A Nation of Guns (part 1)

We are a nation of laws. How many times have we heard this assertion? Its meaning—In the United States, it is the law, not the individual that matters. No matter what the individual’s status or station, that individual is subject to the same laws as the rest of us.

Over the last few years however, something has happened. Through the explosion of news sources, information that would have heretofore been suppressed or ignored by the mainstream media is coming to light.

We now know that station and status do matter. The secretary of the Treasury is a tax cheat. So is the chairman of the House ways and means committee (the committee that writes the tax code). We know that sweetheart mortgages went to the most influential congresspeople.

Add to that, the fact that laws that have been on the books since the country’s founding are either being ignored by those who took an oath to enforce them, or they are being overturned by federal judges. Even the will of the electorate is subject to the oversight and veto of a single federal judge. It then becomes clear that laws are neither reliable nor reliably enforced. Indeed, we are not a nation of laws. We must, therefore, be a nation of guns. There is no other option.

The government, either by representative rebuke or judicial fiat, decides what the law is on a particular day and for particular people. It is then quite willing to use its police powers to enforce them.

This means the government is perfectly willing to point its guns at its citizens to enforce its will.

This scenario is acceptable so long as laws are consistent and consistently applied, and they are in keeping with the will of the electorate. But that is not what is happening now. The electorate expresses its voice and that voice is reversed. Officials who are exposed as offenders have apologists for their offenses and where you or I would be severely punished by our system, they are let off by offering up false contrition and in some rare cases, minimal restitution.

A government that rules like this is not representing a nation of laws, but a nation of guns. The government has the guns.

More to come.

Exporting Democracy: Not

Why is it that the United States military can conquer a country in days but it just can't manage to govern? Since Vietnam, the military has been stunningly efficient at accomplishing its combat missions; however, once the objective is taken, the task of governing—or better yet, getting out of the way so the country can self-govern—seems to become herculean.

The U.S., without fail, attempts to install a democracy. One would expect as much, and probably not tolerate any less, but in order for democracy to govern over a free people, the "people" are required to accept certain responsibilities. John Adams knew that our government is sufficient for a moral people but inadequate for any other. As we see corruption on our government flourish at all levels, how could we not expect corruption to be pervasive in newborn democracies?

Think about it. The U.S. establishes free and fair elections. The U.N. monitors the entire process. Citizens risk life and limb to vote and much of the world looks on in approval. Then the winners find themselves on speaking terms with the executive branch. Congress begins to appropriate inconceivable amounts of money for infrastructure and the elected officials straddle the money trail. As the As the money gets siphoned off, government officials get rich while the people who elected them continue to wallow in their same old ways of life—nothing changes at street level. After a while, things become obvious; we know they're corrupt, but we also know they are "duly elected". We would like to replace them. Things would get better if they were replaced, but we can't do it without being accused of pulling the strings of our puppet government.

So we continue to send funds. Our troops, as a result, find themselves in increased danger, because they represent the source of the money which is not helping the people but rather enriching the leaders. Finally, Americans get frustrated because we can't seem to install our form of government in the countries we conquer. We begin to call for an end, mainly because the Americans recognize a shakedown, and we recognize when a program is broken (as all of the government programs in America are currently broken).

This is a very dangerous pattern, but it seems to be repeating itself. The call to export democracy is virtuous and altruistic. What most U.S. presidents forget about trade (perhaps if they knew a little more our balance wouldn't be in the red) is that exports typically area a desired commodity by the country doing the importing. When it comes to America exporting democracy, it would seem our partners want the foreign aid but not the product of our trade.

Modern-day taxation without representation.

"The original tea party was in response to taxation without representation." This was the argument Bill Clinton asserted when asked about the current tea party movement. While the current protesters are challenging taxation by their officials, he continued. Well, that was true; however, the founders weren't protesting for representation in the house of commons. In fact, some colonies passed resolutions which insisted that the colonies could not be bound by any tax not passed by the colonies themselves. That is, they wanted not only representation, but governing control.

Much the same is occurring today. We find out that in 2010, federal income tax payers are now less than fifty percent of the population. Taxpayer's are America's newest minority. Yet Congress is represented by the votes of all citizens. Even non-taxpayers. Even people who not only pay no taxes but actually recieve a refund. All are represented eqaully at the ballot box, one vote.

Once taxpayers are less than half of the voters, they become unrepresented in the same way the founders knew they would still be unrepresented by being given seats in Parliament.

I fouby that many tea parry members have come to this position yet, but they will. Currently they are protesting constitutional abuses by the current administration, but they are not Republicans. Yhey simply want the government to run the way it was intended, by staying out of their lives.

These abuses aren't going away however, and the tea party isn't likely to either. Once the majority of non-taxpayers begins to throw around its electoral weight, don't be surprised to see the tea partiers call for "no taxation without representation", And they will be right.

What is happening to our leaders?

"These are troubled times." These words have been uttered or written over and over and have referenced virtually every generation. And in each instance they're applied to a unique time and situation but the underlying problems are often quite similar.

Is that the way of the current times? Are the underlying problems similar? Maybe. But the people we are looking to and relying upon to address seem stunningly different.

The history of America is wrapped around a lone ideal. A desire for liberty. To be free from the government's oppressive weight and able to rise to one's own level of achievement.

Our leaders were committed to protecting our liberty. They disagreed, and loudly, with each other at every turn, but the ideal was always embraced. They were statesmen. They possessed a moral compass that they relied on to lead. When we voted for a candidate you knew where he or she stood.

It ain't necessarily so today. We saw Arlen Specter switch parties because he knew he couldn't get elected in Pennsylvania as a Republican. A four-term senator from the keystone state was always a liberal Republican but at one time had a solid base and was even mentioned among the party elite for nationwide office. What happened? What about the people in Pennsylvania who said "Arlen Specter is my man"? What happens when politicians have no ideals to embrace, no moral compass to guide them?

In Florida, Charlie Crist failed in his bid to win the Republican nomination to Senate, so he promptly became an independent, removed all pro-life reference from his website, bashed the Arizona immigration law, and laughed when asked whether he would return campaign contributions from Republican constituents. No ideals or moral compass will get in Crist's way, but is that good for Florida voters or for America.

Power can be more seducing than money or sex and because of this, more morally bankrupt politicians are finding their way to Washington.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is often disregarding the Constitution in deciding issues that come before it, referring instead to foreign law or their own political beliefs to rewrite U.S. law from the bench.

If we can't rely on our elected officials while they say or do anything to secure votes, and our highest court pays mere lip service to America's founding documents, what are we to do?

More and more people are copying the actions of their leaders. People are doing whatever it takes to get by. Nearly thirty percent of the commerce in Southern California is in the underground economy President Reagan warned about. People are seeing their government disregard law and they are following suit.

If society is waiting for its leaders to set the example before righting itself, America may be in for a long, dark period in its history.

Right Failures Getting More Dangerous

What is it with quote-conservative leadership? They have views that they articulate to their conservative constituents during a campaign, but once they take the oath of office many (almost all who are sworn to executive office) seem to go through a period of total confusion until the next campaign.

George W. Bush spent as if it were the last year of his life. Newt Gingrich during a debate with John Kerry stated categorically that there is more than enough evidence of man-made global warming. George H.W. Bush raised taxes after his most famous of promises.

But now it looks as if the problem is worldwide.

Benjamin Netanyahu expressed surprise at the way the UN acted towards Israel regarding settlement building and the blockade of Gaza.

The rebuke by the UN (any rebuke by the UN) could not have been made without the affirmation of the United States. Most of the world is ignorant of this fact but Netanyahu is not or should not be. His expression of surprise meant that he thought the would get a modicum (and it only takes a little) of support by the Obama administration.

Unfortunately for Israel, the US is the only force blocking its worldwide condemnation at any junction in history. When an American administration is antithetic toward Israel and its interests, there is no force left to intervene and Israel is hit with the full condemnation of the world.

Based on his history with Obama, Netanyahu should have been prepared to be abandoned. Simply by stepping aside, President Obama makes it possible for a world vs. Israel scenario. Mr. Netanyahu should have read what was happening in his relationship with the US, or at least have someone well enough acquainted with the situation to have given him better advice.

When conservative executives make errors like this, they pave the way for their liberal successors. Bush 41 was responsible for Bill Clinton, Bush 43 was responsible for Obama, and Benjamin Netanyahu could be paving the way for a liberal successor at exactly the most dangerous time in Israel's short history. Without a leader willing to defend its territorial integrity, the Middle East, within a decade, could be a very different looking place. As the US changes into a non-capitalist country, a change that vast in Israel could mean...no Israel.

PS: Sorry for the lack of updates, but I intend to update this blog more often from now on. Lord knows there's been a lot going on these past few months.

That's why we trust them with our money.

As a migraine sufferer, I found myself recovering at home with the television tuned to the Healthcare Summit for the entire day. I was taken by a comment made by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) a good conservative and a Medical Doctor. One would think that Senator Coburn would be one of the brightest lights in the Republican sky regarding opinions on the US healthcare industry.

He made a comment that astounded me and was hailed by many of the pundits as visionary: he suggested we need to begin to curb the billions of dollars in annual fraud in healthcare by employing the use of “undercover patients”. All rise for Senator Coburn and his refreshing new look at the healthcare fix!

Mind you, we all were watching the President—the world’s most powerful human being—the Vice President, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and a collection of forty hand-picked senators and representatives. Arguably, the best braintrust these people in Washington can assemble to tackle what profound domestic problem in over half a century. A problem that we are constantly reminded comprises over one-sixth of the entire US economy.

This was truly a collaborative endeavor of the highest order, and one from which the American public had every right to expect intellectual greatness.

What did we get for our efforts?

We were witness to the most respected, nimble, and erudite minds in the nation discussing the prospects (and indeed, the absolute necessity) of the government engaging the aggressive use of “Secret Shoppers”?

Forgive me, but this is the best example we’ve seen in a long while as to why government should not intervene in the private sector. For eight hours, all of America was able to watch as forty-three powerful officials recited their own particularly unique justification for using the police powers of the United States to intrude into the lives of its citizenry.

Joe Biden said it about as plainly as anyone. When a Republican made the assertion that they were debating a fundamental difference, namely, whether government should intervene, the Vice President pointed out that everybody in the room was for government intervention. They were simply discussing the extent of the intervention.

Out of the mouth of babes—leave it to Joe Biden, the master of the gaffe, to utter the naked truth. Face it, Republicans can’t resist the temptation to regulate our lives. They know what is best—and what is best is regulation, but less regulation, and not as quickly implemented.

God save us from ourselves.

The American Dream: Work Yourself Into Slavery

The land of the free? When that was first uttered, Americans were free, at least most of them. But today, who in America is really free?

If you own a home, congratulations, you’ve worked hard and directed the fruits of your efforts toward the American dream. Oops, but keep working, because if your property taxes go unpaid, your state will seize your house, sell it and pay the tax…so long dream. How free are you when the government can take your property if you don’t pay?

Unless you are a member of the ultra rich, you are a slave to your income source.

The government is your master.

Look around. Right now people everywhere are scurrying to get their income taxes completed. The government insists that it is entitled to between one quarter and one half of your income. That means that one fourth of your time has been conscripted by the government. If one man works for another for no pay, that is slavery. Where has freedom gone?

Is it reserved for the ultra rich? Not necessarily. There is another segment of our society, a fast growing segment, that possesses a quality of freedom similar to the ultra rich.

In America, the poor are taken care of. They are constantly pampered by a society that is afraid of damaging the self-esteem of those less fortunate.

Government assistance used to come with a stigma—to be avoided by a population determined to be self-sufficient. Today, however, people receiving assistance feel entitled and even insulted sometimes by any insinuation of the inappropriateness of their actions. These people aren’t worried about property taxes, or having one fourth of their time conscripted—stolen—by the government via the tax system.

The poor can move about freely, secure phone service, cable television, and all of the “staples” of today’s life that didn’t exist for the Americans of the 1970s.

Credit is passed out as fast as possible to the poor by the private sector, and many times is backed by the government. The poor in America have managed to shrug off the old-fashioned ideas about paying people back. Forget about bankruptcy restructuring, wages cannot be garnished unless one has a job.

The poor don’t worry about money—they get it from you, the wage earner, via taxes. They don’t worry about taxes—they don’t pay them. They are happy renting their abodes, and because we capitalists are by and large greedy, they can always find someone else to lend them money.

This is not meant to be an indictment of the poor, or even of the way in which our system handles the poor. Rather, this should serve as a jarring and stunning reflection about the way our system inflicts incredible damage upon the middle class. For the middle class to have withstood so much government interference in the last fifty years and still be so stable is nothing short of miraculous—which may not be inaccurate since the United States middle class is primarily Christian in its makeup.

The government knows the U.S. middle class, with its money, work ethic, and morals is still the backbone of society. It knows that the family unit is the only thing holding the country together. It should be thankful that a majority still strives to be part of it.

Once the middle class goes away—once the family unit goes out the way it did in the inner city—the American experiment will be over.

What will be left will be unrecognizable. But one thing will be certain. The rigid controls the government uses to keep today’s middle class in check will be useless. The moral ties that allow the government to keep the middle class in check, enslaved as was asserted earlier, will be ignored. The government services offered to the middle class will not be worth one-fourth to one-half of their time and money. They shall experience the freedom that comes from no longer being controllable by conventional means. The freedom that today is experienced only by the classes at the top and bottom of American society. Until then, tote that bail you little people of the American middle class.