at dinner; punch and liqueurs with the ladies; and wine, spirit and punch till bedtime, all in punchbowls big enough for a goose to swim in.'" (As cited in Washington and Kitman, 1970)
There are a number of reasons for all of this tippling. Our English heritage declared that water was bad for a person's health. Given the sanitary standards of the day this was probably true. Beer consumption especially, was seen as a healthy substitute for water. Beer was considered a food, which showed social status (only the most destitute drank water) and allowed for persons to put in a full days work. Franklin while working in a printing house in London was known as the "water American", because of his affinity to water, by his fellow printers who were
"great guzzlers of beer...My companions at the press drank every day a pint before breakfast with his bread and cheese, a pint between breakfast and dinner, a pint in the afternoon about six o'clock, and another when he had done his day's work." (As cited in Barr, 1999)
Americans of the period believed it was particularly healthier to drink lukewarm alcohol during hot weather rather than drink cold water. Signs were displayed at public wells warning individuals of the dangers of cold water during the summer. The rationale for this is that when a person sweated, heat was conducted from the inside of the body. Therefore, the stomach needed warmth, which could be provided by alcohol. (Barr, 1999)
The bias against water was so great that a recent immigrant from Italy, Phillip Massei, caused a stir at a large dinner party where he
"asked for a glass of water. I perceived some confusion among the servants, and the water did not arrive. The host, next to who I sat, whispered in my ear, asking with a smile if I could not drink something else, because the unexpected request for a glass upset the entire household and they did not know what they were about." (As cited in Barr, 1999)
Beer usually replaced water as the daily drink. An early morning tankard of beer was typical in colonial America, even for children. This tradition, as stated earlier, came from England. The Pilgrims loaded more beer than water on the Mayflower. And, there is some evidence that they were put off at Plymouth, rather than Virginia, because the ship's crew wished to make sure they had enough beer to consume on the return voyage. (Royce, 1981)
The ingredients for beer did not grow well in New England. As a substitute, the Puritans made do with hard cider. The many apple orchards of the area were planted for its production. Men usually began the day with a quart or more at breakfast.
Beer and cider were not readily available on the frontier. Settlers west of the Allegheny Mountains converted their corn into whiskey as a substitute and to make their crop transportable. Life was hard on the frontier. The pioneers called their whiskey the "Good Creature of God", giving them the strength needed to dull the pain of the brutal manual labor of making a home in the wilderness. (Powell, 1999)
"...there is unquestionably too much spirituous liquors drank in the newly settled parts of America, but a very good reason can be assigned for it. The labor of clearing the land is rugged and severe, and the summer sweats are sometimes so great that it would be dangerous to drink cold water..."(As cited in Barr, 1999)
The first businesses established on the frontier were often simple taverns located along trails and roads to take care of the needs of travelers. Tradition of the time dictated that a drink be had at every halt in a journey. One story tells of two travelers on a seventy-mile trek by coach who drank a quart of liquor at each of the eight stops that were made.
Tavern owners enjoyed higher social status than did the clergy during the colonial era. Taverns were the center of civic life. Because of this they were often required to be located near the church or meeting house. Religious services and court sessions were often held in taverns. Judges interrupted court to drink, and clergy were obligated to drink at every house call and were often seen reeling home. (Powell, 1999)
All of this drinking did not go on without some comment. John Adams stated: "If the ancients drank as our people drink rum and cider, it is no wonder we hear of so many possessed with devils." (As cited in History of Alcohol in America) But, among the founding fathers Adams stood pretty much alone. Washington, Franklin, and Jefferson all imbibed and enjoyed brewing or distilling their own alcoholic beverages.
Jefferson was one of the most knowledgeable wine connoisseurs ever to hold national office. And, he was the wine advisor for Washington, Madison and Monroe. He felt that wine was "...indispensable for my health." He further advocated the virtues of wine stating "no nation is drunken where wine is cheap; and none sober, where the dearness of wine substitutes ardent spirits as the common beverage." (As cited in Insiders Guide to Virginia Wineries)
Jefferson believed that wine stimulated conversation. There must have been quite a bit of talking at Monticello because there are records that he and his guests consumed 1,203 bottles of wine in just over two year's time. (Garr, 1997) Jefferson, though, thought of himself as a man of moderation.
"...you are not to conclude I am a drinker. My measure is a perfectly sober one of 3 or 4 glasses at dinner, and not a drop at any other time. But as to those 3 or 4 glasses I am very fond." (As cited in Garr, 1997)
Jefferson's interests in wine went far beyond just drinking. He was also involved in viticulture. He planted vineyards at Monticello and encourage others to take up the practice. Jefferson's attempts were not successful since the phylloxera louse, which was not discovered until the 1860s, attacked his grapes.
The sober picture we have of Washington is not correct if we are to believe anecdotes of his day. It was said that he could dance the night away with four bottles of wine under his belt. And, that his Revolutionary War personal expense account for alcohol from September 1775 to March 1776 amount to over six thousand dollars. (Washington & Kitman, 1970) He was a devout lover of beer; in particular a dark porter was always in ample supply at Mount Vernon. A typical Washington hosted dinner "included several wines, beer, cider." (Mount Vernon An Illustrated Handbook, 1974)
With all the drinking that went on during this era, one tends to agree with Adams' statement and wonder how we fought a war, won our independence, and established a government. Perhaps the Spirit of '76, which inspired our forefathers, was indeed spirits.
References
Barr, Andrew. Drink: A Social History of America. 1999, Carroll & Graff Publishers, Inc.
Garr, Robin. "Jefferson and Wine". 1997, www.winelovers page.com/wines/tjeff.
"History of Alcohol in America" (Cider). www.2020 site.org/drinks/cider.
Mount Vernon An Illustrated Handbook. 1974, Mount Vernon Ladies Association.
Powell, Stephen. "The Devils Drink: 1999, www.bluemoon.net/~spowell/cart.
Robinson, Matthew. : How To Toast Like Our Founding Fathers", 2001, Claremont Institute Publications, www.claremont.org/publications/Robinson 010118.cfm.
Royce, James E. Alcohol Problems: A Comprehensive Survey. 1981, New York Free Press.
"Thomas Jefferson: Food and Wine Connoisseur", The Insiders Guide to Virginia Wineries. www.blueridge/sb-wineries.
Washington, George and Kitman, Marvin. 1970, George Washington's Expense Account. 1970, Simon and Schuster.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Libertarian Thoughts on Current Events
By Tom Rhodes
Do you believe in Liberty?
Mike Adams, professor at UNC, proposed two very interesting questions: “Do you believe in the inherent ‘goodness’ or ‘perfectibility’ of mankind?” and “Does man get his rights from other men?”
If you or anybody you know answered yes to either question, it is clear they don’t believe in or understand the concept of liberty. Man is inherently evil, even the elite in power, hence we instituted a system of government that spreads out the power, and limits what government can do and charged the government with the specific and sole mandate of protecting individual rights.
The entire founding of our nation was based on the idea that man has rights that pre-exist the government, are natural, and not subject to the whims and wants of those in charge. They firmly believed that one person’s rights ended when they infringed upon the same rights of another; that all people should have the same rights, and all should be treated equally. They believed that no person’s right obligated another person to provide the means of exercising that right. Your right to keep and bear arms does not obligate others to provide you with arms to bear. The idea that mankind has rights not just privileges granted by those in control. Coupled with a healthy distrust for men in power, because history has always proven that “power corrupts,” our country was founded on the idea that the government has limits, not the people.
This idea was clearly stated in the purpose document for the founding of this country, The Declaration of Independence, which eloquently states that “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 - To secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
Lies about racism.
After the first presidential debate In South Carolina – the home of secession, John C. Calhoun, Strom Thurmond, and the long-fluttering Stars and Bars over the state Capitol building – a black guy, Herman Cain, won in a landslide with a nearly all-white focus group of local Republicans. This provides compelling counter-evidence to the tired Democratic charge that conservatives and libertarians, especially from the south, detest Obama primarily because he’s black. The truth is that they despise him because he’s an old-fashioned, socialist, big government, anti-liberty, free-spending, elitist lefty.
Free Speech Dead in Denmark.
Tuesday May 3, 2011 marked the end of free speech in Denmark and the acceptance of Shariah law. Denmark convicted, Lars Hedegaard, president of the International Free Press Society, for offending Muslims. This will likely be used to set precedence in the EU.
Federal Government Hates South Carolina.
Because South Carolina doesn’t exercise the socialistic control of labor and business that northern states do, our federal government is denying them the opportunity to create high-skill, high-wage jobs, President Obama’s labor board, namely the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has undertaken a direct assault on South Carolina.
The NLRB has told both Boeing and South Carolina that because South Carolina is a right to work state, that Boeing cannot expand its production to South Carolina. Boeing is not reducing or closing a plant in Washington, but expanding, so it is not cutting union jobs in the North for non-union jobs in the South. It doesn’t matter, the government has determined that Boeing is not allowed to expand to right to work states.
Obama’s fidelity to Big Union Bosses extends to more than just South Carolina. The NLRB has begun to sue states whose citizens voted to protect themselves from coercion and intimidation by adding secret ballot guarantees to their state constitutions. There is proof that states with right-to-work laws are more financially and educationally accomplished than states where unionization is forced.
The Facts are clear, unemployment is lower in right-to-work states and home ownership is higher. There are more highly-educated workers than in forced unionization states. The overwhelming majority of young professionals – 94.3% to be exact, choose to live in right-to-work states. The best example is the giant sucking sound of the mass exodus of people, jobs, companies, and opportunity from Michigan to right-to-work states.
South Caroline Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina powerfully summed it up, “America will not win the future if Washington penalizes workers in states that have discovered winning economic strategies.”
It’s a Spending Problem
Our national debt is not a revenue problem it’s a spending problem; because regardless of the government’s income (tax revenue) it spends in excess. Hence we see still another call for expansion in the debt ceiling. Some may argue that it's necessary to keep the markets functioning, but they won't function for long if the government keeps spending trillions more than it takes in. Look at Greece and explain how well this strategy has worked for them. Even after they were bailed out by the EU, they have continued to spiral into more debt. We’re bigger than Greece but will end up in the same place if we continue to promise and spend more, than can be reasonably extracted from the public in taxes.
The tens of thousands of pages of tax law, the obvious inequality of taxes as currently collected, and the unwillingness of the Federal Government to live within its means, has lead to a situation where the majority of people no longer consider cheating on their taxes as immoral or unethical. This cannot be good for the country. To gain credibility and the support of the American people, the government must curb its spending.
National Curriculum
There is a movement to standardize K-12 curriculum. The very same educational professionals who have so miserably failed our students over the past 40 years are now advocating a "common curriculum" that would supposedly engage the minds of all American students, aligning their performance with the latest thinking as to what's needed. The Albert Shanker Institute, named for the late head of the American Federation of Teachers, wants a "coherent, sequential set of guidelines in the core academic disciplines, specifying the knowledge and skills" expected of all students.
To a conspiratorialist this sounds like a way for the government to control the ideas and knowledge that we expose all children. I doubt that, it’s probably just based on good intentions of people who refuse to look at reality, and think that what sounds good and feels good must somehow actually be good. It’s a bad idea just because it will completely stifle innovation in education, and make teachers worth even less. How much do you really know to herd children, and review the pre-planned power point, and give the pre-designed work sheet, and administer the pre-conceived test, which has been so dumbed down so that even the dumbest student can pass with little or no effort?
The Reality is that we have the exact educational systems that post-modern America wants. Not the best, nor the worst, the logical product of our feminized culture that demands equality not excellence. As long as we are more worried about how students feel about themselves than we are the quantity and quality of the knowledge they posses, our schools will continue to give us what we want -- Students, who think they are smart and successful, but who in reality cannot perform, especially when compared to other cultures. Because the results of academic competition in schools ends up with some kids not feeling as good about themselves as others, most schools no longer have valedictorians, class rankings, etc. Forcing schools to focus extraordinary effort on academically inferior and poorly motivated students, rather than use those resources to build up and advance our most gifted, has resulted in exactly what we want, equality of outcome not opportunity. Unless as a culture we are willing to separate the wheat from the chaff (academically speaking), and acknowledge that just like in sports not everyone has the same natural talents in intellect, we will continue to see poorer and poorer education. Post-modern America wants everybody to succeed, and if some can’t, we’ll just lower the standard so we can claim they did. We demand success whether it’s real or manufactured. In academics we will accept the lie and ignore reality so we can feel good about our children.
Do you believe in Liberty?
Mike Adams, professor at UNC, proposed two very interesting questions: “Do you believe in the inherent ‘goodness’ or ‘perfectibility’ of mankind?” and “Does man get his rights from other men?”
If you or anybody you know answered yes to either question, it is clear they don’t believe in or understand the concept of liberty. Man is inherently evil, even the elite in power, hence we instituted a system of government that spreads out the power, and limits what government can do and charged the government with the specific and sole mandate of protecting individual rights.
The entire founding of our nation was based on the idea that man has rights that pre-exist the government, are natural, and not subject to the whims and wants of those in charge. They firmly believed that one person’s rights ended when they infringed upon the same rights of another; that all people should have the same rights, and all should be treated equally. They believed that no person’s right obligated another person to provide the means of exercising that right. Your right to keep and bear arms does not obligate others to provide you with arms to bear. The idea that mankind has rights not just privileges granted by those in control. Coupled with a healthy distrust for men in power, because history has always proven that “power corrupts,” our country was founded on the idea that the government has limits, not the people.
This idea was clearly stated in the purpose document for the founding of this country, The Declaration of Independence, which eloquently states that “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 - To secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
Lies about racism.
After the first presidential debate In South Carolina – the home of secession, John C. Calhoun, Strom Thurmond, and the long-fluttering Stars and Bars over the state Capitol building – a black guy, Herman Cain, won in a landslide with a nearly all-white focus group of local Republicans. This provides compelling counter-evidence to the tired Democratic charge that conservatives and libertarians, especially from the south, detest Obama primarily because he’s black. The truth is that they despise him because he’s an old-fashioned, socialist, big government, anti-liberty, free-spending, elitist lefty.
Free Speech Dead in Denmark.
Tuesday May 3, 2011 marked the end of free speech in Denmark and the acceptance of Shariah law. Denmark convicted, Lars Hedegaard, president of the International Free Press Society, for offending Muslims. This will likely be used to set precedence in the EU.
Federal Government Hates South Carolina.
Because South Carolina doesn’t exercise the socialistic control of labor and business that northern states do, our federal government is denying them the opportunity to create high-skill, high-wage jobs, President Obama’s labor board, namely the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has undertaken a direct assault on South Carolina.
The NLRB has told both Boeing and South Carolina that because South Carolina is a right to work state, that Boeing cannot expand its production to South Carolina. Boeing is not reducing or closing a plant in Washington, but expanding, so it is not cutting union jobs in the North for non-union jobs in the South. It doesn’t matter, the government has determined that Boeing is not allowed to expand to right to work states.
Obama’s fidelity to Big Union Bosses extends to more than just South Carolina. The NLRB has begun to sue states whose citizens voted to protect themselves from coercion and intimidation by adding secret ballot guarantees to their state constitutions. There is proof that states with right-to-work laws are more financially and educationally accomplished than states where unionization is forced.
The Facts are clear, unemployment is lower in right-to-work states and home ownership is higher. There are more highly-educated workers than in forced unionization states. The overwhelming majority of young professionals – 94.3% to be exact, choose to live in right-to-work states. The best example is the giant sucking sound of the mass exodus of people, jobs, companies, and opportunity from Michigan to right-to-work states.
South Caroline Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina powerfully summed it up, “America will not win the future if Washington penalizes workers in states that have discovered winning economic strategies.”
It’s a Spending Problem
Our national debt is not a revenue problem it’s a spending problem; because regardless of the government’s income (tax revenue) it spends in excess. Hence we see still another call for expansion in the debt ceiling. Some may argue that it's necessary to keep the markets functioning, but they won't function for long if the government keeps spending trillions more than it takes in. Look at Greece and explain how well this strategy has worked for them. Even after they were bailed out by the EU, they have continued to spiral into more debt. We’re bigger than Greece but will end up in the same place if we continue to promise and spend more, than can be reasonably extracted from the public in taxes.
The tens of thousands of pages of tax law, the obvious inequality of taxes as currently collected, and the unwillingness of the Federal Government to live within its means, has lead to a situation where the majority of people no longer consider cheating on their taxes as immoral or unethical. This cannot be good for the country. To gain credibility and the support of the American people, the government must curb its spending.
National Curriculum
There is a movement to standardize K-12 curriculum. The very same educational professionals who have so miserably failed our students over the past 40 years are now advocating a "common curriculum" that would supposedly engage the minds of all American students, aligning their performance with the latest thinking as to what's needed. The Albert Shanker Institute, named for the late head of the American Federation of Teachers, wants a "coherent, sequential set of guidelines in the core academic disciplines, specifying the knowledge and skills" expected of all students.
To a conspiratorialist this sounds like a way for the government to control the ideas and knowledge that we expose all children. I doubt that, it’s probably just based on good intentions of people who refuse to look at reality, and think that what sounds good and feels good must somehow actually be good. It’s a bad idea just because it will completely stifle innovation in education, and make teachers worth even less. How much do you really know to herd children, and review the pre-planned power point, and give the pre-designed work sheet, and administer the pre-conceived test, which has been so dumbed down so that even the dumbest student can pass with little or no effort?
The Reality is that we have the exact educational systems that post-modern America wants. Not the best, nor the worst, the logical product of our feminized culture that demands equality not excellence. As long as we are more worried about how students feel about themselves than we are the quantity and quality of the knowledge they posses, our schools will continue to give us what we want -- Students, who think they are smart and successful, but who in reality cannot perform, especially when compared to other cultures. Because the results of academic competition in schools ends up with some kids not feeling as good about themselves as others, most schools no longer have valedictorians, class rankings, etc. Forcing schools to focus extraordinary effort on academically inferior and poorly motivated students, rather than use those resources to build up and advance our most gifted, has resulted in exactly what we want, equality of outcome not opportunity. Unless as a culture we are willing to separate the wheat from the chaff (academically speaking), and acknowledge that just like in sports not everyone has the same natural talents in intellect, we will continue to see poorer and poorer education. Post-modern America wants everybody to succeed, and if some can’t, we’ll just lower the standard so we can claim they did. We demand success whether it’s real or manufactured. In academics we will accept the lie and ignore reality so we can feel good about our children.
Saturday, May 7, 2011
Us vs. Them
by Tom Rhodes
It doesn’t matter if you’re a Democrat or Republican, you don’t trust the information you get from Washington. Like all Americans you are fed up with the fact that you can’t trust Washington. Regardless of what new laws they pass; they either pass the wrong ones or won’t enforce the ones they do pass. The difference between Libertarians and the Democrats and Republicans is that the Libertarians don’t even pay lip service to the lies of Washington leaders. We don’t get elected because we actually tell the truth.
All sides keep attacking both immigration and tax laws as an example of what is wrong in Washington. These two areas are a threat to our liberty and are an example of the rulers in Washington working at creating a dictatorship or small oligarchy to rule the USA.
History is clear, the easiest way to have dictatorial powers is to create laws that you don’t enforce. You can make everyone a criminal, and with selective enforcement, the government can decide who to jail and who to let free. Without having to abide by the rule of law the government can dictate rather than build a consensus. They can through power and threat ignore the limitations that the people put upon them.
Currently the government does not enforce immigration laws and has created a tax code so complex that it’s impossible to follow. The country has become so over criminalized that it is impossible for any individual or company to go a single day without breaking some kind of law. The government has also gone to absurd degrees in enforcing some laws for non criminal behavior. Explain how when an elementary school boy points a little green army man at a class mate can ever been reasonable construed as a criminal threat with a deadly weapon?
The absurdity of too much government has lead to a definite us vs. them mentality. The government has created a permanent under-class of criminals in this country, completely at the leave of the federal government. So the idiocy of the government is to create more complex laws- like Real ID- to combat problems related to them not enforcing laws in the first place.
The result is a constant assault and erosion of our liberties. Nobody trusts the government anymore, especially our leaders. As Americans we want to feel that when our President speaks we are hearing the truth. Nobody can objectively trust what comes out of our Presidents’ mouths. From Clinton’s famous “I did not have sex with that woman” while being impeached to Bush’s “I have been very candid about my past," during the 2000 campaign. Obama started early as president with lies, he promised not to raise taxes on those making less than $250K, and within a month of taking office raised taxes on tobacco, which disproportionately affects the poor. The point at which Obama totally lost credibility with the majority of Americans probably came last December when after ripped the Republicans as "hostage takers" on the "tax deal", then agreed to it. Rather than address this lie he left left it to Clinton to justify it, and people wonder why she is resigning.
One of the many planks that the Republicans ran in 2010, and promised was “tax reform.” One of the many planks that the Democrats ran in 2010, and promised was to “tax the rich.” The American people are fed up and know both parties are deceitful. We the people get screwed. Anybody who can do basic math, realizes that if we taxed the rich at 100% we wouldn’t even cover a year’s worth of government spending, so the Democrats mantra of trying to get more out of the rich won’t work. And anybody who can read, looks at the history of the Republicans, to see that they will continue to provide their rich patrons tax breaks, and do nothing of substance to reduce spending, they never have and never will.
Tax law is what the government uses to pay off the rich who directly fund the Washington elite. Lobbyists spend about $5Billion every year, and end up with about $200Billion in direct tax breaks for those whom they lobby. If your rich, or a rich company, that is a wise investment. The rulers in Washington, get a good deal, and are made wealthy looking out for their investors.
Why should any person who earns $X pay any different taxes than any other person who earns the exact same $X per year? If our countries leaders believed in the Rule of Law, and Equal Rights, then everybody who earned $X would pay the same taxes, Period. The tax code it used to reward those whom the government wants to reward, and to direct social engineering. A system that did not tax the poor, and then taxed everybody equally based on how much they consumed (the rich consume a lot more than the poor and this type of system would be very progressive). There is nothing fair about it and it will never be fair, as tax code exercised under the threat of force is the source of virtually all of our government’s power.
The Democrats and Republicans singular goal is to maintain power and take it from the other party. They do not have the interest of the people at heart. Even when they know a program has failed, to protect government workers and the illusion that their ideas and plans are effective, they will stop at nothing to protect such failed policies. Consider Head-Start, there is zero evidence that this program has any lasting benefits. Every study done, there are several, clearly demonstrate that this program provides zero long term benefits to children although it does have considerable costs. Even when confronted with verifiable factual objective data that clearly demonstrates that this is a government program that could be eliminated with no long term detriment the children it supposedly serves, those in government rationalize why we must continue this boondoggle. Generally this blame is on liberals (they exist in both major parties). Although a token Republican or two has talked about ending such programs, they know it is just a token gesture to try and appease a segment of the population calling for change. The fact is both parties use this kind of government boondoggle to buy supporters and maintain their power.
Our country, like many others, is at a critical juncture. The government has promised to take care of everybody knowing it doesn’t have the resources to do that. The Ponzi scheme it has used forcing payment for today’s promise on tomorrows people are not sustainable. The special patronage to those the government favors over the people has become blatant. The disregard for the rule of law and equal rights by the government is becoming more obvious. The historic norm for the world for almost all of history is power and wealth for a few who control the use of force, and poverty and servitude for everybody else. The Christian Reformation and the advancement of related ideas which accumulated in the US experiment, documented as documented Declaration of Independence, US Constitution, and the Amendments and laws which attempted to protect all individuals rights, are contrary to thousands of years of history. Like the other brief spots of liberty and freedom the world has seen, this one too will end, as those with power and the ability to force their will on others (even for their own good) will strip away liberty and force the masses into servitude again.
Think about it, we started with a government made up of the people and one that trusted the people more than it did the government. As such it recognized the right and need of the people to have the ability to throw off the government, by force if necessary. So we restricted the government. Until the failure of the government control program we call Prohibition, any weapon the military had was freely available to the people. Some of the people thinking of prohibition as tyranny, took up arms, including Tommy-guns, so that they could defend themselves from a tyrannical government enforcing unjust laws un-equally. The tyranny of prohibition made almost every American a criminal. Just at the prohibition against pot does today. After the government’s failed attempt to force the people to do what the government thought best (not drink), they set about putting up restrictions to how the people could arm themselves, because an armed populace made tyrannical laws much more difficult to enforce. Never mind that if the government hadn’t used force to keep the people from a voluntary exchange of goods they wanted the gangs and violence that came from Prohibition would never have happened, thus the justification for the restriction on arms would not have been valid.
At what point do we say we are no longer free citizens but serfs? When the government can declare what you can and can’t eat? If that is the case then we are already serfs. It is the difference in those who believe in unalienable rights, and rights granted by the state. It is us vs. them, people who don’t want to be taken care of, but want liberty, vs. ruling elite who offer a poor promise of security, in exchange for your property and liberty.
It doesn’t matter if you’re a Democrat or Republican, you don’t trust the information you get from Washington. Like all Americans you are fed up with the fact that you can’t trust Washington. Regardless of what new laws they pass; they either pass the wrong ones or won’t enforce the ones they do pass. The difference between Libertarians and the Democrats and Republicans is that the Libertarians don’t even pay lip service to the lies of Washington leaders. We don’t get elected because we actually tell the truth.
All sides keep attacking both immigration and tax laws as an example of what is wrong in Washington. These two areas are a threat to our liberty and are an example of the rulers in Washington working at creating a dictatorship or small oligarchy to rule the USA.
History is clear, the easiest way to have dictatorial powers is to create laws that you don’t enforce. You can make everyone a criminal, and with selective enforcement, the government can decide who to jail and who to let free. Without having to abide by the rule of law the government can dictate rather than build a consensus. They can through power and threat ignore the limitations that the people put upon them.
Currently the government does not enforce immigration laws and has created a tax code so complex that it’s impossible to follow. The country has become so over criminalized that it is impossible for any individual or company to go a single day without breaking some kind of law. The government has also gone to absurd degrees in enforcing some laws for non criminal behavior. Explain how when an elementary school boy points a little green army man at a class mate can ever been reasonable construed as a criminal threat with a deadly weapon?
The absurdity of too much government has lead to a definite us vs. them mentality. The government has created a permanent under-class of criminals in this country, completely at the leave of the federal government. So the idiocy of the government is to create more complex laws- like Real ID- to combat problems related to them not enforcing laws in the first place.
The result is a constant assault and erosion of our liberties. Nobody trusts the government anymore, especially our leaders. As Americans we want to feel that when our President speaks we are hearing the truth. Nobody can objectively trust what comes out of our Presidents’ mouths. From Clinton’s famous “I did not have sex with that woman” while being impeached to Bush’s “I have been very candid about my past," during the 2000 campaign. Obama started early as president with lies, he promised not to raise taxes on those making less than $250K, and within a month of taking office raised taxes on tobacco, which disproportionately affects the poor. The point at which Obama totally lost credibility with the majority of Americans probably came last December when after ripped the Republicans as "hostage takers" on the "tax deal", then agreed to it. Rather than address this lie he left left it to Clinton to justify it, and people wonder why she is resigning.
One of the many planks that the Republicans ran in 2010, and promised was “tax reform.” One of the many planks that the Democrats ran in 2010, and promised was to “tax the rich.” The American people are fed up and know both parties are deceitful. We the people get screwed. Anybody who can do basic math, realizes that if we taxed the rich at 100% we wouldn’t even cover a year’s worth of government spending, so the Democrats mantra of trying to get more out of the rich won’t work. And anybody who can read, looks at the history of the Republicans, to see that they will continue to provide their rich patrons tax breaks, and do nothing of substance to reduce spending, they never have and never will.
Tax law is what the government uses to pay off the rich who directly fund the Washington elite. Lobbyists spend about $5Billion every year, and end up with about $200Billion in direct tax breaks for those whom they lobby. If your rich, or a rich company, that is a wise investment. The rulers in Washington, get a good deal, and are made wealthy looking out for their investors.
Why should any person who earns $X pay any different taxes than any other person who earns the exact same $X per year? If our countries leaders believed in the Rule of Law, and Equal Rights, then everybody who earned $X would pay the same taxes, Period. The tax code it used to reward those whom the government wants to reward, and to direct social engineering. A system that did not tax the poor, and then taxed everybody equally based on how much they consumed (the rich consume a lot more than the poor and this type of system would be very progressive). There is nothing fair about it and it will never be fair, as tax code exercised under the threat of force is the source of virtually all of our government’s power.
The Democrats and Republicans singular goal is to maintain power and take it from the other party. They do not have the interest of the people at heart. Even when they know a program has failed, to protect government workers and the illusion that their ideas and plans are effective, they will stop at nothing to protect such failed policies. Consider Head-Start, there is zero evidence that this program has any lasting benefits. Every study done, there are several, clearly demonstrate that this program provides zero long term benefits to children although it does have considerable costs. Even when confronted with verifiable factual objective data that clearly demonstrates that this is a government program that could be eliminated with no long term detriment the children it supposedly serves, those in government rationalize why we must continue this boondoggle. Generally this blame is on liberals (they exist in both major parties). Although a token Republican or two has talked about ending such programs, they know it is just a token gesture to try and appease a segment of the population calling for change. The fact is both parties use this kind of government boondoggle to buy supporters and maintain their power.
Our country, like many others, is at a critical juncture. The government has promised to take care of everybody knowing it doesn’t have the resources to do that. The Ponzi scheme it has used forcing payment for today’s promise on tomorrows people are not sustainable. The special patronage to those the government favors over the people has become blatant. The disregard for the rule of law and equal rights by the government is becoming more obvious. The historic norm for the world for almost all of history is power and wealth for a few who control the use of force, and poverty and servitude for everybody else. The Christian Reformation and the advancement of related ideas which accumulated in the US experiment, documented as documented Declaration of Independence, US Constitution, and the Amendments and laws which attempted to protect all individuals rights, are contrary to thousands of years of history. Like the other brief spots of liberty and freedom the world has seen, this one too will end, as those with power and the ability to force their will on others (even for their own good) will strip away liberty and force the masses into servitude again.
Think about it, we started with a government made up of the people and one that trusted the people more than it did the government. As such it recognized the right and need of the people to have the ability to throw off the government, by force if necessary. So we restricted the government. Until the failure of the government control program we call Prohibition, any weapon the military had was freely available to the people. Some of the people thinking of prohibition as tyranny, took up arms, including Tommy-guns, so that they could defend themselves from a tyrannical government enforcing unjust laws un-equally. The tyranny of prohibition made almost every American a criminal. Just at the prohibition against pot does today. After the government’s failed attempt to force the people to do what the government thought best (not drink), they set about putting up restrictions to how the people could arm themselves, because an armed populace made tyrannical laws much more difficult to enforce. Never mind that if the government hadn’t used force to keep the people from a voluntary exchange of goods they wanted the gangs and violence that came from Prohibition would never have happened, thus the justification for the restriction on arms would not have been valid.
At what point do we say we are no longer free citizens but serfs? When the government can declare what you can and can’t eat? If that is the case then we are already serfs. It is the difference in those who believe in unalienable rights, and rights granted by the state. It is us vs. them, people who don’t want to be taken care of, but want liberty, vs. ruling elite who offer a poor promise of security, in exchange for your property and liberty.
Friday, May 6, 2011
Rational or Rationizing
by Tom Rhodes
Liberals are not rational animals, they are rationalizing animals.
Case in Point, Head-Start, there is zero evidence that this program has any lasting benefits. Every study done, there are several, clearly demonstrate that this program provides zero long term benifits to children although it does have considerable costs. Even when confronted with verifyable factual objective data that clearly demonstrates that this is a government program that could be eliminted with no long term detriment to those who currently take advantage of it, liberals still rationalize why we must continue this boondoggle.
There is emotional viseral hatred for anybody who would look at this program, or other government programs objectively. It goes agains what liberals "feel" should be the results. How they "feel" a program should work and what they want the results to be are far more important than the objective results.
Liberals are not rational animals, they are rationalizing animals.
Case in Point, Head-Start, there is zero evidence that this program has any lasting benefits. Every study done, there are several, clearly demonstrate that this program provides zero long term benifits to children although it does have considerable costs. Even when confronted with verifyable factual objective data that clearly demonstrates that this is a government program that could be eliminted with no long term detriment to those who currently take advantage of it, liberals still rationalize why we must continue this boondoggle.
There is emotional viseral hatred for anybody who would look at this program, or other government programs objectively. It goes agains what liberals "feel" should be the results. How they "feel" a program should work and what they want the results to be are far more important than the objective results.
Monday, May 2, 2011
The Chicago Way
Nearly every pundit, including myself, has made a reference to Obama and the Chicago way, implying that his methodology is analogous to the Chicago thuggery of the prohibition era or the Daley machine. These articles have claimed that Obama works through extortion and force not the reasoned consensus building of a modern politician in polite society. The reason for the past several years that there exists such a cacophony of claims to Obama acting like a Chicago thug is not just that he hails from Chicago, but is based on real observation of his actions. In other words the reason so many pundits claim Obama is a political thug is because based on the objective evidence that it is true.
Last week we saw another prime example of the thug nature of the Obama administration. Exercising the old and proven method that thugs have used for eons to gather power and force the will upon others, Obama is using extortion. His Health and Human Services office is demanding the resignation of the CEO from Forest Laboratories. HHS wants to exclude Forest from selling its products to Medicaid, Medicare and VA hospitals unless their CEO, Howard Solomon, is let go. This is Chicago style extortion at its finest. This is meant to set an example for every medical company in America. To steal a line from the great gangster movie, The Godfather, Obama is making an offer that they can’t refuse. If you as a medical company dare not do as you are dictated by the Obama political machine, you too can and will be removed from position as CEO. Medical CEOs better "love" Obamacare or pay the price.
It is true that Forest Labs broke the law, marketing a drug, which was eventually approved by the FDA, prior to its approval. As a result they admitted their error, paid a $313 million fine, and complied with everything the Justice Department demanded. In truth, they paid for their crime, in full, as the law dictated that they should. For the Obama administration this wasn’t enough. They want the company’s CEO, Solomon tossed out, even though Forest Laboratories complied with every legal punishment, the FDA will prohibit them from any business involving the government unless they bow down to this extortion.
Never mind that Solomon took a small inconsequential vitamin company and built a major $4 billion company that employs thousands of people, generating millions in tax revenue and creates life-enhancing medicines to the benefit of millions of Americans. As an example to all Medical CEOs, and in absence of any law that grants the Obama administration the authority, Obama is going to exercise power in the tradition of Chicago organized crime, and demand the termination of Solomon, as a sacrifice. I can just imagine Obama in his best imitation Godfather accent saying, “We must make an example of this Solomon fellow.”
That is not to say that if you obey Obama your business will be a success. Last year when Obama, again with no legal authority, fired GM CEO Rick Wagoner and dictated the type of car GM will produce, specifically the Chevy Volt. GM like any other government owned and controlled company is losing money. Thanks to generous tax incentives, GM has managed to sell a whopping 271 Chevy Volts, all at a huge loss. Considering GM sold 592,545 vehicles in the first quarter of this year, the sales of the Volt are statistically ZERO(less than 0.05%). At least GM is temporarily safe by following the dictates of Chicago thugs who extorted them, the Obama Administration. Chicago style thuggery, which when exercised by government is called socialism or fascism, may dictate what a company produces, but because there is a modicum of freedom in the USA and we still have some choice, and there is still some free competition, so even with skyrocketing gas prices, the people prefer the just about any other vehicle over the Government Motors overpriced electric boondoggle.
Just like in Chicago, where the thug nature of how things were run during prohibition resulted in businesses that behaved out of fear not what was necessarily best for business. Buying from the thug approved seller, selling at the thug approved price, paying off the correct thugs for protection, or being eliminated and having your business sent to your thug controlled competitor. Businesses in this environment either become totally controlled by the thugs, move to a place with a better and safer business climate, or simply go out of business because it is no longer profitable. The result is that for people that live in places where business are controlled by thugs, they end up with fewer choices in businesses and products, paying more, and endanger themselves if they buck the system. Obama is trying to run the US the same way as the Chicago thugs historically run Chicago, with force, fear, and a disregard for the rule of law. Equality under the Law plays no part in the Obama administration’s methodology. They openly grant favors and exemptions from the law to those who support and/or obey, and punish beyond legal justification those of whom they want to make an example. You will read and hear more of Obama working in the “Chicago Way” not just as political hyperbole, but because it is objectively true. Obama is a Chicago thug, and his goal is the same as the historic goals of past Chicago thugs like Al Capone or the infamous Daley Machine, power.
Last week we saw another prime example of the thug nature of the Obama administration. Exercising the old and proven method that thugs have used for eons to gather power and force the will upon others, Obama is using extortion. His Health and Human Services office is demanding the resignation of the CEO from Forest Laboratories. HHS wants to exclude Forest from selling its products to Medicaid, Medicare and VA hospitals unless their CEO, Howard Solomon, is let go. This is Chicago style extortion at its finest. This is meant to set an example for every medical company in America. To steal a line from the great gangster movie, The Godfather, Obama is making an offer that they can’t refuse. If you as a medical company dare not do as you are dictated by the Obama political machine, you too can and will be removed from position as CEO. Medical CEOs better "love" Obamacare or pay the price.
It is true that Forest Labs broke the law, marketing a drug, which was eventually approved by the FDA, prior to its approval. As a result they admitted their error, paid a $313 million fine, and complied with everything the Justice Department demanded. In truth, they paid for their crime, in full, as the law dictated that they should. For the Obama administration this wasn’t enough. They want the company’s CEO, Solomon tossed out, even though Forest Laboratories complied with every legal punishment, the FDA will prohibit them from any business involving the government unless they bow down to this extortion.
Never mind that Solomon took a small inconsequential vitamin company and built a major $4 billion company that employs thousands of people, generating millions in tax revenue and creates life-enhancing medicines to the benefit of millions of Americans. As an example to all Medical CEOs, and in absence of any law that grants the Obama administration the authority, Obama is going to exercise power in the tradition of Chicago organized crime, and demand the termination of Solomon, as a sacrifice. I can just imagine Obama in his best imitation Godfather accent saying, “We must make an example of this Solomon fellow.”
That is not to say that if you obey Obama your business will be a success. Last year when Obama, again with no legal authority, fired GM CEO Rick Wagoner and dictated the type of car GM will produce, specifically the Chevy Volt. GM like any other government owned and controlled company is losing money. Thanks to generous tax incentives, GM has managed to sell a whopping 271 Chevy Volts, all at a huge loss. Considering GM sold 592,545 vehicles in the first quarter of this year, the sales of the Volt are statistically ZERO(less than 0.05%). At least GM is temporarily safe by following the dictates of Chicago thugs who extorted them, the Obama Administration. Chicago style thuggery, which when exercised by government is called socialism or fascism, may dictate what a company produces, but because there is a modicum of freedom in the USA and we still have some choice, and there is still some free competition, so even with skyrocketing gas prices, the people prefer the just about any other vehicle over the Government Motors overpriced electric boondoggle.
Just like in Chicago, where the thug nature of how things were run during prohibition resulted in businesses that behaved out of fear not what was necessarily best for business. Buying from the thug approved seller, selling at the thug approved price, paying off the correct thugs for protection, or being eliminated and having your business sent to your thug controlled competitor. Businesses in this environment either become totally controlled by the thugs, move to a place with a better and safer business climate, or simply go out of business because it is no longer profitable. The result is that for people that live in places where business are controlled by thugs, they end up with fewer choices in businesses and products, paying more, and endanger themselves if they buck the system. Obama is trying to run the US the same way as the Chicago thugs historically run Chicago, with force, fear, and a disregard for the rule of law. Equality under the Law plays no part in the Obama administration’s methodology. They openly grant favors and exemptions from the law to those who support and/or obey, and punish beyond legal justification those of whom they want to make an example. You will read and hear more of Obama working in the “Chicago Way” not just as political hyperbole, but because it is objectively true. Obama is a Chicago thug, and his goal is the same as the historic goals of past Chicago thugs like Al Capone or the infamous Daley Machine, power.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
