Then Who IS in Charge?

President Obama’s White House denies that he had any prior knowledge of, for example, phone taps on German Chancellor Merkel’s cellular phone.  Add this to the long list of items about which he claims ignorance and therefor innocence.

I believe all of his denials.  He is NOT GUILTY of being in charge of any thing, so nothing is his fault.  I’m fine with that verdict.

Now.  Why should we give any weight to any assurance about the NSA, the IRS or any other agency when it comes from President I-Know-Nothing or any other government official of either political party?  Seems like “I have ordered my people to stop doing all the bad things that I know about!!” is the best he can do?!!!?  If he is unaware of so much that is happening, how can he ask us to be comforted that his orders to ‘fix’ them will have any affect on the robots who are – with his implicit consent – whittling away at your freedom?

We’re told not to worry when we discover that we live under a rudderless, auto-pilot government prone to do things so putrid its leader actively denies ANY responsibility while pledging to correct them.

That is not a government sticking to its knitting.  It is not a government that is protecting my rights and my liberty.  It is not a government to which I will give any allegiance or money.  Why are you?

Let’s Make a Deal

Recently I was given the usual lecture from an Obama supporter who had, with vim and vigor, fed me the ‘It’s the law of the land!!!’ medicine, concluding all discussions, he averred, once and for all. My response:

Is it your contention that any one who disagrees with Barack Obama along with anyone who might label himself or be labeled by you as a member of the non-existent ‘Tea Party’ should shut his pie-hole and let you have your way with his life, because, well, that’s the law!?

What if all he wants is to be left alone by the likes of you, Barack, Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid? Consider this: If you’re so enthralled with that way of living – collectivism, altruism, and tending to the needy (as defined by you) by giving them money – if all that is so compelling, then make the case for that approach and let each man choose for himself. Along the way, I’ll do the same for the principles of self-reliance and individual liberty protected by a government that respects and guards the inalienable rights of men.

Then, there will not be any voting or elections meant to impose one view or the other on everyone based upon the approval of a majority. Instead, anyone who agrees with you can live that life, unencumbered by any of my suggestions and my lack of rules and regulations. Meanwhile, anyone who adopts the position contrary to yours must also be left alone by you and the state’s intrusions into their lives. Reciprocal arrangement – we swear not to smother you with freedom, you agree not to burden us with any of your rules that are enforced by guns and chains – and besides, you’ll need those weapons to keep your supporters in line.

However, one rule must apply across the board: NO compulsory taxation. You must accept only voluntary contributions to fund your part of the world, to pay for ‘free’ stuff for the needy and any other collective or government program(s) you might advocate. My team likewise will fund with voluntary contributions the governmental activities necessary to protect our rights and liberties.

Now, we acknowledge that you will be, and we grant permission for you to be, passive beneficiaries, freeloaders who will live under the umbrella of the protective force we purchase. We do not mind that even for a moment, as we know that eventually you will either starve or, more likely, see the flaw and the dishonor in your anti-productive approach to life. At that point – and not a moment sooner – we’ll welcome you into to the world in which human endeavor is recognized as the moral necessity, the sine qua non, of life, because you will have learned that compulsory charity and altruism are the masks and the enabling force of thieves and slave masters.

Do we have a deal?

He called me an ugly name.

Politicians – A Contrast Between Winners and Losers

The Tea Party and Senator Cruz are accused of political idiocy.  They, we are told by the experts, chose tactics ‘doomed to fail’ and have damaged, if not killed, the GOP’s chances of winning national elections . . . and on and on and on go the critics, left and right – mostly people who make more money in direct proportion to the number of people who say such things, by the way.

In contrast, take Cory Booker, who spent last night rejoicing as he screamed himself hoarse.  He did not celebrate an accomplishment of HIS own doing, a medical discovery or the invention of a widget to make life more productive.  No, he is thrilled beyond comprehension by his having won the privilege of moving to Washington, DC where he will be paid by you to tell you how to live your life.  THAT is his version of success.

In the world of professional politics, Ted Cruz – a man fighting against the odds for individual freedom – is the butt of every joke and hateful commentary, while Cory Booker – along with Barack Obama, Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid – is a hero.  What else do you need to know?

I pondered those criticisms as contrasted with the praise of Mr. Booker and the others.  I sought to find the answer to the riddle, the false choice the critics pose.  Must rights-respecting men, men who know individual liberty is moral and just, pick between standing for the truth and supporting candidates who are skilled at winning elections?

I have reached a conclusion that gives me solace.  Having sent a decent man to give a whip to a man I fear will give me no comfort when I feel the crack of the whip across my own back.  The only men who rejoice over winning the power to control others, who celebrate not their own accomplishments in science or business, but rather are ecstatic over having won an election, are those who will abuse that power.

Do not conform.  Do not comply.  Then, and only then, will you win.

“The Honorable” – Really? No More.

Our elected representatives are very sympathetic toward ‘regular’ people, so long as they are Congressional staffers.

Harry Ried was hotly perturbed when another representatives opposed giving Hill staffers a raise so they might afford ObamaCare. What more evidence do we need to show that neither cost savings nor better care are the goal or result of ObamaCare? The pre-ObamaCare gov’t employee benefits program is among the best available, yet an inferior program which none of them wants is unaffordable under the new regime! The stench is right under their nose and they still don’t smell it.

Why? Because all of them are ignorant of the meaning of the words ‘give’ and ‘earn.’ Their understanding of the concepts of money and the creation of wealth is childish. All they comprehend and acknowledge is the power to move money from one pocket to another. That’s what they’re paid to do. That’s why they ran for and cling desperately to their positions – they could not eat if they had to earn a meal by producing instead of allocating wealth. They are base, vile men who covet, fight and grovel for control over other people’s lives. Every word from their mouths, every breath they take, reveals their contempt for the people who feed them, their contempt for you.

And yet you obey them, you honor them, call them Mr Senator, gaze in awe at the buildings they occupy, stand in line to cheer for their speeches, stand in line to vote and thereby bestow upon them the power to pass more laws that limit your freedom.

When will you stop?

John “I Fought the law and the law won” Boehner

Dear Mr. Boehner, aka Mr. “We fought the good fight”

Did you mean to say “we fought the FOOD fight”?  Would you like a winning strategy to pursue next time?

Here goes.  The House should pass TWO budgets.  One of them repeals* ObamaCare and the other includes a 2,200 page addendum. That addendum IS Obama Care – a verbatim version of the original Affordable Care Act (full text – very large PDF download) with these changes:

(1) remove the last minute provisions Harry Reid inserted to get the last handful of votes he needed to pass it in March 2010,

(2) make all of Congress and all federal employees subject to the law without subsidies or pay raises, and

(3) rescind or repeal every exemption and amendment HHS and the White House have granted since the law passed.

Send both bills to the Senate and let them choose.  Remind the Democrats of the 2010 elections.  Remind them, as Nancy Pelosi told us, that they needed to pass the bill to see what was in it.  Tell them that now, the law having been seen, they have to put their votes where their mouths are – on Barack Obama’s rear-end.

15 of 55 Democratic senators are up for reelection (and 5 are retiring).  Can Harry Reid get the votes for this dog of a law again?  (NOTE – don’t let him pass it with a simple majority; spot him FIVE votes from weak-kneed Republicans (John McCain, Lamar Alexander, and Mitch McConnell, for example) making make Reid get ALL 55 of the Democrats get to a filibuster proof 60.)

IF they pass it, they own it – along with McConnell and Alexander – and 2014 and 2016 are in the bag for the GOP.

This is not a surrender, it’s a recognition of reality. There is no way to repeal it directly, so the only hope is to take the risk that the Democrats will admit their error by refraining from repeating it.  Amendments (like removing the medical device tax, etc) put the GOP’s fingerprints on the law and that’s unwise.  The right legislative approach is to disown the law entirely and be willing to live with either outcome and live to fight another day.

Sincerely,

Winners

* Or at least delays it beyond 2016 presidential election.  Wouldn’t it be telling to hear them scream that the law might not survive if Obama is not president to force it through.

Party Rule

Our government – particularly at the federal level, but it applies to most state bodies as well – is no longer of the people.  A nation of free men governed (not ruled) by a constitutional democratic republic is no longer an accurate description of your country.  The governing bodies created by the US Constitution is now controlled by two political parties, two very large interest groups who share one agenda – the accumulation of power and control of the law for the sake of enriching themselves.  The Democratic and Republican parties are the tools of political operatives who use the power to write the laws to favor their interests, who are paid handsomely to direct a portion of $3.5 TRILLION dollars per year to certain people and punish others (your children mostly) by sending them the bill.

The entire federal government apparatus, the machine that has arrogated unto itself the power to control in excess of 30% of what the people produce, is controlled by and is indistinct from the political actors who use that power the same way all tyrants throughout history have abused power  – to benefit themselves and punish the disobedient.

We used to describe a country known as the USSR in such terms.  We knew , and the communists proved, that political control of lawmaking was intrinsically wrong and would result in despotism.  That we have TWO parties instead of one is of no comfort or consequence.  We are living in an unfree state, and the political battles that consume our attention are not about reform or a restoration of the sovereignty and liberty of the individual, the founding principle of America.  The food fights in Washington are about WHO gets to point the gun at your head as he takes your property, who gets to tell you the lie that he intends to dole out your money to the needy and for the ‘public good’ – but only AFTER taking his vigorish.

If you think the government is spending too much on the sick, the poor, the elderly and otherwise deserving wretched souls, you haven’t visited the plush suburban homes that surround Washington, DC.  You haven’t spent any time at posh restaurants in the city watching the ‘public servants’ mix and mingle with the favor seekers, sipping French wine and single-malt scotch.  You haven’t thought clearly about the enormous security apparatus these crooks have built to protect themselves from the victims of their plundering.  The government is awash in YOUR money, and they absolutely love the life you’ve bought for them.  Some of them even believe they earned it, because they are skilled at manipulating the law, bending it to favor the people who pay them to loot you.  And, by the way, you’re supposed to thank them, address them by their title, and name roads, bridges and wings of buildings for them, too.

The power to spend your money is the power to own you.  The DC crowd – lobbyists, pundits, staffers, consultants, fundraisers, pollsters, lawyers and ‘not-for-profit’ industry association executives – have learned that if they can make you fight and argue among yourselves about the spectacle they make of WHO gets to pick your pocket, you’ll miss the money and your freedom only after it’s too late.

Will you wake up before it’s too late, or will you keep fighting your cousin, your brother and your neighbor over whether Barack Obama or John McCain is the better thief?

Cure or Disease?

John McCain epitomizes Washington, DC.  He wants to blame bad poll numbers for the GOP on Ted Cruz and the conservatives in the House.

What a dunce.  Senator McCain is the problem, not the solution. Need evidence?  See the 2008 presidential election results.  A NOBODY, a first-term Senator, former community organizer with no substantial record or accomplishments ran a campaign with an meaningless appeal to ‘CHANGE’ and easily defeated a very well known senior senator, party elder.  Elect the war hero! How many times were we told that his qualifications emanated from and ended with the fact that he spent years in captivity as a POW in Vietnam over 40 years ago! Exactly how that qualifies one for high executive office remains a mystery to me.  He was essentially the poster-boy for Washington, DC – military veteran, congressional experience, tenure and connections were his credentials.  He knew how to ‘get things done’ in Washington.

Exactly – he and his kind are the reason we’re $17 Trillion (and counting) in debt and have tens of trillions of dollars of other unfunded promises that we will necessarily break (or inflate away) absent a complete RESET.  That must include ridding the country of the government behemoth that John McCain spent most of his post-captivity life aiding and abetting by going along to get along, his crowning achievement and final award, the GOP nomination for the presidency! He reached the top and was put down by a beginner with better stage craft.

After the moment pictured above, as I recall it, Senator McCain served the president a fresh cup of coffee and a cinnamon danish, then took his seat and sat on his hands.  Coward.

We can do better. We better.

Are There Fractions of Liberty?

Recently, as part of a long back-and-forth and in response to my suggestion that the consequences of ObamaCare have been harmful to American life, a friend replied:

“Of course the ACA has consequences. That is the idea. Some will be good for some people and bad for others. Some consequences may be good and bad for a single individual. You may not like the consequences for you and that is fine. . . I don’t think anyone should be forced to vote against what that person perceives as his/her self-interest, but I think they should be free to if they want. But once something becomes law, I do believe that a person can be forced/coerced into doing something that they may perceive is against their self-interest. That is a natural consequence of democracy in my eyes.”

To which I replied:

It is your choice to want to live in a place where one of:

(a) a majority vote,

(b) good intentions, or

(c) a benevolent use of plundered property

justifies taking one man’s property or forcing/coercing him to act against his self-interest. However, that is not a place that would be governed by the principles of morality and justice set forth in the Declaration of Independence and established as law in US Constitution. That is not a place where liberty would obtain; it is a place where one would conform or cease to live. I hope for your sake that what’s popular doesn’t become deadly or unacceptably inconvenient for you, I hope that no majority ever votes to force you to stop behaving in a way that you perceive to be your personal preference, or compel you to behave in a way you perceive to be against your interest – your personal perceptions about your interests being, in your view, subject to everyone else’s determination.

More importantly, even without your support, I will fight with every breath to reverse the forces that are taking us in the direction you advocate. That you will directly benefit from my effort is incidental and does not lessen my desire for both of us to be free from the hellish world that invariably ensues when men allow the state to control their lives.

Because my friend is a strong proponent of marriage equality for gay couples, I finished with:

My final question (in multiple forms, as it turns out) is:  Why is one person’s choice of a life partner a protected right (a factual proposition with which I have no quarrel or objection) whereas another’s choice of how to dispose of his property, his decisions regarding making tangible the consequences of his having lived, his preferences about how to extend his life’s work beyond the literal reach of his two hands, are subject to someone ELSE’s perception of what is the right or wrong use his very life?  How does one man or the state possess the power to dictate the consequences of another man’s life but not the power to tell him with whom to share it? Or vice versa? If one choice is subject to the whim of a majority, why isn’t the other? (To be clear – It is my view that NEITHER choice ought to be within the purview of the law.) How can you support a set of principles that calibrate freedoms and laws that allocate liberties based upon the vote of a majority?

Is a man’s freedom, is a man’s life, divisible?  Is there anything other than a person’s sexual preference [or ‘reproductive’ rights, or race or degree of poverty, or . . .] that is of the essence of his life and consequently beyond the reach of a popularity contest?

Does a man own all or only a negotiable fraction of his life?