Return from a year of "other" endeavors

It has been nearly a year since my last blog posting, during which time I thought I had found the appropriate group of like-minded individuals to committ my time to. It was time well spent as I learned numerous items, but did not find myself in agreement with the methods that they were pursuing, hence I struck out on my own yet again.
In my wanderings and readings I have discovered a method that appears to be something I can agree with whole-heartedly. That method is "voluntaryism". A couple of years ago, I had read Auberon Herbert's "Voluntaryist Creed" and found it to be quite compelling. Little did I realize that I was still shaking off the programming of my past. Discovery of Carl Watner's Voluntaryist website has reaffirmed my conviction that the only way out of the quagmire that we find ourselves in is one mind at a time. That will be the direction of this blog going forward.
If I can wake up one or two minds a year, I will be doing well. My stretch goal will be one mind a month.
The next post will include a reading list that I believe to be essential to awakening minds from the slumber that they have been placed into by the indoctrination system (for the uninitiated, I mean the education system) and the media that blasts us with their version of the "accepted" truth.
The one challenge that I pose to any reader is to evaluate the content presented here critically. If you find what you believe to be an erroneous statement, please point it out and we can debate it to a logical conclusion. I recognize challenges to be opportunities to expand my knowledge and/or solidify my position.

I want a refund - repost from Feb 2010

A kind of multi-faceted posting this week with the common theme of money. Not just arbitrary money, but the money that we all earn going to work every day.

I would like to have all of my Medicare and Social Security contributions returned to me in one lump sum. Just the 6.25% that I see come out every payday, then the 6.25% that my employer must put in can be held for funding existing commitments. Not only do I want a refund of monies paid to date, I do not want any future withholding from my pay. I will use that money as I deem to be most appropriate for my particular situation; save, invest, or spend, it's my choice. In return, I will not collect Social Security when I turn 65 and be a burden to future generations when I get older. I will plan for my own retirement and if I do not have enough money saved to live comfortably, I will keep working. I will not apply for Medicare either as I will be negotiating with one of the "evil" insurance companies for catastrophic care coverage that will extend until I kick the bucket. It is not the government's role to plan for my retirement, it is my responsibility. For the current generation of Social Security collectors, I apologize, but you were duped into thinking that the system was set up as a type of savings account, but it wasn't. As the baby boomers have started retiring, the system is paying out more money than it is taking in and the government has been dipping in to the kitty for decades. A significant portion of the national debt is "owed" to Social Security and since the debt keeps climbing, the system is broken.

While I am at it, I would like to see a place on my Federal Income Tax Return where I get to decide where my money goes. I would like to have the ability to decide how much covers defense, how much covers entitlements, how much goes to foreign governments, and how much goes to paying down the debt. If this were to happen, it could be used as a referendum for Congress to determine what should receive funding in the Federal Budget. I think most people in the United States are convinced that money goes to undeserving line items and this would be their opportunity to state their preferences clearly. Keep in mind that this means that the more taxes an individual pays, the more their opinion matters. The referendum needs to be a weighted average. Those who don't pay any taxes do not get to decide where the money goes.

I am sick and tired of the nanny state politicians thinking that they know what is best for the country and that spending money that doesn't exist will solve all of the problems. Anybody who has to manage their own lives understands that you can not continually spend more money than you take in. Some day the bills come due, yet the Congress does not seem to get it.

When the Congress and the President acknowledge that printing money only causes inflation (more dollars chasing the same amount of goods) and that the best way to stimulate the economy is to quit proposing more regulation and taxes, this country will be on the road to recovery. If they choose to maintain the trajectory that they are taking us on, we are in for a depression of historic magnitude. Inflation will skyrocket and all of the "green jobs" on the planet will not save us.

As Thomas Paine wrote; "These are the times that try men's souls." We are heading into the most trying time endured by most Americans alive today and our government is taking us their. Paine, in the same essay, also wrote "Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered: yet we have the consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph". It is time to take our country back from the egalitarians who have decided that they have all of the answers and know where our money, not theirs, should be spent.

Are you ready to be free?

A large number of people claim to want to be free, yet most do not understand what that freedom entails. Let’s explore it in some detail.

Personal freedom is based on the right of self-ownership. Each individual is the rightful owner, the only rightful owner, of his or her body (life) and mind (liberty). Actions of the mind in conjunction with the body create property. This is the underlying premise in the Declaration of Independence claim for Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

It is very easy for an individual to accept their own right of self-ownership, but freedom in a civil society means that they have to recognize every other individual’s right to the same. This is where I would contend that there are a large number of individuals who are not ready to be free. They are not willing to accept that other people should be allowed to live their own lives as they see fit as long as it does not interfere with another’s right to do the same.

Freedom of Contract is key to the operation of a civil society and is a derivative of the right of self-ownership. Any two individuals, or groups of individuals, are free to engage in a contract of mutually agreed upon terms for mutual benefit. Force and/or fraud in the negotiation of the contract will make it null and void. All lawful interactions between individuals are contractual, either explicitly of implicitly. The simplest contract is the labor contract; an individual that needs some function performed contracts with another individual to perform that function. As long as the negotiation does not involve force or fraud, it is a viable and lawful contract. Think about this for a few minutes and you will realize that there are a number of social “hot-button” issues that fall into this category.

When an individual violates the rights of another, through either force or fraud, it is a crime. The phrase “victimless crime” is an oxymoron as, by lawful definition, a crime requires either physical or pecuniary damage. Therefore, there is also no basis for “crimes against society” since society, per se, is nothing more than a group of individuals voluntarily associating with each other. At such point as an individual engages in commission of a crime, they are forfeiting their rights by violating the rights of another. Through a lawful jury trial, the criminal is subject to punishment and restitution that they will claim is a violation of their rights, but it is important to recognize that the claimed rights have been forfeited.

Being free requires work; it requires conscious activity each and every minute of every day. It requires that you make your own decisions and live with the results of those decisions. If you choose to conduct yourself on the basis of someone else’s decisions, you do so at your own risk. Freedom to live your own life means that you accept the responsibility of the ramifications of your choices, good or bad. You do not get to lay claim, without a contract, to the fruits of someone else’s labor for any purpose. This means that you are free to help any category of destitute individual that you wish, but you are not allowed to force anyone else to do the same. Some of the most heinous offenses against the right of self-ownership are done in the name of philanthropy.

Let’s take a little true or false quiz and we will explore what the appropriate answers are for a civil society based on the right of self-ownership.

1. Prostitution is a crime.
2. Marriage should be legally defined as the union between a man and a woman.
3. There can be a death penalty for premeditated murder.
4. There should be laws governing illicit drug use.
5. Everyone has a right to health care if they are sick.

Now let’s go through the answers when the right of self-ownership is consistently applied.

1. False – prostitution is a contractual agreement between two individuals for sexual activity in exchange for money or goods. As long as there is no force or fraud involved, there is no crime.
2. False – marriage is also a contractual agreement. This is one of the most difficult ones to come to terms with for a lot of people, but there is no basis for the declaration of what this contract must entail. This is a private choice between individuals. If someone chooses to engage in monogamous, bigamous, polygamous, or even homosexual unions, the only parties who are allowed to have input are the ones involved.
3. True – once an individual has committed premeditated murder, they have forfeited their rights by violating another’s. Keep in mind that this determination must be made by a unanimous jury with habeas corpus recognized.
4. False – what one person chooses to put into their body is their own business. However, they do not have the right to expect other members of society to assume the risk for their actions.
5. False – everyone has the right to access health care if they are sick. Health care is a service provided by someone else and becomes a contractual agreement.

Being free is not quite as easy as you thought, is it? Take the time to explore your heart and mind and realize that you have been programmed throughout the course of your life to believe things that are not consistent with true freedom. Keep in mind that you are always free to determine whom you associate with either personally or professionally.

Government "created" jobs

The fallacy that I will attempt to detonate is the myth of government created jobs. The government does provide jobs, but it does not create them. It takes from the private sector (which does create) to fund its activities. In a simple form, in a proper role of government, let's take the example of the police officer.
While police, when enforcing laws protecting individual liberty, are a necessary and proper role of government, the costs associated with the officer's duties are paid through confiscation of money by taxation. As a result, not only is the officer not available for the labor pool in private industry, the money that would provide his sustenance in his role has been taken from the economy. This is the best possible case and results in no net change as the money that has been removed from the private sector has been compensated by a reduction in the labor pool. The role of the police officer is clearly beneficial to civil society and justifiable but is, nonetheless, a drain on the private sector.
Let's expand to the overgrown administrative nightmare that is today's government agencies. Not only is every individual employed in these functions removed from private industry, their function within the government does not add to civil society. We are effectively removing two or more jobs from the private sector with each and every additional government bureaucrat.
There will be a number of people that would argue about the necessity and usefulness of the aforementioned bureaucrats but the bottom line is that government, by definition, is parasitic on society. All government activity is funded by usurpation of funds from the private sector. The larger the parasite becomes, the less healthy the host is.

New series to open eyes and minds

Today initiates a new series of postings designed at opening the eyes, and more importantly minds, of anyone who reads it. Through a similar strategy to what Andrew Wilkow uses on his radio show, I am going to take popular progressive liberal strategies to their logical conclusion. Many thanks and much appreciation to Andrew for what he does.
Let's start with redistribution of income; notice that the word of choice is income and not wealth, I will get back to that shortly. The justification for income redistribution is the classic "who will help the children, widows, helpless, etc." strategy for guilting individuals for being "greedy". This is backwards and counterproductive to society at large. The needy will be assisted by charity which people give to voluntarily and yes, some will not get assistance due to refusal of assistance from either party (by the way, the recipient who would refuse voluntary charity typically will not go to the government for assistance either). The charity organization can rightfully place conditions on receipt of assistance, attending a church service, assisting other families, whatever they believe is required to insure that the assistance is a hand up and not a hand out.
The current target for the government redistribution group are those that make over $250,000 per year. Regardless of what those particular individuals do, like create jobs by starting businesses, what is the likely outcome? People will quit striving to increase their income beyond that threshold. As individuals realize that they will get screwed out of their money beyond a certain point, they will quit exceeding it. This will force the government to lower the threshold, which results in more individuals stopping short of the new bar. Eventually, the most productive members of society quit producing as they know that they will be punished for their productivity.
I said that I would get back to income versus wealth, notice that the target is the individuals who are productive (income is money received for work). Redistributing wealth would expose what people refer to as "limousine liberals" to their own ideals. Wealth is "an abundance of valuable possessions or money" which is very different from income. If we move into the realm of redistributing wealth instead of income, now your retirement investments are at risk of being given to someone "in need", your savings account is now fair game, the second car, a second home, all of it is now targeted for confiscation at the point of a gun.
It is not your "duty" as a citizen of the United States of America to work every day for the benefit of others. Your duties are first to yourself and your family both near and long term (investing for the future). If you have income left after that to assist others of your choosing, then you are free to do so. Government confiscation of your income is a violation of the Constitution; the Bill of Attainder clause in Article 1 Section 9 as well as the involuntary servitude clause in the 13th Amendment. Unless, of course, productivity and the right to the fruits of one's own labor is deemed to be criminal.

Education or Indoctrination

With the federal government now discussing the possibility of getting involved in the credential process for post secondary education, it is time to discuss the reality of the current situation and the likely motive for this latest round of "hope and change". The education system in this country used to be second to none and, while the post secondary system is still top tier, as evidenced by the number of foreign born students, it won't be for long if the Department of Education gets entrenched.
Currently, post secondary schools in this country are indirectly controlled by the US government, through availability of financial aid for students. Their curricula have to meet certain requirements which are indirectly "blessed" through the accreditation systems. Currently, the biggest threat to a college or university is the loss of funding if they are pushing curriculum options that are considered politically incorrect.
Now let's add to this the ability for the federal leviathan to directly control the accreditation system and have all components of the curriculum subjected to the whim of some unelected bureaucrat with delusions of grandeur. We will end up doing to the post secondary system what has been systematically done to the K-12 system in this country. We will no longer have a system of education, it will purely a system of indoctrination into the progressive leviathan mind-set. It would be impossible to get a degree in anything without at least outwardly ascribing to the wonders of collectivism and everything that goes with it.
The post secondary education system in this country is already polluted with a bevy of progressive elitists who pummel the impressionable minds of our children with one-sided orthodoxy. Philosophy curriculum do not include studies of Aristotle's work, science curriculum involves memorization of random facts instead of leading students to their own discovery and understanding. The post secondary system, particularly state schools, is already rotting from within and does not need any assistance from the establishment bureaucrats.
The K-12 system in this country has achieved the status of truly pathetic in a number of locales. Abstract concepts are taught long before the basic facts are taught. Add to that the drive for social indoctrination, kindergarteners being "taught" about homosexuality and environmentalism, and you now have a recipe for crippling the minds of our children. If you are part of the establishment elite, this works out beautifully, since you don't want a general public capable of thinking for itself.
If you would like an indication of where this all leads, read Orwell's 1984 and Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron". This will give you a nice insight into the dystopian future that we have in store.

Class warfare?

The popular media, statists, intelligentsia, and all other people with a collectivist mentality will push that there is a class warfare in this country. They are correct that there is class warfare in full swing today, but their definition of the antagonists is absolutely incorrect.
Through the indoctrination of children in the public education system, college students in the public universities, and dishonest reporting in the media, we have all been led to believe that the "class war" is all about the wealthy versus the poor. When the entire world was agriculturally based and wealth was a fixed quantity, this may have been true. The owners of the land had a distinct advantage. With the onset of the industrialized world where wealth continues to be created, as opposed to being acquired, this is no longer true. Any individual, in a free society that guarantees individual liberty, has the ability the create wealth through ingenuity and sweat. Thomas Edison, one of the most prolific creators of wealth in history, once said "Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration". This man, along with many others throughout history have shown that wealth can be created and is not a static quantity. Therefore, as long as there is a level playing field, equality of opportunity, any individual can elevate their own financial status.
The class war in which we are currently engaged is the political elite versus everyone else. The American people have finally started to awaken to this phenomenon that started one hundred years ago. The collectivists have been slowly usurping this country and establishing their positions of power since Woodrow Wilson was president. While the collectivist elite (more commonly referred to as career politicians) has been slowly acquiring power, the rest of us have been trying to live the American Dream and provide for ourselves and our family. In the 30's and again in the 60's, the collectivist elites made huge strides in establishing themselves as the ruling class by creating large numbers of people fully dependent on the government. A large portion of them originally understood that this is not the promise that America holds, but you can't bite the hand that feeds you.
The elitist class now openly states that we are essentially not smart enough to understand what is good for us. The media keeps us distracted with stories about celebrities behaving badly, and the legal system has devolved into judgement of popular will as opposed to Rule of Law. Most people don't even understand what Rule of Law entails or even the difference between natural rights and government handouts. But there is a growing number of us who do and are speaking up.
Throughout the history of the world, liberty has been secured for the many by the few. It is now time that the few do it again. This country has been usurped by would-be monarchs that promise equality of results instead of equality of opportunity. Those of us that are standing up for individual sovereignty are not racists or any other vilifying term that the "ruling class" or media choose to pin on us. We are Americans who still understand that this is the land of opportunity and all we want government to do is to protect our individual liberty and leave us alone to live our own lives. We all need to be allowed to succeed or fail on our own merits. Liberty must be secured in this generation or there will be none for future generations.

Wake up and smell the feces

On a radio station in northern California Tuesday morning, there was a county assessor lamenting about banks that are entering into revised mortgage agreements with customers while continuing to pursue foreclosure. The result in some cases is that houses are being foreclosed within days of arriving at a revised mortgage agreement. In classic latte liberal form, this overcompensated government employee was pointing out how evil the banks are. By the way, he should have been on the clock, which means that the taxpayers are paying for him to do radio interviews. Classic progressive fecal matter intended to skew your emotions so that you feel sorry for the poor mortgagee.
While this is a classic case of "the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing" on the part of the bank, claiming malicious intent is dishonest and libelous. What this typical government hack fails to recognize is that government programs have encouraged the banks to put themselves into positions of being over-leveraged and providing mortgages to people who couldn't afford them. They never mention that sixty percent of the mortgages "redone" through the federal assistance program last year are already in arrears/foreclosure again. That was money well spent.
The Austrian school economists have been highlighting the risks inherent in government intervention in the housing market (Fannie, Freddie, CRA, etc.) for years and now that the chickens are coming home to roost, is it really the banks that are evil.
Whether there was malicious intent in the banks or even the government is beside the point now. The real question is how do we get through this. We need to allow failure to happen and flush the system. People and businesses fail all the time and the self-reliant learn from it and move on with a revised perspective on how to handle the next issue.
It is time to stand up and let your government officials at all levels know that allowing rewards to be individualized while socializing all risks is destructive and misguided. Forcing people to accept the risk along with the potential of reward will go a long way to correcting what is wrong with this country.

Encourage your friends and family

Do you really want to affect change in the American political landscape? Get your family and friends to vote in the November election. The sad reality of the situation over the last 30 years is that less than 62% of eligible voters actually vote in the Presidential elections and less than 40% vote in the "mid-term" elections in between. That means that no matter what the talking heads on television would like you to believe, nobody, and I mean nobody, has been elected to national office by a "majority of the people". That means that even President Obama, who the media pundits will tell you won by an "overwhelming" majority only got an actual 35% of the vote.
This is the reason that we see the offal that currently occupies public office. Not only do we have a significant majority of elected officials in Washington who have never actually held a real job, by that I mean a job that actually results in the creation of wealth, but most of them are elected by less than one third of the electorate. The only way to stop this travesty is to get the voter turnout above 75%.
Over and above the turnout, stop letting other people make your decisions for you. Do your own investigation of the candidates and arrive at your own choice. Yes, it is time consuming, but it is much easier now with the internet. There are literally millions of resources available to determine which candidate will uphold your views and, you can only hope, will uphold those views once they are in office.
When making your determination on candidate selection, make sure that you are viewing it from a "what is the proper role of government" perspective. Be aware that a large number of candidates, particularly the career politicians, view the proper role of the government as controlling all aspects of your life. The only significant difference in the two major parties is which social direction that control will swing.
Personally, I have voted in every election since the day I turned 18. I can't honestly say that I always did the appropriate amount of research in my candidate selection, particularly when I was younger, but I am getting better at it. Yes, it consumes a large amount of time doing actual candidate research, especially separating the wheat from the chaff, but it is worth every moment if I can vote for someone that actually believes in the original structure of the government. It takes even more effort to shake the brain-washing of the public education system about how great the "nanny state" is.
Get your family and friends to vote in November and let's turn this government back into one that is actually "of the people, by the people, for the people" instead of "of some of the people, by the political elite, for their own re-election interests". And finally, remember, if you don't vote, you have also waived your right to complain about the government.

Response to editorial

Here is my response to Dana Milbank (via email) on his editorial in The Washington Post on July 17th;

You are missing the entire point of the billboard and Mr. Sowell's piece. All you have to do is read The Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek and he explains that collectivism in it's many forms leads to totalitarianism. The propagation of the socialist doctrines of the early twentieth century led to (and naturally lead to) Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, etc. Maybe President Obama isn't the totalitarian dictator yet, but he is definitely blazing the trail. He has a cabinet full of people that think that Chairman Mao was a great philosopher, which is completely ridiculous. As my grandfather and father always told me, "judge a man by his actions, not by his words".

In judging President Obama by his actions, let's see what we get;

1) Nationalization of two of the big three American automakers. One still under government control, one sold to the administration's favorite bidder. In the process of that take-over, robbing legitimate investors of their capital. - destruction of capitalism as outlined in many socialist writings.

2) Nationalization of health care. Even though the health care industry is currently invaded by government over-regulation. - elimination of individual choice as outlined in socialist manifestos

3) Vilification of Arizona for trying to maintain their own (and the rest of the nation's) sovereignty - the self-diefication of the federal government and it's leadership as warned about during the Constitutional ratification debates

4) Divisive rhetoric attempting to turn all "minorities" against the Tea Party - as perfectly described in The Road to Serfdom, it is much easier to unite the masses (in its most derogatory definition) against a particular group than for a particular agenda. The Jews in pre-WWII Germany, the kulak in Communist Russia, now people who believe in individual sovereignty as the basis for civil society.

5) Grand-standing instead of actually doing something while Deepwater Horizon spewed oil into the Gulf. As a real leader, he should have been coordinating honest offers of assistance from all quarters. Instead he is setting the stage for the destruction of the heart of industrialized advancement. All part of the destruction of capitalism.

As a result of President Obama's actions, I would say that the only legitimate criticism of the billboard is that it is missing pictures of Mussolini, Mao, Chavez, Peron, and Castro. The twentieth century is full of examples all over the world of the catastrophic consequences of collectivism in any of its forms, yet we now have a president who is kicking in the afterburners to get us to our own catastrophe as quickly as possible. He sees it as his opportunity to put his personal stamp on history, and as many commentators and world leaders have noted, it's really all about him. The most narcissistic individual to ever hold the office.

As for you and your editorial brethren at the Washington Post, you should all quit fawning over the chosen one and provide your readers with actual critical assessment of the current president instead of kissing his feet. Wait a minute, that means that you are setting yourselves up to be his equivalent of Pravda. I guess that you have already accepted the end game and are now trying to insure that you have a sweet position within the new totalitarian regime.....

Collectivism in its most basic form

Yesterday, the NAACP issued what can only be referred to as a reprimand to the Tea Party for being racist. Welcome to collectivism at its most basic form. The whole premise of collectivism is to eliminate individual sovereignty and insure that all actions are for the good of the collective. Race is the easiest way to define the collective as you can typically glance at an individual and have a good idea if they are part of your particular collective. My hat is off to the members of the black community who have not hesitated to renounce this NAACP statement. The NAACP will now pillory you as either an "Uncle Tom" or "not black enough".
This is nothing more than a lame ploy by the libtards to insure that they are viewed as the only ones looking out for your particular collective. Notice that Michelle Obama was present at the announcement, this should be the first clue that the whole thing was orchestrated by the Democrats and the White House. The Tea Party scares them as it is focused in the individual sovereignty and self-determination that this country was founded upon. There is nothing more reprehensible to me than the willingness with which people play the race card instead of engaging in open and honest debate about policies. Apparently, according to the NAACP and the White House, the color of your skin (as long as it is not white) excuses the content of your character.
I guess that since I disagree with Obama's policies, I am a racist. Since I disagree with Nancy Pelosi's policies, that makes me a misogynist and since I would gladly invite King Samir Shabazz to come into any of the Rocky Mountain states with the intent to "Kill crackers and their babies", I guess that makes me violent as well.
Full disclosure: I am a white Anglo-Saxon protestant male with a wife of Spanish and Cherokee descent. I have a friend in the National Guard (on his way back to Iraq again), a friend who is Jewish, a friend who is Mormon, and a black uncle who treats my aunt like the phenomenal individual that she is. This is what America is all about, the ability to choose your friends and life partners based on the content of their character. At the end of the day, our race, color and creed do not make us who we are, our actions do. This is the America MLK was longing for in his "I Have a Dream" speech.

Asking for a Redress of Grievances

Once again, the money-grubbing politicians are after your hard earned money. We have all gotten great deals on internet sites purchasing whatever it is that we need and here we go with another attempt at taxing those transactions specifically. Open Congress (www.opencongress.org) has as the lead article on their web site this morning that Rep. Delahunt (D-MA) has introduced the "Main Street Fairness Act" to tax internet transactions. This is nothing more than a lame attempt to put in tariff legislation aimed at protecting brick and mortar retailers. While I am all for supporting my local and regional businesses, I am also for saving a buck when I can.
This legislation is a clear violation of Article I, Section 9 of The Constitution; "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State". Now I understand that most of our so-called representatives are not interested in The Constitution, nor do I believe that most of them have even read it.
I think it is time for the states to stand up and assert their rights under the 10th Amendment and use the only language that the progressive/liberal establishment understands. It is time for the state attorneys general to file a lawsuit against Fedzilla (thanks for the term Ted) with a list of grievances similar to what was included in The Declaration of Independence;

1. Failure to maintain limited government as outlined in Article I,Section 8
2. Failure to abide by Article I, Section 9, particularly the ex post facto clause and the one mentioned above
3. Failure to protect sovereignty as stated in Article I, Section 8; repel invasions. The influx of illegal immigrants from the south is an invasion.
4. Failure to provide for uniform rules of naturalization per Article I, Section 8
5. Failure to leave decisions of a personal nature, that do not interfere with any other persons' liberty, to the individual per the 9th Amendment.
6. Clear violation of states' rights as outlined in the 10th Amendment through financial coercion and unfunded mandates.
7. Clear violation of the Supremacy clause as outlined in Article VI; it makes The Constitution the supreme law of the land, not whatever whims move the federal governement
8. Clear violation of the Oaths clause in Article VI by peppering judicial appointees with questions about their political stance rather than their position on the supremacy of the Constitution (and most recently allowing a confirmation hearing to continue with refusal to answer questions)

I'm sure if I thought about it a little longer, I could come up with a dozen others. We are currently at the point in this country where we need to start actively pursuing a serious redress of grievances from Fedzilla. The dictatorial attitude and condescending tone so common from the politicians has run its course and we are done.

I have posted this on my ResistNet blog as well.

Obama vs. McChrystal

In how many different ways can the war in Afghanistan be turned into a SNAFU and opportunity for the most narcissistic president in US history to genuflect? First and foremost, this goes out to all politicians regardless of party affiliation, if you are going to deploy the US military, it needs to be under the order to achieve unconditional surrender of the enemy. This requires that the congress officially declare war and provide funding above board for a good, old fashioned, ass kicking.
As for General McChrystal, he is responsible for the lives of thousands of American soldiers, including my brother, while trying to eliminate the Taliban from the worst geographic location for military maneuvers on the planet. If he expresses frustration, as he did during his time with the reporter from The Rolling Stone, then so be it. He is the military leader in a quagmire that is shaping up to be significantly worse than Vietnam. By the way, if you've read the article, the comments aren't nearly as bad as they could have been. The reporter appears to have painted a reasonably accurate picture of the diplomatic infighting as he could.
As for the tongue-lashing that the General is bound to receive from Dear Leader today, I have only one comment "Stand your ground, General". You took an oath to protect and defend the US Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic and this president has shown his complete disdain for the document.
This president has proven himself to be a megalomaniac intent on showing that he is "the chosen one". His obvious disdain for the American soldier is evidenced by his refusal to attend the ceremony at The Tomb of the Unknown Soldier on Memorial Day, choosing instead to vacation with his family in Chicago. While his lame attempt at showing some amount of respect got rained out (what a weenie), Marines charged with standing guard at the Tomb of the Unknown never leave their post, even during a hurricane.
Chairman Maobama is all about the photo op, taxpayer funded dates with his wife, and has taken more vacations in his first year than most presidents take during an entire term. Hope his golf game is improving because he plays a lot of it.

Could he be any more disingenuous?

President Obama addressed the nation last night about the worst environmental disaster in the history of this nation. His claims of actions already completed were half truths at best. He claims that he assembled a team of top scientists, led by Steven Chu, to figure out how to stop this spill. When did he do this, yesterday? Besides, this is an engineering problem that has to be figured out by seasoned, experienced drilling experts not a bunch of academia wonks that have never been outside of a classroom or laboratory. Yes, there are a lot of physics involved and Mr. Chu is at the top of that field and will likely have good ideas, but why wasn't he put up there 55 days ago?
He also attempted to discredit the technological marvel that was Deepwater Horizon and forgot to mention that it was government policy, bowing to the environmentalists, that moved drilling into a region that was a mile below water. Notice that he failed to mention the offer of assistance from the Dutch government three days after the initial accident that the Obama administration, not BP, refused. Notice also that he failed to mention that EPA policy concerns are what prompted the Deepwater Horizon to be filled with water and sunk, turning a mile of pipe into one big pretzel, rather than letting it burn while BP and TransOcean figured out how to shut it off.
Did he mention that nobody has ever tried to cap a well below a mile of water and what has been accomplished so far is a testament to the technological advancement of our society? No he didn't and I doubt that he even understands that a human can not swim any deeper than about 2000 feet (that's less than half the depth of the well head for all of the Obamabot Zombies out there). He would rather follow "Rules for Radicals" and identify someone to vilify and put all of the effort toward complete vilification and blame.
A real leader, regardless of political affiliation, would have asked BP at the beginning what help they needed and removed barriers for assistance. He would have accepted assistance from anywhere and everywhere and overwhelmed the issue as opposed to spending time figuring out whose ass to kick.
My take on the whole thing; Obama knows that he is a one-termer and he is intentionally making this as large of a disaster as possible so that his ultra left wing buddies can use it as ammunition to destroy the oil industry as a whole. After all, the ultimate goal here is complete government control over the means of production and what better way to accomplish that than control of the basic source material for so much of our lives.

My latest project

Last night, I embarked on my latest project, teaching a class on The Constitution to a group of home school students. What I was presented with was a group of intellectually adept students (and some of their parents) that asked intelligent questions and approached the subject matter with an open and critical mind. We never got past definitions of terms like liberty and forms of government, yet the inaugural class lasted 2.5 hours. These kids are the hope for our future and if we can send them into the world intellectually well armed they will flourish.
In our discussion on liberty, there were questions ranging from abortion to the draft to retribution for violations of an individual's personal liberty (which led into a discussion of the proper role of government). As an engineer who is self-educated on the subject, it provided the equivalent of an intellectual obstacle course, but I am confident that this group could have held its own with a true scholar on the subject.
I am looking forward to next week's class and the challenge that it presents (yes, I actually enjoy a challenge).

Back from hiatus

I am back from a hiatus that has renewed my admiration for the medical profession. Those "evil" doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies have made it possible for my wife to function normally again. Seven weeks after going through total knee replacement on both knees, she is up and walking around with a significantly improved range of motion, and reduction in pain, when compared to her pre-surgical condition.
The other item during my hiatus that has renewed my passion, knowledge and respect for The Constitution was a Memorial Day weekend visit with my grand-daughter for her first birthday. She is absolutely gorgeous and I need to insure that this country holds all of the promise for her that it has for previous generations.
My renewed focus brings me to a modification of something that Andrew Wilkow mentions on his show. He talks about the "zero liability voter"; those who do not contribute to the system and only take from it. They have all of the benefits without incurring any of the liability. There is another classification that I would like to put out there for public consumption, the "limited liability voter"; the individuals who preach about saving whatever it is that floats their boats for "future generations" when they have chosen not to procreate (or even adopt). These people have no vested interest in the future generations and therefore don't see an issue saddling them with inordinate amounts of government interference and debt. When they chose to have a vested interest, then they can preach all they want. As for me, I have a picture of my future generation on my cell phone to remind me daily of what it is that I am truly fighting for.

Product of my upbringing

I received an e-mail from my brother the other day, which he sent after being in Afghanistan for 5 days of a 365 day tour. We are not close, never really have been, but I am proud to be his brother nonetheless. The note has a line in it that exemplifies our upbringing; "Remember that I wanted to do this.  Don't feel bad for me or my family." That is the type of man my parents raised. No pity, no remorse, just getting the job done and supporting his family.
That being said, while he is doing his duty in Afghanistan, I will be doing mine on the home front. I am going to make sure that he has something worth protecting and that our kids have a country that they can be proud to live in. We are The United States of America, not the European Union, Red China, or any other collectivist nation on the planet. We are a nation of free men who intend to stay that way. The oath taken by military members includes "defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic". While he is taking care of the foreign ones, I will deal with the domestic ones.
I am hereby serving notice to all of the feeders at the public trough, individuals and corporations, that you are on the list. You are domestic enemies of The Constitution and will be called out for what you are. For those of you that think that feeding from the same trough is acceptable, you make the list too.
For those of you that will be way too quick to play the race card, I would like you to consider the following; During a conversation the other night about people claiming that I might have a particular issue with people of a certain race, my son came up with one of the most astute statements that I have ever heard him make. He said, "Dad, anyone that knows you knows that you only judge people by the color of their work ethic". That will make a dad proud.
Those of us that believe that this country is great because of The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution are now serving notice to all of the domestic European Socialists, Marxists, and Statists in general that we are not going to allow this to continue any more. Hopefully, I can make my dad proud as well.

A note to the media race baiters

 You, along with all of the other progressive liberals, are afraid to discuss the real issue and find it much easier to play the Wallace, Duke, KKK, racist card instead of talking about the real issue here, slavery. The health care bill, along with its 1964 counterpart Medicare/Medicaid, are clear violations of the 13th Amendment of the Constitution. Whenever the product of another individual's labor is referred to as a "right", slavery is imminent. This bill forces the healthy and able to take care of the unhealthy and unable, it forces doctors to take government mandated payment amounts (say it with me, "wage controls"), and best of all, it forces individuals to purchase a certain level of health care or faces fines and imprisonment. That sounds like a 13th Amendment violation to me. Oh, wait, you are a progressive liberal which means that even though you talk a lot about rights, you have probably never read the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence, so let me help you out;

13th Amendment, Ratified 1865, Section 1 reads: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

Which part of what I mentioned above is not a violation of that law? What crime have I committed such that this does not apply? It is, as Ayn Rand puts it so eloquently, "punishment of the able for being able". Your comparison to the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's and the resulting legislation is not only incorrect, it is intellectually lazy. The movement in the 1960's was about true injustice and the legislation was to prevent one individual from infringing on another individual's right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness based on the color of their skin. That is very different from demanding that individuals purchase a product whether they want to or not. Note: I have consciously chosen not to elaborate on all of the government violations of private property rights associated with the Civil Rights Act, which had severe issues of its own.

By the way, before you even attempt it, this is not the same as automobile liability coverage. Those rules are in place to guarantee that, in the event of an accident, you have the financial ability to cover damage that has been done to another individual and/or their property. The more abstract way to look at it is that it is coverage to guarantee that you have the ability to compensate another individual when you accidentally violate their rights. That, sir, is the appropriate role of government, to protect the individual's rights. While I am enhancing your education, a couple of more general points; 1) The only indivisible minority is the individual, 2) There is no such thing as collective rights, only a collection of individual's rights, and 3) Racism is the most basic form of collectivism, which is why progressive liberals will not let it die, it plays right into their overall agenda.

If you want predictions of how this all eventually plays out, read Kurt Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron" or Logan's Run by William F. Nolan and George Clayton Johnson. While you are at it, read William Graham Sumner's What Social Classes Owe to Each Other and Herbert Spencer's Man vs. the State. Those might have a chance of curing you of the social disease whose classical symptom is punishment of the most able.

Welcome to the End of the Beginning

Now that the progressives have put their pet legislation into place and think that they have won the fight, it is time to show them that we have not yet begun to fight.
Today, President Obama will sign into law, the great travesty known as the health care bill. It marks the single largest government expansion since the creation of Medicaid/Medicare and it doesn't take a genius to see how that program went. This will destroy real jobs and create more government jobs, it will destroy the individual's ability to make their own health decisions, and it will open the door for nanny state legislation like nobody has ever conceived. This is the single largest step toward socialism that has ever occurred in this country, which I remind you, was founded on the rights of individual liberty, not collective good.
But fear not, this is the time for the true patriots to stand up for what they believe. Refuse to accept defeat and make sure that your voice is heard. Do not let the media whores dissuade you with hearsay about what does or does not get said in large crowds or let the condescending political elitists chide you with their supposed victory. They may have won the battle, but we will win the war. We have truth (real factual truth, not the popular opinion crap) and justice (once again, the real thing, not some happy utopian construct) on our side.
Truth: As soon as you call the product of someone else's labor a right, you have crossed the line to slavery and/or involuntary servitude. I don't care if you are talking about the services of a doctor or the taxes being stolen from each and every American worker every day to pay for someone else's crap, it is slavery.
Justice: Justice being the receipt of what is earned, either positive or negative, is what is now due the political elitists in Washington. It is time to give them what they have so vibrantly earned, a trip to unemployment. Keep in mind that they all have lobbyist jobs lined up when we vote them out, so we have to focus on voting in individuals who believe in limited (severely limited) government as that is the only way to strip them of the power they so vehemently seek.

Quick update on Walt Minnick - Rep. ID(1)

In a previous post I had mentioned that Mr. Minnick was a Democrat that actually voted in favor of his constituents. I am officially and publicly withdrawing that sentiment. Open Congress has Walt Minnick listed as one of the co-sponsors of HR3590, the Senate version of the Health Care fiasco. I am disappointed that he duped me into believing that he was a real statesman and not simply another politician.
I will now do my level best to insure that he does not see a second term.