The Dangers of Ignorance

I think that most politicians begin their careers with very good intentions. I think they truly wish to serve the people. I think they truly love America. I think they intend to be different from the others: to be honest, to be careful, to be wise. Unfortunately in spite of previous prestigious schooling, brilliant careers in the business world, high academic posts, or old family money and connections, they are ignorant of basic principles of good government.

It's not surprising nor is it entirely their fault. It has been many generations since government, philosophy, and economics were taught in American schools. These subjects, deemed of utmost importance by the Founding Fathers in the preserving of a free nation, have been replaced by ideology, empty patriotism, and "compassion". Students have been actively taught that Capitalism breeds selfishness and corruption and government is the solution (take a look at a text book discussing the Great Depression). And while Americans know perfectly well that Communism and Fascism and their cousins are spectacular and even evil failures, they have been taught at the same time that life isn't fair and a responsible government must make the world fair. An obvious contradiction, but the masses of American children have never been taught to spot the fallacies.

Americans do not generally read Locke, who believed that the existence of God was the only logical explanation and therefore all men are created equal. They do not read Jefferson who believed that rights are descended from God and that the free state is dependent on this belief. They do not read Blackstone who explained that English Common Law declaring equal protection before the law and protection of private property and equal suffrage, etc. is directly descended from the Anglo-Saxon laws and the Ancient Laws of Israel. They do not read Cicero who declared that freedom can only exist in conditions of morality and that the state must be severely restricted in its powers in order for individual liberty to exist. They do not read Smith who described how wealth is created by humans and not dependent on natural resources, who explained how prosperity of the masses can only exist where those masses are allowed to freely trade their goods, products, and labor without interference from government.

But the Founders did read all this. Not just the men who sat in the halls of government and debated on the Constitution, but most American men and many of the women were familiar with the great minds of the past and their present.

Our populace, including our politicians, are ignorant of all this. They cannot logically debate their positions. They can only spout emotional appeals. "How can we sit by while there are starving children, men who can't find work, kids who never get a decent education, people who need health care . . . " They have no underlying comprehension of the principles behind their decisions. They are however, wise enough to understand that power and money are accrued by taking property from as many people as possible and pretending to favor the poor. They are well versed in evil, but have no conception of good.

Most politicians, because of their ignorance, do not last out their first term before they have compromised their constituents for "the greater good", not once understanding what is best for the people is to leave them alone.

Are Taxes Evil?

It seems like there are two camps when it comes to taxes, those who believe government has the right to take whatever they want and those who think the government shouldn't take any. But that's only the way it seems. In reality, I think nearly everyone acknowledges that people must be taxed something, but that there's a line beyond which government should not go. I don't know anyone who seriously thinks government should take all of a persons income or wealth.


Taxes aren't evil in and of themselves. But some of the ways that taxes are used or obtained are or could potentially be evil. The real debate isn't over whether government should tax or not, it's over appropriate methods of taxation. Some see taxation as a way to level the field, a Robin Hood approach to stealing from the evil rich to give to the virtuous poor. Others see taxes as a way to provide needed services. Still others see taxes as a way to provide government the funds to protect us in our life, liberty and property. We need to be careful that we understand the debate before we enter into it. We also need to be wary of dismissing others with personal insults or name calling. It's extremely unlikely that we'll convince anyone while calling them fascists or insulting their intelligence. And what we need more than anything is to convince others.


The purpose of taxes depends on what you think the purpose of government is. I believe the reason people come together to form governments is to provide communal protection from thugs, mobs, and criminals of every sort. We need our property protected even when we're not standing there watching over it. That means the rule of law and therefore fear of punishment more than just police or military protection specifically.


Some people believe a major function of government is to make life more fair in its results. I'm not sure I can understand how government, or any entity that is human and subject to fallibility could possibly make life fair. Usually people refer only to money or economic conditions and not all of life. I've never heard anyone say that everybody ought to get sick the same number of times or have exactly the same relationship problems and successes. It's just money that we're so obsessed with making fair.


I do not believe the government should make life fair. Government should only make sure that some are not stealing or harming others. Government should make sure that all have equal status and protection under the law regardless of age, sex, race, religion or any other superficial feature. If we were able to perfectly execute fairness under the law and punish law breakers fairly and impartially (which I acknowledge we are not fully capable of, though we've come a long way) then we would have what we call equality of opportunity. Equality of opportunity says that everyone has the chance to get the education, if they work for it, everyone has the chance to get a job, if they work for it, everyone has the chance to acquire property or not as they see fit, if they work for it. There are absolutely no guarantees that you will succeed, just that you have the chance to try. Circumstances may be against you, you may not have the talents or brains to make it. There are no guarantees of success. Should there be?


That depends on your worldview. If you believe in something more important and longer lasting than this life then, the answer is no. It makes no difference if you were never rich or famous in this life, but only how you behaved that determines your ultimate success.


But if you believe this life is all, then all depends on your financial and social success during this life. Couple that with a godless Darwinian world where the strong prey on the weak (and rightly so, for it makes all of society stronger to weed out the weak,) then, well, you've just created hell.


So taxes should support only those functions of government that are specifically enumerated in the constitution (federally and in the individual states). The federal constitution specifically provides for national defense and trade, between states and foreign, plus a few other things. Therefore anything that doesn't fit in these categories are not only morally wrong, but illegal. We should not be taxed for unconstitutional things, that's how we decide how high taxes should be. I don't think there's a magical cut off percentage above which people should not be taxed, but there is a moral line which should not be crossed. If government is taxing us in order to steal our property rather than to protect it then the line has been crossed. All taxes that support social programs are therefore immoral and ought to be illegal.

Limits on Congressional Power

The following is from an e-mail I received. It is a proposal by American citizens and not a bill before Congress. I agree with the principles and proposals below and I hope very much that it might be possible to get such a bill passed, but it can only happen if we fire every single member of congress and vote for people who have such a proposal as part of their platform. Then of course once they are in power we will have to nag and bug them constantly until they actually do pass this bill. We need to break the accumulation of power by the political parties and by the Washington political machine. Term limits is the only way to do it. The power must be wrested from them and returned to the People.


Congressional Reform Act of 2010

1.Term Limits: 12 years only, one of the possible options below.
A. Two Six year Senate terms
B. Six Two year House terms
C. One Six year Senate term and three Two Year House terms

2. No Tenure / No Pension: A congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.

3. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security: All funds in the Congressional retirement fund moves to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, Congress participates with the American people.

4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan just as all Americans.

5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

6. Congress looses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

7. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.

8. All contracts with past and present congressmen are void effective 1/1/2011. The American people did not make this contract with congressmen, congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

Hillary Promises US Money to the World to pay for Global Warming Sin

For only $100 billion a year, you too can participate in an evil scheme to redistribute global wealth. Sound good? Not really.

Hilary Clinton is making promises to that effect however on behalf of the United States at the Copenhagen Climate Conference. Here's an article from NY Daily News. The best part is the poll to the right of the article. As of Thursday evening 99% of respondents did not feel that $100 billion a year to the "world government" would be in the best interest of the United States. 1% thought it was a great idea. What I want to know is who are that 1%? Insane.

Fortunately I am very confident that the socialist, fascists, and communists attending the cold, snowy Copenhagen party on Global Warming will all be too power hungry for themselves to ever reach any kind of workable agreement. Further, I'm confident that though Hillary may promise to her tiny little heart's content she does not have the power to give away America's money just yet. I know the politicians think they're only moments away from a Totalitarian State, but they keep forgetting one little detail . . . The American People.

And just in case you weren't sure who these people at Copenhagen are, check out which of Hugo Chavez's statements got standing ovations. Mind you many of those cheering are Americans who have sworn to uphold the Constitution. Remember when an oath meant something? Yeah, neither do I. Perhaps a little legislation regarding the breaking of oaths by public servants is in order.

Mitch McConnell Calls Out the Democrats

Nancy Pelosi thinks that any question regarding the constitutionality of the health care bill is "not serious". Yesterday President Obama was making dire predictions about how all Americans will pay higher health insurance premiums and potentially lose their coverage in the near future. And today Mitch McConnell (R-KY), leader of the minority party in the senate has released a statement to the press denouncing the backdoor secret politics of the Democrat rush to get health care passed in the senate. He calls their behavior "irresponsible" and "outrageous". McConnell attributes their rush to pass the bill to political game playing and not an actual interest in the welfare of the People. McConnell is dead on.

Ms. Pelosi, there is no more serious question for a servant of the People of the United States than whether what you are doing is in accordance with the Supreme Law of the land. There is nothing of more serious nature than whether you are keeping your oath to the American people in honoring, upholding and defending the Constitution. The Constitution is the People and we are very serious. What Ms. Pelosi meant of course, is that the Constitution no longer matters.

President Obama, how is it possible that anyone can predict the future of health care insurance costs in the future? I submit that is only possible if the costs are being manipulated through the force of government. You want us to lose our coverage, to not be able to afford insurance (which by the way is not the same thing as health care) so that we will come running to you to demand that the "government do something about it". Then you can very benevolently reach out your hand to save us. It's not going to happen this time Mr. President. Oh, there will always be those weak enough to demand that someone else take care of them, but those people are not the ones who make things happen in this world. Those people are not in charge of the destinies of the rest of us.

The American people do not need the government or anyone else to take care of us. We understand that the high costs of health insurance and health care itself are driven and created by government, they are not natural effects of the market. The health industry is one of the most regulated by government and it is no surprise that certain aspects of it are failing. But the innovation and advances and availability of care to all, regardless of their ability to pay are a direct result of the American People themselves. We know this and you cannot therefore trick us into believing that we are weak and helpless, requiring big brother to come and fix all our boo boos. If we do need help we'll reach for family and neighbors, not the government.

And once and for all stop playing your political power games with our country. You can't have it.

Washington State Ready To Take The First Steps To Totalitarianism

A memo written at the request of Governor Gregoire, dated May 5, 2009 and addressing climate change legislation in Washington State was leaked. The measures outlined in the memo were to take place in the event that national measures to control the climate, principally the Cap and Trade bill, do not pass. The request was made after a legislative bill addressing these issues failed to pass in Washington State.

The memo recommends an executive order. In other words since they could not pass their measures the old fashioned way of the Republic they are resorting to totalitarian measures to accomplish their goals. The memo further calls for even more stringent and therefore controversial measures than those previously rejected by the Washington State legislature.

The measures include greater control over private business, which after these measures take place will amount to the government of Washington State completely controlling it's private sector. We all know that is the definition of Fascism. Private ownership, but government control.

Unfortunately Gov. Gregoire and others may very well get away with it. The people of America have allowed one freedom to slip away at a time until those who desire power are feeling comfortable in seizing the last of our freedoms. Americans will have to choose now once and for all whether to slip away into slavery and become yet another failed nation or to throw off the oppression and return to basic principles of the Constitution.

Washington State has long been treading the path of liberalism until they are so sated with it that they do not even realize that instead of gaining the tolerance and peace they were taught to believe in they are losing the most precious of gifts, a gift that required the blood of generation after generation to give to them, the gift of liberty.

Here is a PDF of the memo.

Rejecting Climate Science

Public opinion, politics, and the climate all seem to swing on a pendulum. First everyone goes very liberal, then they swing back to ultra conservative. The climate as we all know does the same thing, swinging from cold to hot and passing through everything in between. With recent attempts to tax via cap and trade, and now the Copenhagen climate conference the public has begun to question the validity of the climate "science" of the past couple of decades. With the advent of "climategate" the public has moved from questioning to outright rejection of global warming theories and dire predictions of ice caps melting, species going extinct and a general natural apocalypse.

The UK Daily Express published a list of 100 reasons that climate change is natural. It's worth reading.

By the way, I've never before had a reason to cheer on China and India like I do now. I totally support their rejection of the attempts to create a world governing body over energy and resources. They at least are not foolish enough to sacrifice their economic future for a pipe dream.

Requirements For Individuals to Purchase Health Insurance Are Unconsitutional

Following is an excellent explanation from the Heritage Foundation on why forcing people to have health insurance is such a very bad idea.

On October 23rd, a reporter asked Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?” Speaker Pelosi shook her head and before moving on to another question replied: “Are you serious? Are you serious??” Pressed for a more substantive response later, Pelosi’s press spokesman admonished the reporter: “You can put this on the record. That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question.”

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) disagrees. In 1994, the CBO said of an individual mandate to buy health insurance:

A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.

As much as Speaker Pelosi may wish otherwise, the CBO is dead on: the Supreme Court has never validated a federal power as intrusive as forcing all Americans to purchase a service due to their very existence. Sure, the Supreme Court has said that Congress may regulate a farmer’s production of wheat even if he never plans to distribute it off of his farm, and the Supreme Court has said Congress may ban the possession of Marijuana even if it is for personal use, but never before has the Supreme Court said the power to regulate commerce enabled Congress to force an individual to do something just because he existed.

In fact, the Supreme Court has always been clear that the Commerce clause must have some limits. In United States v. Lopez (1995), the Court struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act, which attempted to reach the activity of possessing a gun within a thousand feet of a school. In United States v. Morrison, it invalidated part of the Violence Against Women Act, which regulated gender-motivated violence. In both cases, the Court found the regulated activity in each case to be noneconomic; it was outside the reach of Congress’s Commerce power, regardless of its effect on interstate commerce. The case for the constitutionality of the individual mandate is far weaker than either of these two cases. Congress was at least trying to regulate an individual’s activity in the cases above. But the mandate does not purport to regulate or prohibit activity of any kind, whether economic or noneconomic. To the contrary, it purports to “regulate” inactivity.

If the individual mandate is Constitutional, then Congress could do anything. They could: require us to buy a new Chevy Impala each year to support the government-supported auto industry; require us to buy war bonds to pay for the Iraq and Afghan wars; require us to grow wheat (10 bushels each), or pay someone else to grow your share; require us to buy whatever they want.

Many on the left immediately point to state mandates that drivers purchase car insurance as proof of a mandate that all Americans buy health insurance is not new. But car insurance mandates are distinguishable in at least four ways: 1) they are state requirements and states have broader constitutional authority than the federal government; 2) they apply to drivers only, not all Americans (e.g. passengers are not required to carry insurance); 3) drivers use public roads; 4) states only require drivers to insure against injury to other drivers, not to insure themselves against personal injury.

Yesterday The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Legal and Judicial Studies released a Legal Memorandum written in conjunction with Georgetown University Law Center Professor Randy Barnett and Nathaniel Stewart explaining: Why the Personal Mandate to Buy Health Insurance Is Unprecedented and Unconstitutional. Introducing the paper, Sen. Orrin Hatch noted:

James Madison said that if men were angels, no government would be necessary and if angels governed men, no limits on government would be necessary. Because neither men nor the governments they create are angelic, government and limits on government are both necessary for ordered liberty. Politics may tell us what we want to do, but the Constitution tells us what we may do and we must keep those separate. The ends do not justify the means for one simple reason – liberty. Liberty requires limits on government power, it always has and it always will.

Someone needs to explain this concept to Speaker Pelosi. Seriously.

Taxing the Poor

By now you've probably noticed that while politicians always promise to tax the rich, they actually succeed only in taxing the poor more and more. That's probably because the politicians are the rich.

They're still funding ACORN, the biggest scam in American history. They're still considering Cap and Trade, the single largest tax on the poor ever considered. They're still planning and scheming to take away our access to health care all while taxing us for the privilege of the rationing and scarcity of a plentiful product. (The Republicans want national health care too, they are just hoping it will be "their plan" and not the Democrats.) They are considering taxing us and giving to the international community for the sin of being a prosperous nation. They "protect" us so much that we can't buy used toys or clothes for children--if that doesn't directly hurt the poor, I don't know what does. They want to give more and more of our sovereignty to the UN. They speak out against hard working small business owners for the desire to earn a profit, never mind that that profit motive is what builds a nation in the first place and that that profit motive is what employs families like mine. They refuse to account for or take responsibility for tax payer money. They financially support unconstitutional programs and activities constantly. They refuse to consider blows to their own power like term limits or fair congressional districts.

If you are tired of this, write your congressmen. Again. And again. The 9/12 coalition has a series of petitions and e-letters prepared that you can quickly and easily send to your Senators and Representatives. Send one today.

Here's to the Mothers

My grandmother passed away last week. She was part of the Greatest Generation. She raised six children who went on to live successful and productive lives and who in turn had many children. The sphere of her influence continues to widen over the years as her grandchildren have children and the values she cherished are passed on again.

I want to say thanks to the women of past generations who have kept the faith and raised children who had good morals, charitable tendencies, and hard working characteristics.

My grandmother was just a housewife from a po-dunk little town out west, but her importance in the world is far more lasting than any great politician or corporate giant. Far more lasting because it is passed on in the lives of increasing numbers of posterity. I say thanks to the Greatest Generation who worked hard to make America the bastion of freedom and the economic capital of the world. We have the world we have because of the small things they did every day.

Thanks Grandma, I love you.