That’s Not Fair!

Such outbursts as this by children are seldom tolerated by parents, if at all.  Yet we hear this all the time from the Fascists in our government, especially President Obama.  He is constantly talking about individuals who have been successful in their efforts of not paying “their fair share” in taxes (even when they pay the lion’s share of the confiscatory “revenue” the government takes in).   We see it in youth sports where there are no winners or losers, for all get “participation” awards (even though if you ask the players, they know the real result).

So, in fairness, I would pose the following questions:

Is it fair to our children and grandchildren to saddle them with an insurmountable debt that will crush their future, their freedom, their aspirations, dreams and happiness?  Thomas Jefferson set forth the following principles in a letter to James Madison on September 6, 1789:

“…no generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of its own existence….But with respect to future debts; would it not be wise and just for that nation to declare in the constitution they are forming that neither the legislature, nor the nation itself can validly contract more debt, than they may pay within their own age,…?”

Is it fair for the government to confiscate my personal property, such as my income, when John Locke correctly observed that personal property is the very bedrock of liberty?

“…every man has a property in his own person; this nobody has any right to but himself.  The labour of his body and the work of his hands we may say are properly his.  Whatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property”? (Second Treatise on Government)

Is it fair when the government takes our money and then subsidizes private companies and industries such as President Obama just announced he was going to do again by giving the “green energy” industry another one billion dollars, and thus create an uneven playing field in the marketplace?

Is it fair when the government uses my property which it confiscates from me to pay for immoral activities such as the murder of innocent babies?

Is it fair when the government fails to fulfill its fundamental duty to protect the citizenry from the unwanted invasion of illegal individuals who perpetrate murder and crime against them and who undermine employment opportunities for those on the lower rungs of the economic ladder?

Is it fair when the government refuses to execute justice equally and impartially on all citizens, regardless of their status in life or positions (or former positions) of power?  It was Madison, writing in Federalist 51, who stated that such was the very reason for the existence of government:

“Justice is the end of government.  It is the end of civil society.  It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty b e lost in the pursuit.”

Yes, when we ask whether something is “fair”, what we are really asking is “Is it just?”  I could continue my line of questioning about the actions our government and would end up with a book instead of an essay, but when we reflect upon Madison’s dictum we should be alarmed for this government’s pursuit of what it deems to be “fair” is truly the exhibition of multiple injustices, and in its pursuit of them our liberty is being lost.

-August 28, 2015

Read More

New Definition for the EPA

We all know that the EPA stands for the “Environmental Protection Agency”, but given recent actions by that agency I would suggest it stands for “Economic Prevention Agency” as it is the becoming more and more the biggest obstacle to economic recovery and growth.

Just this week there was the agency’s dumping millions of gallons of toxic waste into the Colorado river causing huge risks to the health and well being of both animals and humans all along the river’s pathway. That aside, in line with the subject matter of this essay, it will also cause a loss of economic activity by those who depend upon that waterway, not to mention the cost that we the taxpayers will have to fork over to clean up their mess. Usually government agencies are protected from lawsuits for matters like this unless negligence can be proven (unlike companies such as Exxon Mobil or BP). Perhaps this instance will prove differently, and if so, we the taxpayers will again be the ones paying the costs. What’s appalling about this is this agency wants to tell us what we can do with the water on our private property so as to protect “mother earth”, but then they do this to a large swath of the western part of the United States!

However, the greater damage being done to the economy are their proposed regulations on power plants. These regulations will result in the shuttering of many existing coal-fired plants, which in turn will cause “brown-outs” and “blackouts” in many areas. Again, the economic impact will be severe as productivity will be slowed and costs of virtually everything accelerated, all in the name of the phony and unproven claims of “climate change”.

The truth is this approach by this agency is merely the most efficient vehicle for the Fascists in government to assume more and more control over our lives. A nation’s economy has been most often the back door through which tyranny has been installed within a country (e.g., Russia in 1917, Nazi Germany in the 1930s, etc). Ayn Rand observed that a people cannot be politically free unless they are first economically free. Thus the converse of that principle is what history has shown, namely, when a people lose their economic freedom, their political freedom goes with it.

There is no constitutional authority for this out-of-control bureaucracy; such matters as this agency is supposed to oversee the founders argued were to be left to the control of the states. Unless this agency is reined in and destroyed, it will destroy our freedom, our quality of life, and all that makes America the envy of the world in terms of its standard of living.

Read More

Citizenship Doesn’t Mean as Much as It Used To

Lee Greenwood’s anthem to America, “I’m Proud to be an American”, has lost its luster with many US citizens.  According to the US Treasury Department, in 2013 2,999 US citizens moved to another country and gave up their citizenship.  In 2014 that number rose to 3,415, or a 14% increase over the year before.

In a nation of 300 million people, this number may seem trivial, but consider this:  according to a recent survey conducted  by the British money transfer firm Transferwise, 35% of the US citizens it surveyed would have an interest  in leaving the US and thus give up their citizenship.  Of this amount, 14% stated they would consider doing so within the next five years.  Of the 35% who would make this move, 51% stated lower taxes as their main motivation, while almost an equal amount, 48% were motivated by better educational opportunities.  Lower cost health coverage was another major concern as was  the desire for a better quality of life and lower cost of living.

In juxtaposition to this we see millions from impoverished third world countries pouring across our borders to take up residence among us.  Yet when asked about their motivation for coming here, despite citing some of the same reasons given by a significant number of our fellow citizens who want to leave America, more often the reason these individuals give for wanting to come and stay in the US is for the welfare provisions provided by Washington.  Add to this the lack of a desire on the part of these immigrants, mostly illegal, to assimilate into the American culture, learn English, become US citizens and severe ties to their former homeland, it should come as no surprise that upwards of one-in-three of us are tired of having to pay for those individuals and want out of a country that is self-imploding under such lax immigration policies.

I, for one, have no desire to leave America, “land that I love”, and I am “Proud to be an American”.  However, regretfully, it is becoming harder and harder to feel the sentiment of the next phrase in Greenwood’s song, “where at least I know I’m free.”  What a blight on the record of our leadership in Washington where due to their governing, a full one-third of their citizens would give more than a fleeting thought to wanting to give up being Americans.

-August 21, 2015

Read More

Planned Parenthood – America’s Auschwitz

I’m certain you are aware of the controversy that has arisen over Planned Parenthood’s selling of “harvested” aborted babies’ organs and body parts/tissues to so-called “research” facilities. The videos released so far are shocking not only in the gruesomeness of the lab technicians and “doctors” picking apart these murdered babies, but even more so for the cold callousness with which the upper echelon of PP discuss the marketing and pricing of their “service.”

You’ve probably also heard how any comparison to the Nazi death camps of WWII is decried as being “over-the-top” and not an apple-to-apple comparison. This comparison is discounted by these “doctors” who absolve their consciences because the parts/tissues/organs are being used in medical research that will improve and benefit all humanity, and are therefore justifiable. Ok, let’s compare shall we?

Back in the 60s’ when I was a sophomore in high school I read William L. Shirer’s monumental work, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. He goes into detail about the medical experiments carried out by “Dr” Josef Mengele on concentration camp prisoners and Russian POWs. I remember three specific experiments that he described. In one instance two Russian POWs were put into a chamber and the air pressure gradually increased to see just how much pressure they could withstand before death ensued. In another experiment a male concentration camp prisoner was put outside in the dead of winter and the back of his head placed in a bucket of water to test the effect of extreme cold on brain function. A third consisted of a study on recovery from hypothermia. In these cases a male concentration camp victim was placed outside naked and covered with a sheet while buckets of water were poured on him over a period of time, again during the dead of winter. After some time had passed he was brought in, placed in a bed and covered with blankets to see how long it took to recover. The next step was to have two naked female victims get under the covers and cuddle with him to see if human body heat had a better effect. When the “experiments” were completed and the “data” recorded, these poor souls were then gassed and their remains unceremoniously burned in the ovens.

These examples are as crude and revolting as they are beyond a doubt the height of inhumanity. But, Dr. Mengele could argue that he was doing this in the name of medical research and that if successful, all mankind who lived in cold climates might benefit, or those who would one day fly into space benefit from the air pressure tests. Besides, he would argue, those upon whom these “experiments” were conducted were sub-human species anyway (according to Nazi Aryan philosophy) so there was no disgrace in what he did.

It is objectively impossible to classify these unborn babies, to be anything other than living, human beings. To destroy them (i.e. murder) in the horrific manner in which these abortions are done and to then treat their remains as they are is certainly no less callous and inhumane than the actions taken by Dr. Mengele and the Nazis. America, we have lost our moral compass and our soul. May God forgive us.

Read More

Who – What Is the Militia?

Well, according to Senator Harry Reid, following the recent standoff between militiamen and federal agents in Nevada, they are “domestic terrorists.”  If this was 1776, Harry’s comments would have been “seconded” by King George, as he most certainly felt the same towards our forefathers who had stood up to his soldiers at Lexington Green and the bridge at Concord, Massachusetts.

The Second Amendment reads “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”   Those pushing for stricter gun controls argue that the “militia” is what we today would call our national or state guard.  However, that is not the meaning intended by our founders.  Herewith are a few quotes to substantiate that it is we, the people, who make up the militia:

“That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state;” (16th proposed amendment by the Virginia Convention, June 27, 1788).

“The militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, … all men capable of bearing arms”  (Richard Henry Lee, aka the Anti-Federalist, The Federal Farmer, “Letters to the Republic”, 1788).

“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”  (George Mason, June 16, 1788).

“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves?”  (Tench Coxe, who was later to become recognized as the foremost expounder of the second amendment’s meaning and intent, 1788).

So the next question is, “What is a terrorist?”   A terrorist, simply put, is one who would impose his will upon others by causing them to fear for their life or property through use of an overpowering presence of force.  In the case of the Nevada standoff, which side fits the picture of a terrorist and which that of the liberty-defending militia?

No Harry, it is you and those like you in our government who are the domestic terrorists.  It is you who seek to impose your agenda on us against our will and limit our freedom, thereby destroying our liberties granted us by our Creator and guaranteed us by our Constitution.  Nevada should serve as a warning to you and those in Washington.  Learn the lesson of history of what happened to King George when he pushed freedom-loving Americans too far, or you will find us teaching it to you in a manner none of us wants to see taught.

-April 25, 2014

Read More

The Highway Bill and the Constitution

The Highway Bill and the Constitution

The debate going on in Congress over the passage of a long-term highway funding bill shows a complete lack of regard for constitutional constraints.

To begin with, the bill provides funding over a multiple-year period. The only constitutional project for which an extended period of funding is mentioned in the Constitution is for the military, which must, according to Article I, Section 8, Clause 12, be done every two years. If the principle that one congress cannot bind a future congress holds true, and every two years there is a new congress, how then can this congress bind several future congresses to the funding of highways?

Second, amendments have been offered and one successfully attached to it that have absolutely nothing to do with highways. Senate Majority Leader McConnell added an amendment to re -instate the funding for the Export-Import Bank (yet another unconstitutional use of our tax money and an overt act of fascism). Although neither the Constitution nor Jefferson’s Manual on legislative procedures disallows this, the principles of good legislation as outlined by Charles de Montesquieu in his Spirit of the Laws (Part VI, Book 29 titled “On the Way to Compose the Laws”) and James Madison in Federalist 62, would indicate that such allowances do not make for sound and wise legislation.

Third, there is no constitutional authority for the general government to spend tax dollars on any highways or roads other than “post roads” (Article I, Section 8, Clause 7). On May 4, 1822, Congress presented to President James Monroe for his signature a bill known as “An act for the preservation and repair of the Cumberland road.”  The act was to provide funding for maintenance of a road between Maryland and Virginia.

Although he was in favor of internal improvements and expansion of the country’s infrastructure, he felt the Constitution did not authorize the general government to undertake such a task and suggested that the Constitution be amended to authorize such activity. His suggestion was ignored by the Congress, so he vetoed the bill, and in his explanation of the veto to the congress he succinctly laid out the limits imposed upon the government in such cases (text of Monroe’s veto).

President Monroe understood the principle enunciated by then Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, John Marshall: “The peculiar circumstances of the moment may render a measure more or less wise, but cannot render it more or less constitutional.”   Interstate highways, bridges, tunnels and the like are very good and wise investments in the well-being of our country, yet Monroe and Marshall had it right – they are nevertheless unconstitutional. For this Congress then to pass such a bill will be an act that exceeds their enumerated authority without first amending the Constitution to authorize such expenditures. But when has a lack of constitutional authority stopped them before?

Read More