This is a story about the lives of four people: Fred, Florence, Farley and Francis. Any resemblance to persons, alive or dead, is purely accidental and coincidental. These four characters lived on the same street in a small village in Middle America. They were of similar ages, incomes and education, but their lifestyles and priorities were different. Those differences are the basis for our story.
Some people thought that Fred was a clever lad, but others found him unexciting and dull. Some people thought that Fred had the potential to do great things, but others believed him to be a heartless stick-in-the-mud who needed constant supervision and guidance. Some thought that Fred was a kind and compassionate soul who would risk all to help others, and the others surmised that Fred’s vision of compassion was much too limited. Some believed that Fred was a solid, reliable member of the village, but others thought that he lacked vision and idealism.
There were some interesting dynamics at work on that pleasant little street in that quiet little village. Some of Fred’s extended family was very close to Farley’s family while some others had developed long-standing relationships with Florence’s kin. At times, during family gatherings, the kith and kin of Fred’s would discuss their preferences for either Farley’s group or Florence’s. Sometimes the discussions would become heated as each member of the family-at-large would defend his or her allegiance to either the Florence or Farley group.
As a child Fred would often play with Farley and his cousins. He would return home after playtime bloodied and broke as Farley and his family would cheat, beg for mercy, and cheat again. Farley’s family was a fun loving bunch who often broke the rules and lacked self discipline. Farley, himself, epitomized the tribe’s culture. Sometimes he extorted Fred’s lunch money when they were at school. He was a habitual liar and frequently cheated in school. Nevertheless Fred would play with him or defend him at school because they had been neighbors for a long time.
When she was a little girl, Florence was very pretty. As she matured, she became beautiful. Fred was enraptured by her bright eyes and her lovely face. In his dreams at night he pictured her as his constant companion in a mystical future. Whenever Fred became discouraged, Florence would say the words that would rekindle his hope. If Fred and Farley had a disagreement, then Florence would soothe Fred by taking his side. Florence always seemed to have just the right words for Fred whenever he faced a vexing problem. As the time for the 8th grade dance drew near, Fred screwed up his courage and asked Florence to be his date. She said yes. Fred was overjoyed, and as the big night drew near, his excitement began to crescendo. Beautifully dressed and coiffed Florence was the epitome of junior high elegance. Fred was in awe of his young date and all her promise. Later that evening Florence excused herself to go to the ladies room as Fred patiently waited at their table. After what seemed to be an inordinate amount of time, Fred began to search for his missing dream date. He saw her (play dramatic organ music here). She was in the cloakroom…passionately embracing Farley. Fred spun around and left the school…running home as the tears cascaded from his eyes. Later that evening Florence stopped by Fred’s house and apologized profusely. He forgave her, but her intermittent infidelities with Farley continued through high school. Finally Fred faced the final reality and moved on without Florence, the girl of his dreams.
Meanwhile, Francis grew through her early years. Her gangly movement freckles and braces all faded away, and a stunning elegant woman appeared. She was confident and self assured, and Fred was astounded when they met while both were home from college. He asked her out. She accepted. Fred discovered that Francis had simple tastes and unbending principles. She encouraged Fred to achieve his full potential. When he was with Francis, Fred felt as if he were complete. She was always loyal…always faithful. They were married…and were fruitful and multiplied. THE END
Endnote: Fiction writers are often asked if their stories are autobiographical. Well, yes this story is conceptually mine, but not in facts or details. Fred represents me and every other citizen of the United States. Farley is the standard bearer for the Democrats, liberals and progressives. Florence is the symbol of the GOP, and Francis is the representative for the Libertarian Party. For me, this has been a life long journey. I’ve had family members who were strident D’s and diehard R’s. For many years I was a Republican…filled with hope and anticipation. Too often, however, I found them in the closet with Farley (the D’s). Now, I’ve joined with Francis. Keep it simple, keep it solid, and follow the principles…works for me.
Your comments are appreciated or email: cnpearl@woh.rr.com
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Monday, December 28, 2009
Safety first.
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States lists many of the duties of the federal government. Among them is the requirement for protecting and defending the nation. This latest little fiasco in Detroit featuring flight 253 reveals that the feds are failing miserably in the fulfillment of their assigned Constitutional duties. While aggressively seeking to expand the reach and power of the federal government, they come up short in doing what they have been mandated to do. With the passage of the ill conceived and misnamed “Patriot Act,” Congress and the previous administration broadly and intrusively increased federal interference into our personal lives and liberty.
Remember back to the halcyon days when the Patriot Act was being promoted, and one of the critical provisions was the nationalization of the airport security apparatus. Formerly, each airline provided its own gate side security force, but Big Nanny desired to take this woefully inadequate gaggle and transform it overnight into a civil service protected inadequate gaggle. I’ve done quite a bit of air travel over the years, and I suspect that many of those TSA security “professionals” couldn’t qualify as a greeter at my local Wal-Mart.
So we have this Nigerian, Abdulmutallab, flying one way—Amsterdam to Detroit—RED FLAG. He pays cash for his $2800.00 fare. RED FLAG. He has no luggage to stow. RED FLAG. He had no valid passport. RED FLAG. He was on the “terror watch list.” SUPER, DUPER, RED FLAG. His father had reported his concern about his son’s activities some weeks earlier. TRIPLE DECKER RED FLAG. He carried incendiary material in his underwear. EXPLOSIVELY SCARY RED FLAG. Who is watching the security gate? Mr. Magoo and Stevie Wonder? How’s that Patriot Act working out for you, huh? This entire FUBAR would alarm me, but my concern has been heightened by the fact that my wife had traveled on that same flight several days earlier. She had been to Dubai on a business trip and had changed planes in Amsterdam for her last leg home.
Fortunately, an alert and resourceful Dutch engineer subdued the Nigerian nihilist. Plus, he must have pee’d on his fuse in the restroom because it failed to ignite properly. If either of those factors had not occurred, we would be discussing more than 280 dead on the plane and who knows how many on the ground. What was the initial response from Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano? “The system worked.” She later backtracked and admitted there were some flaws in security procedures. You can’t get anything past her: she’s way too smart. She’s so smart that I wish she would explain to me how the civil-service protected goobers at our gates are protecting and defending us.
The HS-TSA bifecta has already implemented some radical new measures to ensure event-free flights. For the last hour of a given flight, passengers will not be allowed to visit the restroom or to have anything on their laps. Travelers will be required to sit in the upright position with their hands placed on their laps. I bet that’ll work. Bennie the bomber has already begun to circumvent the rule makers’ latest inane restrictions. It hasn’t yet been mentioned, but given that Abdulmutallab stowed the explosive in his “Fruit of the Looms,” each of us will have to endure an undergarment check. You mother was right. Always wear clean underwear…skid marks could be mistaken for an explosive substance. Get used to the idea that you may hear the following as you check in at the airport: “O.K., drop your drawers, bend over and grab your ankles.” Of course, Big Government has been telling us that for years. Nothing new there.
As always, your comments are welcomed or email: cnpearl@woh.rr.com
Remember back to the halcyon days when the Patriot Act was being promoted, and one of the critical provisions was the nationalization of the airport security apparatus. Formerly, each airline provided its own gate side security force, but Big Nanny desired to take this woefully inadequate gaggle and transform it overnight into a civil service protected inadequate gaggle. I’ve done quite a bit of air travel over the years, and I suspect that many of those TSA security “professionals” couldn’t qualify as a greeter at my local Wal-Mart.
So we have this Nigerian, Abdulmutallab, flying one way—Amsterdam to Detroit—RED FLAG. He pays cash for his $2800.00 fare. RED FLAG. He has no luggage to stow. RED FLAG. He had no valid passport. RED FLAG. He was on the “terror watch list.” SUPER, DUPER, RED FLAG. His father had reported his concern about his son’s activities some weeks earlier. TRIPLE DECKER RED FLAG. He carried incendiary material in his underwear. EXPLOSIVELY SCARY RED FLAG. Who is watching the security gate? Mr. Magoo and Stevie Wonder? How’s that Patriot Act working out for you, huh? This entire FUBAR would alarm me, but my concern has been heightened by the fact that my wife had traveled on that same flight several days earlier. She had been to Dubai on a business trip and had changed planes in Amsterdam for her last leg home.
Fortunately, an alert and resourceful Dutch engineer subdued the Nigerian nihilist. Plus, he must have pee’d on his fuse in the restroom because it failed to ignite properly. If either of those factors had not occurred, we would be discussing more than 280 dead on the plane and who knows how many on the ground. What was the initial response from Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano? “The system worked.” She later backtracked and admitted there were some flaws in security procedures. You can’t get anything past her: she’s way too smart. She’s so smart that I wish she would explain to me how the civil-service protected goobers at our gates are protecting and defending us.
The HS-TSA bifecta has already implemented some radical new measures to ensure event-free flights. For the last hour of a given flight, passengers will not be allowed to visit the restroom or to have anything on their laps. Travelers will be required to sit in the upright position with their hands placed on their laps. I bet that’ll work. Bennie the bomber has already begun to circumvent the rule makers’ latest inane restrictions. It hasn’t yet been mentioned, but given that Abdulmutallab stowed the explosive in his “Fruit of the Looms,” each of us will have to endure an undergarment check. You mother was right. Always wear clean underwear…skid marks could be mistaken for an explosive substance. Get used to the idea that you may hear the following as you check in at the airport: “O.K., drop your drawers, bend over and grab your ankles.” Of course, Big Government has been telling us that for years. Nothing new there.
As always, your comments are welcomed or email: cnpearl@woh.rr.com
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Delayed gratification
Delayed gratification is the topic for today. It seems quite appropriate as the little ones anticipate Christmas morning, but I want to use the topic as a launching point for another (sigh) discussion of the massive (up to 2700 pages) Heathcare Reform Act. Consider that theoretically speaking there is no public option included in this latest version, and yet, they nevertheless manage to bring forth a bill that is more than twice the length of “Atlas Shrugged.” With that many pages and no public disclosure of the contents, one must assume that there is enough crap buried in the legislation to fertilize the entire African continent. We, our children, their children and generations as yet unborn will be unraveling the nuances and side-effects of this behemoth for decades. President Reagan once told a story of a young kid who got up on Christmas morning and found the room with the tree was full of horse manure. When his parents awoke and found him digging through the excrement, they asked little Johnny what he was doing. “There’s gotta be a pony in here somewhere!” the little guy exclaimed.
Regretfully, I suspect that we will never find the pony in this pile of crap, or if we do, it will be a dead horse by the time we uncover it. The last statement that I read regarding the implementation of this Trojan Horse was that the new taxes, the 111 new agencies or bureaus, and many of the restrictions and rules will be implemented next year (2010), but the “benefits” will not begin taking effect until 2014. Assumedly, the taxes collected would be earmarked and accumulated for the four-year start up period. I think I just spit up in my mouth. Right, Congress will allow billions of dollars to sit in an account without spending them. If you believe that, then you are a candidate for the Gullibility Hall of Fame. Back to delayed gratification…the benefits (if any) will be delayed, but the government desire for more to spend will be gratified. The politicians get the gold mine, and we get the shaft.
So what actions are available for short-circuiting this freedom-crushing legislative noose? Clearly the Republicans lack the power and the will to fight this thing. Even if they lack the votes to derail it, they should be dragging their heels while kicking and screaming. The Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell, decided to play nice with Harry Reid and allow the vote for Thursday morning rather than Thursday evening as originally scheduled. Great, the senators will get home for Christmas while the people dig lumps of coal from their stockings. Because the Dems want this power grab, and the Repubs are too cowardly to shed blood to stop it, the next line of resistance is the states. At least seven states are considering relying on the Tenth Amendment and the Constitutional challenge embedded there to address some element of “nullification.”
Will a nullification strategy work? It didn’t work out too well for South Carolina in 1861, but there are more recent examples of states and localities that choose to consciously ignore federal heavy handedness. Several cities throughout the country have declared themselves to be “sanctuaries” for undocumented aliens. Other governmental entities have passed laws that contravene federal drug laws…such as medical marijuana. These local efforts have generated some sputtering from the feds, but as a rule have been allowed to stand without much federal resistance. To be effective against the healthcare monster, a significant number of states will have to band together to shut down the government express. To do it in a piece meal fashion would prove to be ineffective and fruitless.
Please comment or email: cnpearl@woh.rr.com
Regretfully, I suspect that we will never find the pony in this pile of crap, or if we do, it will be a dead horse by the time we uncover it. The last statement that I read regarding the implementation of this Trojan Horse was that the new taxes, the 111 new agencies or bureaus, and many of the restrictions and rules will be implemented next year (2010), but the “benefits” will not begin taking effect until 2014. Assumedly, the taxes collected would be earmarked and accumulated for the four-year start up period. I think I just spit up in my mouth. Right, Congress will allow billions of dollars to sit in an account without spending them. If you believe that, then you are a candidate for the Gullibility Hall of Fame. Back to delayed gratification…the benefits (if any) will be delayed, but the government desire for more to spend will be gratified. The politicians get the gold mine, and we get the shaft.
So what actions are available for short-circuiting this freedom-crushing legislative noose? Clearly the Republicans lack the power and the will to fight this thing. Even if they lack the votes to derail it, they should be dragging their heels while kicking and screaming. The Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell, decided to play nice with Harry Reid and allow the vote for Thursday morning rather than Thursday evening as originally scheduled. Great, the senators will get home for Christmas while the people dig lumps of coal from their stockings. Because the Dems want this power grab, and the Repubs are too cowardly to shed blood to stop it, the next line of resistance is the states. At least seven states are considering relying on the Tenth Amendment and the Constitutional challenge embedded there to address some element of “nullification.”
Will a nullification strategy work? It didn’t work out too well for South Carolina in 1861, but there are more recent examples of states and localities that choose to consciously ignore federal heavy handedness. Several cities throughout the country have declared themselves to be “sanctuaries” for undocumented aliens. Other governmental entities have passed laws that contravene federal drug laws…such as medical marijuana. These local efforts have generated some sputtering from the feds, but as a rule have been allowed to stand without much federal resistance. To be effective against the healthcare monster, a significant number of states will have to band together to shut down the government express. To do it in a piece meal fashion would prove to be ineffective and fruitless.
Please comment or email: cnpearl@woh.rr.com
Monday, December 21, 2009
In the still of the night.
My late father used to tell me that “nothing good happens after midnight.” When I was young, stupid and full of vinegar, I seriously doubted the wisdom of that statement. But now as I have grown older, his admonition rings true. This morning (Monday 12/21) at 1:00am EST, the U.S. Senate voted to override cloture and place the mystery Healthcare Reform bill on the fast track to adoption. The tentative schedule calls for a final vote for passage at 7:00pm Thursday night, Christmas Eve. In the spirit of the season I ask the following (with a little help from Johnny Mathis):
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3qd0o_johnny-mathis-do-you-hear-what-i-he_music
So, do you hear what I hear? I detect the thundering hoof beats of runaway government. We are about to be crushed under the stampede of the Nanny State. Some of you dear readers have recently chided me for being an alarmist or for exhibiting signs of extreme paranoia. Consider this…several polls have indicated that more than fifty per cent of the voters have expressed their reservations about the proposed plan for restructuring healthcare in the U.S. Yet, through a series of backroom deals involving hundreds of billions of taxpayer funds, Majority Leader Reid and his cohorts have stubbornly moved this noxious legislation forward. There are, admittedly, some who believe that greater government involvement in our personal healthcare decisions is a good thing. They either assume that care would improve or that a leveling of health services would be more equitable than the current system. For them I have this seasonal ditty:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xa4gpo_here-comes-santa-claus_music
Only if you believe in Santa can you embrace the notion that the federal government will be a superior source of healthcare than you could possibly arrange for yourself. If you are the type of person who lacks self discipline, then Uncle Sam’s denial of your daily Twinkie fix, the prohibition of Big Macs, and the flushing of all soft drinks may be the only avenue available to you. You must be one of those poor souls who have no will, no strength….no brains. It requires courage and thoughtfulness to make decisions that could have long term effects on your life. It may be easier to allow the government to call the shots, but at what point do you draw the line? Would you “feel” more secure if the Nanny established your bedtime and tucked you in at night? Of course not! You would begin to resent the overly intrusive involvement of the government. Your sense of your personal identity would be smothered by the good intentions of Big Nanny. You would chafe at lack of freedom and yearn for the opportunity to decide for you what is good…and what is not.
So, in essence, you agree that the Senate may be going too far, but you assume that there’s nothing you can do about it. You think are just one little grain in the litter box of life, and you’re used to Government dropping daily deposits in your world. As government has grown larger and larger, less responsive and more domineering, you may have become accustomed to the little droplets of excrement that shower you. You may loathe the way that insensitive bureaucrats treat you as if you were the turd floating in the punchbowl at the party celebrating the glorious government goodies for all. Oh, something stinks alright, but its not you. What smells is that the “leaders” of our nation have assumed that your life is of so little significance that they rather than you should determine how you live it.
Senator Tom Harkin (idiot-Iowa) stated that the Congress would pass this liberty-choking monstrosity in time for Christmas. In my view, if Harkin, Reid and others of their ilk represent the spirit of Christmas, then I prefer to take my chances with the Grinch. The message of Christ at Christmastime is one of salvation…not one of enslavement.
Please comment or email me: cnpearl@woh.rr.com
Always, always, always beware of politicians bearing gifts. They purchase them with your credit cards.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3qd0o_johnny-mathis-do-you-hear-what-i-he_music
So, do you hear what I hear? I detect the thundering hoof beats of runaway government. We are about to be crushed under the stampede of the Nanny State. Some of you dear readers have recently chided me for being an alarmist or for exhibiting signs of extreme paranoia. Consider this…several polls have indicated that more than fifty per cent of the voters have expressed their reservations about the proposed plan for restructuring healthcare in the U.S. Yet, through a series of backroom deals involving hundreds of billions of taxpayer funds, Majority Leader Reid and his cohorts have stubbornly moved this noxious legislation forward. There are, admittedly, some who believe that greater government involvement in our personal healthcare decisions is a good thing. They either assume that care would improve or that a leveling of health services would be more equitable than the current system. For them I have this seasonal ditty:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xa4gpo_here-comes-santa-claus_music
Only if you believe in Santa can you embrace the notion that the federal government will be a superior source of healthcare than you could possibly arrange for yourself. If you are the type of person who lacks self discipline, then Uncle Sam’s denial of your daily Twinkie fix, the prohibition of Big Macs, and the flushing of all soft drinks may be the only avenue available to you. You must be one of those poor souls who have no will, no strength….no brains. It requires courage and thoughtfulness to make decisions that could have long term effects on your life. It may be easier to allow the government to call the shots, but at what point do you draw the line? Would you “feel” more secure if the Nanny established your bedtime and tucked you in at night? Of course not! You would begin to resent the overly intrusive involvement of the government. Your sense of your personal identity would be smothered by the good intentions of Big Nanny. You would chafe at lack of freedom and yearn for the opportunity to decide for you what is good…and what is not.
So, in essence, you agree that the Senate may be going too far, but you assume that there’s nothing you can do about it. You think are just one little grain in the litter box of life, and you’re used to Government dropping daily deposits in your world. As government has grown larger and larger, less responsive and more domineering, you may have become accustomed to the little droplets of excrement that shower you. You may loathe the way that insensitive bureaucrats treat you as if you were the turd floating in the punchbowl at the party celebrating the glorious government goodies for all. Oh, something stinks alright, but its not you. What smells is that the “leaders” of our nation have assumed that your life is of so little significance that they rather than you should determine how you live it.
Senator Tom Harkin (idiot-Iowa) stated that the Congress would pass this liberty-choking monstrosity in time for Christmas. In my view, if Harkin, Reid and others of their ilk represent the spirit of Christmas, then I prefer to take my chances with the Grinch. The message of Christ at Christmastime is one of salvation…not one of enslavement.
Please comment or email me: cnpearl@woh.rr.com
Always, always, always beware of politicians bearing gifts. They purchase them with your credit cards.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Take a chance on me...
Abba has been selected to be enshrined in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Quick: spell Abba backwards. Personally, I’m pleased that they will be honored. Platform shoes, plaid suits, and rather hot ladies have finally been recognized and given their rightful place in modern musical history. If my fading memory hasn’t deceived me, I seem to recall that in their early years of international recording, Abba sang the English versions of their songs phonetically because they didn’t speak the language. While I was pondering this little factoid (or fantasy-toid), I heard on the news that the Senate version of the Healthcare Reform Bill had not yet been written. Or if it had been committed to paper, then Senate Majority Leader, Harry (Dimbulb) Reid had it safely sequestered in an undisclosed location (probably in Al Gore’s Social Security lockbox).
Whoa, what a coincidence! As I listened to the various senators, pundits and newscasters discussing the Senate bill, I was struck with the nagging sense that they were just like Abba. They were mouthing the words, but they didn’t know the language. How mind-boggling is that? A bill that is more than two thousand pages (we suspect) that may contain measures that will radically alter one-sixth to one-fifth of the U.S. economy, and they do not know what’s in it. I have this mental picture of Senator Reid with a humongous bottle of White Out in his hand, opening the lockbox, pulling out the pallet of paper and making his daily alterations. The point is…how can a mystery bill of such great magnitude be rationally debated if only a few people know what’s in it? What’s wrong with this picture? I know what the Majority Leader is doing. He is attempting to secure sixty or more votes for his proposal before submitting it to open examination and condemnation. So, what we have is the American Beef Producers discussing Jello. Instead of a thorough analysis of real meat, we have duck and feint shadow boxing. Meanwhile, the majority staff diligently labors to produce a far reaching document that is all things to all people (at least 60 of them) while siphoning more droplets of freedom from the people.
On a related matter, I’m quite concerned about the power of congressional staff people. Members may come and go (not frequently enough), but staffers stay there forever…unless they run for their former bosses old seat. It has been a “red light” for me for many years, but I was reminded anew by a note in www.Redstate.com by Erick Erickson. He identified a communications weasel for the Senate Republican Campaign Committee named Brian Walsh. Basically, Erick suggested that Walsh preferred to have the committee support moderate or liberal republicans at the expense of more conservative ones. The SRCC is not an official committee of the Senate, but is wholly controlled by the republican members. If an entity under the purview of the more conservative party cannot refrain from supporting liberals and moderates, how can one expect the staffs of the formal committees of the Senate to be cognizant of conservative policies? How can we expect those staff members to endorse personal freedom when the power of the collective is so appealing? How can we expect entrenched staffers to cherish liberty when they fervently promote larger government?
Can we term limit congressional staff? If Members of Congress can catch Potomac Fever, then what do we do about staff members who contract Potomac Fossilization? If you suspect that I am overreacting, then peruse the voting results from The District, Southern Maryland and Northern Virginia. Permanent staff and federal bureaucrats are clustered in those areas. Overwhelmingly leftist and pro-big government, they trek into the city everyday to wreak their havoc, and then retreat to their safe havens after demolishing our personal freedoms. There must be an answer.
Romans 8:15 informs us that “Abba” means Father.
Father, help us.
Whoa, what a coincidence! As I listened to the various senators, pundits and newscasters discussing the Senate bill, I was struck with the nagging sense that they were just like Abba. They were mouthing the words, but they didn’t know the language. How mind-boggling is that? A bill that is more than two thousand pages (we suspect) that may contain measures that will radically alter one-sixth to one-fifth of the U.S. economy, and they do not know what’s in it. I have this mental picture of Senator Reid with a humongous bottle of White Out in his hand, opening the lockbox, pulling out the pallet of paper and making his daily alterations. The point is…how can a mystery bill of such great magnitude be rationally debated if only a few people know what’s in it? What’s wrong with this picture? I know what the Majority Leader is doing. He is attempting to secure sixty or more votes for his proposal before submitting it to open examination and condemnation. So, what we have is the American Beef Producers discussing Jello. Instead of a thorough analysis of real meat, we have duck and feint shadow boxing. Meanwhile, the majority staff diligently labors to produce a far reaching document that is all things to all people (at least 60 of them) while siphoning more droplets of freedom from the people.
On a related matter, I’m quite concerned about the power of congressional staff people. Members may come and go (not frequently enough), but staffers stay there forever…unless they run for their former bosses old seat. It has been a “red light” for me for many years, but I was reminded anew by a note in www.Redstate.com by Erick Erickson. He identified a communications weasel for the Senate Republican Campaign Committee named Brian Walsh. Basically, Erick suggested that Walsh preferred to have the committee support moderate or liberal republicans at the expense of more conservative ones. The SRCC is not an official committee of the Senate, but is wholly controlled by the republican members. If an entity under the purview of the more conservative party cannot refrain from supporting liberals and moderates, how can one expect the staffs of the formal committees of the Senate to be cognizant of conservative policies? How can we expect those staff members to endorse personal freedom when the power of the collective is so appealing? How can we expect entrenched staffers to cherish liberty when they fervently promote larger government?
Can we term limit congressional staff? If Members of Congress can catch Potomac Fever, then what do we do about staff members who contract Potomac Fossilization? If you suspect that I am overreacting, then peruse the voting results from The District, Southern Maryland and Northern Virginia. Permanent staff and federal bureaucrats are clustered in those areas. Overwhelmingly leftist and pro-big government, they trek into the city everyday to wreak their havoc, and then retreat to their safe havens after demolishing our personal freedoms. There must be an answer.
Romans 8:15 informs us that “Abba” means Father.
Father, help us.
Death Tax gets a boost from Dollar Devaluation
Often forgotten by most Americans is the “Death Tax” also known as the Estate Tax. Currently this tax is applied to the estates of Americans who commit the act of dying while holding possessions in excess of 3.5 million dollars. Now, it is true that while most people who die, did not ask to die, none the less they did die, and as a consequence the Federal Government and State Government will impose upon their heirs a tax at the current rate of 45% of the deceased persons possessions to the Feds and 7 % plus a one time fee to the State of Ohio.
Average people make the mistake of not concerning themselves with the insidious effects that this grave robbing tax policy has. They may hear echoes of the Estate Tax on the nightly news or maybe they have just heard the term somewhere, but are not really sure where or what it really is.
In short, it is theft of the most despicable sort. It might be like rear ending someone in a car accident, then getting out after the crash and stealing the hub caps off the car you just rear ended. The government taxes each of us on things we buy, things we posses, such as property tax, and they tax us on our earnings, known as income. So in the event of a death, it is likely that the possessions and earnings of the recently deceased have already been taxed in many ways, but for the government it’s not enough to take from the living or dead alone. The government chooses to re-tax the assets by labeling them income for those who might stand to inherit them. Please understand also that this is not just liquid assets like cash in the bank, it could be the very home you grew up in or the property you grew up on that must be sold at auction to pay the death tax.
The Government has cleverly written the exemption in at 3.5 million dollars. Meaning in short that no federal estate tax need be paid if assets are under that amount. One, this is unequal protection under the law targeting the wealthy and two 3.5 million today may seem like a lot, but when the government deliberately expands the money supply as has been done recently, tomorrow 3.5 million could buy you a Toyota. This being the case, many estates that were never thought to be eligible for estate taxation now at “face value” because of the devaluation of the dollar will be taxed at the same hefty 45%. If we do manage to enter into a hyper-inflationary period, it’s likely that almost any estate will be eligible for taxation and redistribution.
So much for the American dream.
Often forgotten by most Americans is the “Death Tax” also known as the Estate Tax. Currently this tax is applied to the estates of Americans who commit the act of dying while holding possessions in excess of 3.5 million dollars. Now, it is true that while most people who die, did not ask to die, none the less they did die, and as a consequence the Federal Government and State Government will impose upon their heirs a tax at the current rate of 45% of the deceased persons possessions to the Feds and 7 % plus a one time fee to the State of Ohio.
Average people make the mistake of not concerning themselves with the insidious effects that this grave robbing tax policy has. They may hear echoes of the Estate Tax on the nightly news or maybe they have just heard the term somewhere, but are not really sure where or what it really is.
In short, it is theft of the most despicable sort. It might be like rear ending someone in a car accident, then getting out after the crash and stealing the hub caps off the car you just rear ended. The government taxes each of us on things we buy, things we posses, such as property tax, and they tax us on our earnings, known as income. So in the event of a death, it is likely that the possessions and earnings of the recently deceased have already been taxed in many ways, but for the government it’s not enough to take from the living or dead alone. The government chooses to re-tax the assets by labeling them income for those who might stand to inherit them. Please understand also that this is not just liquid assets like cash in the bank, it could be the very home you grew up in or the property you grew up on that must be sold at auction to pay the death tax.
The Government has cleverly written the exemption in at 3.5 million dollars. Meaning in short that no federal estate tax need be paid if assets are under that amount. One, this is unequal protection under the law targeting the wealthy and two 3.5 million today may seem like a lot, but when the government deliberately expands the money supply as has been done recently, tomorrow 3.5 million could buy you a Toyota. This being the case, many estates that were never thought to be eligible for estate taxation now at “face value” because of the devaluation of the dollar will be taxed at the same hefty 45%. If we do manage to enter into a hyper-inflationary period, it’s likely that almost any estate will be eligible for taxation and redistribution.
So much for the American dream.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Reform, Repair, Reject or...Reset.
Anytime a politician at any level of government utters the words “reform or fix,” jump on your pony and head for the hills. You have probably heard the old bromide that “the cure is more deadly than the disease.” How about another old saying to set the tone for our discussion: “Too many cooks spoil the broth.” First of all, I am absolutely opposed to dictatorships, but on the other hand, how can we expect 535 senators and house members to legislate fairly and reasonably for 300 million people? Inevitably, oxen are gored. Our society has functioned as a mobile one in the sense that an individual could through his/her own efforts change his station in life. It seems, therefore, to attempt to legislate for the greater good of the majority is a doomed proposition. Today’s majority may become tomorrow’s toothless minority. In addition, the ponderous process leading from idea to enacted law often puts government response behind the curve. Meanwhile private sector entities that might be equipped to solve the issues addressed by Congress stand down while waiting for the legislative process to runs its course…and the problem either becomes worse or goes away.
Obviously there are government programs or aspects of our lives that could benefit from reform or repair, but when the government attempts to implement the necessary tweaks, they often use a sledgehammer approach. Consequently, the result is less efficiency, more cost, more frustration and less personal freedom. Another old cliché states that a camel is a horse designed by a committee. That is an apt illustration of most government attempts to fix a problem…usually a problem that had initially been created by government ineptness. Tweaking—the fine tuning of an apparatus—could be considered a form of repairing. Reforming is a make over, and repairing is changing the eyeliner. The heavy hand of government, however, often attempts to repair something by using an ice pick to apply the new eyeliner. The result is usually blindingly inefficient and unworkable.
At the present time, public opinion polls would suggest that citizens prefer rejecting the massive number of “reform” proposals that are swirling around the U.S. Capitol. The people seem to be encouraging legislators to follow the medical rule, “first, do no harm.” I have designed and executed polls, and I am generally suspicious about the reliability and validity factors of polls reported in the popular press. But still (another cliché) “where there’s smoke, there’s fire.” In other words, the level of skepticism and discontent that is demonstrated in the polls may not be accurate, but “the natives are clearly becoming restless.” So, rejection of any effort to “reform” may be a reasonable approach to many of the measures before the Congress.
There is a fourth approach to the bevy of issues that confront the nation at this time. It is the one that I prefer. I know, however, that it is the least likely to be applied. Reset…fold the tent, rebuild the foundation, and erect the structure to fit the foundation. Our Founders provided us with a foundation that provided for more personal liberty than at any time in the history of human governing, and we blew it. We have allowed our sloth and our utopian fantasies to lead us down the path of voluntary servitude. We have ignorantly placed our trust in “leaders” whose primary motivation was not the well-being of the nation, but in their own accumulation of power and their insatiable thirst for reelection. They buy us off with baubles. We take the trinkets and give them our “Manhattans.” At the end, we have some cheap costume jewelry, and they own the island. So, my dream, my prayer is that we have the courage to reset. I fervently hope that we have the wisdom to rebuild on the foundation of freedom that they built for us. I long for a nation--actually a people—the loves personal liberty. I wish that I can live long enough to witness the reset of the U.S.A., but if not, I ask for the courage to die for it.
Please respond if you wish, or email me: cnpearl@woh.rr.com
Obviously there are government programs or aspects of our lives that could benefit from reform or repair, but when the government attempts to implement the necessary tweaks, they often use a sledgehammer approach. Consequently, the result is less efficiency, more cost, more frustration and less personal freedom. Another old cliché states that a camel is a horse designed by a committee. That is an apt illustration of most government attempts to fix a problem…usually a problem that had initially been created by government ineptness. Tweaking—the fine tuning of an apparatus—could be considered a form of repairing. Reforming is a make over, and repairing is changing the eyeliner. The heavy hand of government, however, often attempts to repair something by using an ice pick to apply the new eyeliner. The result is usually blindingly inefficient and unworkable.
At the present time, public opinion polls would suggest that citizens prefer rejecting the massive number of “reform” proposals that are swirling around the U.S. Capitol. The people seem to be encouraging legislators to follow the medical rule, “first, do no harm.” I have designed and executed polls, and I am generally suspicious about the reliability and validity factors of polls reported in the popular press. But still (another cliché) “where there’s smoke, there’s fire.” In other words, the level of skepticism and discontent that is demonstrated in the polls may not be accurate, but “the natives are clearly becoming restless.” So, rejection of any effort to “reform” may be a reasonable approach to many of the measures before the Congress.
There is a fourth approach to the bevy of issues that confront the nation at this time. It is the one that I prefer. I know, however, that it is the least likely to be applied. Reset…fold the tent, rebuild the foundation, and erect the structure to fit the foundation. Our Founders provided us with a foundation that provided for more personal liberty than at any time in the history of human governing, and we blew it. We have allowed our sloth and our utopian fantasies to lead us down the path of voluntary servitude. We have ignorantly placed our trust in “leaders” whose primary motivation was not the well-being of the nation, but in their own accumulation of power and their insatiable thirst for reelection. They buy us off with baubles. We take the trinkets and give them our “Manhattans.” At the end, we have some cheap costume jewelry, and they own the island. So, my dream, my prayer is that we have the courage to reset. I fervently hope that we have the wisdom to rebuild on the foundation of freedom that they built for us. I long for a nation--actually a people—the loves personal liberty. I wish that I can live long enough to witness the reset of the U.S.A., but if not, I ask for the courage to die for it.
Please respond if you wish, or email me: cnpearl@woh.rr.com
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Three reasons
There was an obituary in today’s Toledo Blade (I know, a liberal rag) that prompted me to engage in some reflective self-analysis. Twenty-five years ago this month my service as a member of the Ohio House of Representatives ended. There were a number of factors that influenced my decision to not run for reelection in 1984, but it was a choice that I have not regretted for this past quarter century. The obituary was for my opponent
in 1982…my final race. The gentleman’s name was Bob Heft, recognized designer of the 50-star flag and the mayor of Napoleon, Ohio. Bob was a decent guy and a worthy adversary. His passing and the twenty-fifth anniversary of my leaving legislature have caused me to examine how my political views have shifted though the years.
When I began my legislative sojourn in 1981, I was generally conservative…reflecting my background as a farm boy who became a small business operator in a small town. After encountering the cacophony of interests that surround the statehouse in Columbus, I found that if my representation were to have any coherence and consistency, then I had better more clearly define my principles for decision making. Early on it was apparent to me that many legislative proposals either ignored potential negative side effects or overlooked possible intervening variables that could hijack the original intent of the legislation. My positions began to harden, and my willingness to vote “no” grew dramatically. I began to resent the “we must have a bill” attitude that I observed from both sides of the isle. In my view, more often than not, no bill was far superior to any bad bill. Despite my frequent “no” votes state government continued to grow larger. So did the federal government, and as the state and feds issued mandates and “revenue sharing” schemes, so too, did the local governments. I witnessed very few cost efficiencies or improvements in service delivery.
Many large corporations and business associations have lobbyists representing them at the state house. Given that the state budget has grown so large, it’s only natural that they believe it necessary to lobby in order to protect themselves from hurtful legislation. It didn’t take me very long to detect that big government and big corporations were very similar in some respects. They have no hearts, no minds and no souls. That observation led me to conclude that those were the three primary reasons for my opposition to larger government and government’s willingness to engage in “sweetheart” legislation with large corporations. One of my constituents helped me arrive at that realization. He was a gentleman in his eighties who owned a small manufacturing company that did specialty work for the automotive industry. As he was guiding me on a tour of his facility, I remarked that surely his company had the potential for phenomenal growth. He agreed but said that they had chosen not to grow larger. “Representative Earl,” he said, “ we have 180 people working here now. I know every one of them, most of their spouses, and many of their children’s names. We cannot be as efficient and productive as we are now if we become so large that the employees can’t bitch to the owner on a first name basis.” This may not be an exact quote, but its pretty close. That lesson has stayed with me for more that twenty five years.
No private corporation is too big to fail. If a company becomes so sluggish that is inefficient, or their customer service fails to address the problems of the customer, then they should be allowed to drift away. New, more aggressive and innovative competitors will fill the void. Big government has no competitors to step up when it does not fulfill its mandate. It simply grows larger by claiming it needs more resources. As we have seen, when big government and big business work hand-in-hand to prop up one another, the superstructure becomes a house of cards. The insatiable government continues to consume more of the nation’s wealth, and the mega-corporations who are connected to the governmental umbilical cord fail to improve while the more efficient competitors are placed at a competitive disadvantage.
No heart, no mind, no soul. Three reasons for my becoming a passionate believer in personal freedom. Three reasons for my fear and loathing of an overreaching, uncontrollable government.
RIP Bob Heft.
Oh, there are three more reasons that I call for a saner government. They are twelve year old Shaun, ten year old Erin, and Sully, who will soon be eight months old. My grandchildren.
in 1982…my final race. The gentleman’s name was Bob Heft, recognized designer of the 50-star flag and the mayor of Napoleon, Ohio. Bob was a decent guy and a worthy adversary. His passing and the twenty-fifth anniversary of my leaving legislature have caused me to examine how my political views have shifted though the years.
When I began my legislative sojourn in 1981, I was generally conservative…reflecting my background as a farm boy who became a small business operator in a small town. After encountering the cacophony of interests that surround the statehouse in Columbus, I found that if my representation were to have any coherence and consistency, then I had better more clearly define my principles for decision making. Early on it was apparent to me that many legislative proposals either ignored potential negative side effects or overlooked possible intervening variables that could hijack the original intent of the legislation. My positions began to harden, and my willingness to vote “no” grew dramatically. I began to resent the “we must have a bill” attitude that I observed from both sides of the isle. In my view, more often than not, no bill was far superior to any bad bill. Despite my frequent “no” votes state government continued to grow larger. So did the federal government, and as the state and feds issued mandates and “revenue sharing” schemes, so too, did the local governments. I witnessed very few cost efficiencies or improvements in service delivery.
Many large corporations and business associations have lobbyists representing them at the state house. Given that the state budget has grown so large, it’s only natural that they believe it necessary to lobby in order to protect themselves from hurtful legislation. It didn’t take me very long to detect that big government and big corporations were very similar in some respects. They have no hearts, no minds and no souls. That observation led me to conclude that those were the three primary reasons for my opposition to larger government and government’s willingness to engage in “sweetheart” legislation with large corporations. One of my constituents helped me arrive at that realization. He was a gentleman in his eighties who owned a small manufacturing company that did specialty work for the automotive industry. As he was guiding me on a tour of his facility, I remarked that surely his company had the potential for phenomenal growth. He agreed but said that they had chosen not to grow larger. “Representative Earl,” he said, “ we have 180 people working here now. I know every one of them, most of their spouses, and many of their children’s names. We cannot be as efficient and productive as we are now if we become so large that the employees can’t bitch to the owner on a first name basis.” This may not be an exact quote, but its pretty close. That lesson has stayed with me for more that twenty five years.
No private corporation is too big to fail. If a company becomes so sluggish that is inefficient, or their customer service fails to address the problems of the customer, then they should be allowed to drift away. New, more aggressive and innovative competitors will fill the void. Big government has no competitors to step up when it does not fulfill its mandate. It simply grows larger by claiming it needs more resources. As we have seen, when big government and big business work hand-in-hand to prop up one another, the superstructure becomes a house of cards. The insatiable government continues to consume more of the nation’s wealth, and the mega-corporations who are connected to the governmental umbilical cord fail to improve while the more efficient competitors are placed at a competitive disadvantage.
No heart, no mind, no soul. Three reasons for my becoming a passionate believer in personal freedom. Three reasons for my fear and loathing of an overreaching, uncontrollable government.
RIP Bob Heft.
Oh, there are three more reasons that I call for a saner government. They are twelve year old Shaun, ten year old Erin, and Sully, who will soon be eight months old. My grandchildren.
Friday, December 11, 2009
A more direct approach
How about a direct approach?
I’ve got to tell you, I was reading an editorial about the hypocrisy of tea party attendees, conservatives, republicans, and anti Obama care folks today, (at least I think that’s who it was addressing) and it occurred to me that the author of this editorial was right at least to some degree. She pointed out that many of the same people who are railing against growth in government are, government employees (bureaucrats) , accepting unemployment benefits, placing their children in public schools, vying for public contracts or just utilizing various other functions of the government for personal gain. The whole point was that it’s unprincipled to be against one government program namely, Government health care while partaking in many or any others.
I actually agree. That is why I’m a Libertarian and not a “Conservative”. I don’t send my kids to public schools, I don’t care if small public libraries where three employees work at a time become privatized or close. I don’t care if the pavement I drive on is privatized. ( it’s already been done with great success in some places) When asked what I do want from the government, my answer is simply, LESS. Also the answer will always remain LESS. In every situation we should be asking ourselves, is there another way of doing this that doesn’t involve government and that is less of a burden to our fellow man? In a million years maybe we will be able to rest, satisfied that government has been properly utilized and fulfills only it’s necessary core obligations. Until then, the answer is LESS.
A question that is raised to Libertarians often is, what are you some kind of anarchist? Well, even though it would be tempting to choose anarchy over our current political system, the answer is no, Libertarians are not anarchists we just want to eliminate government from every place it doesn’t belong. In the strict sense government’ basic purpose is to protect it’s people from bodily harm and to protect our property. Most else would be deemed extra constitutional. It is sadly ironic that now government works diligently to steal private property through excessive taxation and eminent domain all the while depriving people of their bodily health by stealing the fiscal means by which individuals might seek medical care.
All that being said, to address the authors point, government employment in my mind is largely without virtue and counterproductive. The core government services that are deemed necessary should at least be fulfilled by individuals who pay mind to the larger picture of government efficiency ( oxymoron I know). Let’s be frank. The reason people leave the private sector and reduce the GDP of our nation is that government work usually pays better than average and requires less skill than average. So it’s no wonder that at any given time we may find ourselves sitting in a room out numbered by bureaucrats. Government jobs usually produce nothing or worse, all while paying quite well. It could be said that since a person is no longer producing in the private sector while they are costing tax payers, that a government job actually destroys the equivalent of two jobs and harms the economy way more than it could ever help. Also some estimates of unemployment in our country are 10% or so then 17.5% when including underemployed. Well why not add government workers to the ranks of unemployed since they have the same effect on our economy. What would unemployment be then? 45%? 50%? It’s no wonder our economy is sluggish. The few are carrying the water for the many. What’s worse is while trying to carry the water the few are being tripped by the bureaucrats and most of the water is getting spilled.
I know what your thinking, What a jerk! He thinks my job over at Government’s R US is unimportant and that because I work for the government, I must be a lesser human being. On the contrary, many government services are important but need to be transferred over to the private sector where some sense of accountability exists. This would allow the would be government worker to actually utilize their skill set to a fuller potential and contribute to the GDP of our nation in a globally competitive world.
Much of what I said about government employment applies to government services as well, so as not to be redundant let me make the sweeping generalization that anything government can do or can’t do can be done better in the private sector until proven otherwise. Our government has proven itself to be an expensive way of accomplishing very little.
Let’s all try to be more consistent in our political ideals so as not to be called hypocrites. We can’t all stand opposed to Government Health Care while allowing the government to pick up our trash, comb our hair and brush our teeth.
I’ve got to tell you, I was reading an editorial about the hypocrisy of tea party attendees, conservatives, republicans, and anti Obama care folks today, (at least I think that’s who it was addressing) and it occurred to me that the author of this editorial was right at least to some degree. She pointed out that many of the same people who are railing against growth in government are, government employees (bureaucrats) , accepting unemployment benefits, placing their children in public schools, vying for public contracts or just utilizing various other functions of the government for personal gain. The whole point was that it’s unprincipled to be against one government program namely, Government health care while partaking in many or any others.
I actually agree. That is why I’m a Libertarian and not a “Conservative”. I don’t send my kids to public schools, I don’t care if small public libraries where three employees work at a time become privatized or close. I don’t care if the pavement I drive on is privatized. ( it’s already been done with great success in some places) When asked what I do want from the government, my answer is simply, LESS. Also the answer will always remain LESS. In every situation we should be asking ourselves, is there another way of doing this that doesn’t involve government and that is less of a burden to our fellow man? In a million years maybe we will be able to rest, satisfied that government has been properly utilized and fulfills only it’s necessary core obligations. Until then, the answer is LESS.
A question that is raised to Libertarians often is, what are you some kind of anarchist? Well, even though it would be tempting to choose anarchy over our current political system, the answer is no, Libertarians are not anarchists we just want to eliminate government from every place it doesn’t belong. In the strict sense government’ basic purpose is to protect it’s people from bodily harm and to protect our property. Most else would be deemed extra constitutional. It is sadly ironic that now government works diligently to steal private property through excessive taxation and eminent domain all the while depriving people of their bodily health by stealing the fiscal means by which individuals might seek medical care.
All that being said, to address the authors point, government employment in my mind is largely without virtue and counterproductive. The core government services that are deemed necessary should at least be fulfilled by individuals who pay mind to the larger picture of government efficiency ( oxymoron I know). Let’s be frank. The reason people leave the private sector and reduce the GDP of our nation is that government work usually pays better than average and requires less skill than average. So it’s no wonder that at any given time we may find ourselves sitting in a room out numbered by bureaucrats. Government jobs usually produce nothing or worse, all while paying quite well. It could be said that since a person is no longer producing in the private sector while they are costing tax payers, that a government job actually destroys the equivalent of two jobs and harms the economy way more than it could ever help. Also some estimates of unemployment in our country are 10% or so then 17.5% when including underemployed. Well why not add government workers to the ranks of unemployed since they have the same effect on our economy. What would unemployment be then? 45%? 50%? It’s no wonder our economy is sluggish. The few are carrying the water for the many. What’s worse is while trying to carry the water the few are being tripped by the bureaucrats and most of the water is getting spilled.
I know what your thinking, What a jerk! He thinks my job over at Government’s R US is unimportant and that because I work for the government, I must be a lesser human being. On the contrary, many government services are important but need to be transferred over to the private sector where some sense of accountability exists. This would allow the would be government worker to actually utilize their skill set to a fuller potential and contribute to the GDP of our nation in a globally competitive world.
Much of what I said about government employment applies to government services as well, so as not to be redundant let me make the sweeping generalization that anything government can do or can’t do can be done better in the private sector until proven otherwise. Our government has proven itself to be an expensive way of accomplishing very little.
Let’s all try to be more consistent in our political ideals so as not to be called hypocrites. We can’t all stand opposed to Government Health Care while allowing the government to pick up our trash, comb our hair and brush our teeth.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
The Camel's New Quarters
The camel has moved so far into the tent that he is poisoning the air with his flatulent methane. Government encroachment on every aspect of our lives has progressed from a disturbing possibility to an alarming probability. Aside from the pending healthcare debacle, the latest assault on our freedom comes from the E.P.A., the Environmental Protection Agency…or is that the Egregious Policy Adopters? So, their mission is to protect the environment, but they stink it up instead…big time. They’ve threatened the Congress (something that I would like to do from time to time) that if our dearly beloved elected representatives do not implement the hyper-noxious Cap and Trade (i.e. cap and tax), then the unelected bureaucrats at the agency will initiate “command and control” policies and procedures regarding carbon emissions. In other words: “If you legislators don’t do what we want, we will usurp your unique authority for law and policy and do what we want. Stick that up your ***, Congress.” Who’s in charge of this popsicle cart?
It is not unusual from bureaucrats to run amok, but this attempted blackmail is unbelievably brazen.
The next area of government overreach that I want to share with you involves our bodies of water here in the United States. I apologize that I have misplaced my research on this issue (yes, I do research), so I’ll have to wing it with more generalities that I would like. An agency of the federal government that has responsibility for navigable waterways is under consideration for a much broader scope of oversight. I do not recall if it’s the EPA, the Coast Guard, Interior or some other unelected branch of government, and I don’t remember if it’s a legislative proposal or agency rule making, but the end game is a massive increase in government power to regulate and restrict every body of water in the country. If this ominous prospect comes to fruition, then perhaps we could create a new federal agency—PPP&PS, puddles, pools, ponds and pond scum, too. I’m fortunate to have a three-quarter acre pond here on my little patch of paradise. I neither need nor want some robotic, bean-counting, pencil-pushing, civil servant geek telling me I have too many bluegills (they’re like rabbits) or catfish in my personal puddle…or that my single speckled trout is lonely. Stay away, and if you do come here, go away…NOW!
Last night (Wednesday) I had the opportunity to listen to Mark Levin for a while. He was speaking in his usual high-speed, hyperbolic mode about a sacred USDA program. Levin stated that a study had determined that up to forty per cent of the meat and chicken provided to the school lunch program by the federal government was substandard. The meat failed to qualify for Taco Bell, Arby’s or McDonalds. It was determined that a large portion of the chicken came from spent layers…old egg producers whose value had diminished. Campbell’s claimed that they stopped using spent layers more than a decade ago for their soup products. So, the same government that wants to assume control of your healthcare is knowingly providing substandard meat and chicken for daily lunches for up to 60% of U.S. school students. Isn’t that special?
This column was begun with a discussion of the camel’s moving into the tent. Don’t fret. The government (USDA) will probably incorporate the camel into the school lunch program.
Your comments, pro or con, are encouraged. Or, you can email: cnpearl@woh.rr.com
It is not unusual from bureaucrats to run amok, but this attempted blackmail is unbelievably brazen.
The next area of government overreach that I want to share with you involves our bodies of water here in the United States. I apologize that I have misplaced my research on this issue (yes, I do research), so I’ll have to wing it with more generalities that I would like. An agency of the federal government that has responsibility for navigable waterways is under consideration for a much broader scope of oversight. I do not recall if it’s the EPA, the Coast Guard, Interior or some other unelected branch of government, and I don’t remember if it’s a legislative proposal or agency rule making, but the end game is a massive increase in government power to regulate and restrict every body of water in the country. If this ominous prospect comes to fruition, then perhaps we could create a new federal agency—PPP&PS, puddles, pools, ponds and pond scum, too. I’m fortunate to have a three-quarter acre pond here on my little patch of paradise. I neither need nor want some robotic, bean-counting, pencil-pushing, civil servant geek telling me I have too many bluegills (they’re like rabbits) or catfish in my personal puddle…or that my single speckled trout is lonely. Stay away, and if you do come here, go away…NOW!
Last night (Wednesday) I had the opportunity to listen to Mark Levin for a while. He was speaking in his usual high-speed, hyperbolic mode about a sacred USDA program. Levin stated that a study had determined that up to forty per cent of the meat and chicken provided to the school lunch program by the federal government was substandard. The meat failed to qualify for Taco Bell, Arby’s or McDonalds. It was determined that a large portion of the chicken came from spent layers…old egg producers whose value had diminished. Campbell’s claimed that they stopped using spent layers more than a decade ago for their soup products. So, the same government that wants to assume control of your healthcare is knowingly providing substandard meat and chicken for daily lunches for up to 60% of U.S. school students. Isn’t that special?
This column was begun with a discussion of the camel’s moving into the tent. Don’t fret. The government (USDA) will probably incorporate the camel into the school lunch program.
Your comments, pro or con, are encouraged. Or, you can email: cnpearl@woh.rr.com
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Amateur Hour
Is it idiocy, naivete, ignorance or lunacy that drives the administration’s economic policies? I’ll reluctantly give them a pass for the original TARP package because that was driven by the Bush White House but with eager participation by many in the current leadership. Each attempt to address a sector of the economy seems larger and less effective than those that preceded it. We’ve migrated from discussing hundreds of billions of dollars to nonchalantly speaking of trillions. The national bank account is overdrawn, the promises made by the government to our citizens are largely unfunded, and those who have been lending us the funds for this spending binge are becoming antsy. So, how do I really feel about the administration and its congressional co-conspirators? Please play. Sally Ann Howe captures my sentiments with uncanny precision.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQDiKGRut80
So, the President has proposed a “new” stimulus package partially funded by TARP funds that have been returned by affected financial institutions (it’s probably illegal-funds allocated for one purpose cannot be diverted for another). If you were to examine the first stimulus package ($868 B—chicken feed), you might note that an extraordinary portion of the funds were targeted for governmental agencies and NGO’s who provide “services” under the auspices of government watchdogs. Because the government’s reporting data are unclear, it is difficult to ascertain just how many jobs were “created or saved” by the initial stimulus of 2009. In addition, the dearth of specificity in the data makes it impossible to identify if those “created and saved jobs” were in the private sector or the public realm. I have no facts (they won’t produce them), but I suspect that if we could acquire hard data, we would discover that the overwhelming beneficiaries of Stimulus I are public sector entities.
To date, only about forty per cent (40%) of Stimulus I has been distributed, and yet the administration is aggressively promoting a second round. To me, an humble old country boy, it seems as if the inmates were running the asylum. Their modus operandi appears to follow this pattern: declare a crisis, hastily construct a massive unintelligible bill, pass it quickly in the dark of night, and blame the Bush administration. After the new legislation proves to be inadequate or ineffective, then declare another crisis and repeat the pattern.
Meanwhile the deficit grows geometrically as the funds for each “crisis-solving” piece of legislation is passed. There are only three areas of true growth under this Obama/Reid/Pelosi formula. They are: the debt, the deficit, and government. The private sector, meanwhile, is either stagnant or shrinking. The only segments that have consistently demonstrated growth in the last three quarters are healthcare and the sale of firearms and ammo (maybe commodities especially gold). So, the Administration’s driving purpose appears to be that it wants to throw money at every perceived problem—something like ‘whack-a-mole.’ And government continues to grow. I titled this piece “Amateur Hour” because the approach in Washington is nonsensical and counterintuitive, but I wish it were the “Gong Show” so that I could bang the magic twanger and get them off the stage.
Please comment below or at: cnpearl@woh.rr.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQDiKGRut80
So, the President has proposed a “new” stimulus package partially funded by TARP funds that have been returned by affected financial institutions (it’s probably illegal-funds allocated for one purpose cannot be diverted for another). If you were to examine the first stimulus package ($868 B—chicken feed), you might note that an extraordinary portion of the funds were targeted for governmental agencies and NGO’s who provide “services” under the auspices of government watchdogs. Because the government’s reporting data are unclear, it is difficult to ascertain just how many jobs were “created or saved” by the initial stimulus of 2009. In addition, the dearth of specificity in the data makes it impossible to identify if those “created and saved jobs” were in the private sector or the public realm. I have no facts (they won’t produce them), but I suspect that if we could acquire hard data, we would discover that the overwhelming beneficiaries of Stimulus I are public sector entities.
To date, only about forty per cent (40%) of Stimulus I has been distributed, and yet the administration is aggressively promoting a second round. To me, an humble old country boy, it seems as if the inmates were running the asylum. Their modus operandi appears to follow this pattern: declare a crisis, hastily construct a massive unintelligible bill, pass it quickly in the dark of night, and blame the Bush administration. After the new legislation proves to be inadequate or ineffective, then declare another crisis and repeat the pattern.
Meanwhile the deficit grows geometrically as the funds for each “crisis-solving” piece of legislation is passed. There are only three areas of true growth under this Obama/Reid/Pelosi formula. They are: the debt, the deficit, and government. The private sector, meanwhile, is either stagnant or shrinking. The only segments that have consistently demonstrated growth in the last three quarters are healthcare and the sale of firearms and ammo (maybe commodities especially gold). So, the Administration’s driving purpose appears to be that it wants to throw money at every perceived problem—something like ‘whack-a-mole.’ And government continues to grow. I titled this piece “Amateur Hour” because the approach in Washington is nonsensical and counterintuitive, but I wish it were the “Gong Show” so that I could bang the magic twanger and get them off the stage.
Please comment below or at: cnpearl@woh.rr.com
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
One for All
For a community or a government to protect individual freedom it must be based on moral behavior. There are some schools of thought that morality is strictly an individual consideration (e.g. relativism), but in order for a community of individuals to flourish, there should be a consensus regarding what constitutes moral behavior. Any other paradigm leads to anarchy and chaos. It seems apparent to me that in the United States today the moral foundations have crumbled, and we are balancing on the edge of mayhem. Although I believe the culture has become depraved, it is the moral structure of the body politic that I address today.
It is vital for a democratic republic that the citizens and the elected representatives share a moral vision that defines the public good while, at the same time, provides for maximum personal freedom. Clearly, there are elements of national existence that require collective action…national defense, foreign affairs, adjudication of contract disputes plus fair and just criminal codes…to name a few. If a democratically-based society is to survive and thrive, then the individual citizens must embrace a moral code that encourages maximum self expression while allowing for the coalescence of the nation to morally address issues of national concern. The Founders recognized the importance of the two-pronged approach and drafted a document (The Constitution) that provided the framework for its implementation. Sadly, over time the Founders’ vision has become distorted, and the Constitution has been twisted and perverted. Individual freedom, once shouted from the rooftops of the Republic, has been transformed into whimpering pleas from the cellars of the nation.
The Constitution and, theoretically, subsequent laws, rules and regulations represent a body of law that is anchored to a moral basis of individual liberty. Unfortunately, many of the laws (especially those expanding government power) have abandoned the anchor, and the country is adrift. Individual freedom has become a minor consideration in the governance of the Republic. It’s time for citizens who cherish their liberty to rise up and recapture the reins of power. How can this be achieved? By definition ..organizing individualists is akin to herding cats.
Please have patience as I identify those citizens most likely to successfully band together to seize the power and reassert the principles of personal liberty in the United States. First, let me state that I believe that people who cherish liberty are people of faith. In my view they represent three distinct points-of-view who share a burning passion for liberty. For the purposes of this discussion I’ll define them as believers, non-believers and anti-believers. Although these descriptions appear to be overly broad, I place them all in the context of faith…they’ve thought about faith, they’ve considered faith, and they’ve made decisions regarding faith. The believers have embraced supernatural faith. The non-believers have rationally chosen to ignore supernatural faith, and the anti-believers have determined that human capacity and human intellect are the sole determinants of human existence. In other words we have the believers, the rationalists and the humanists. Next I will describe how these various constituencies for freedom can successfully interact to restore individual liberty in the United States.
Because I am most familiar with the community of believers, I’ll begin with them. The Judeo-Christian tradition is one of a personal relationship with G_d. Although the Lord identified the Nation of Israel as His chosen people, He communicated through the Patriarchs and the prophets. Tradition Christian doctrine has emphasized the personal relationship via the act of salvation. The individual, recognizing that he/she is lost and depraved, accepts Christ (the Messiah) as Savior and is restored through Christ to a personal relationship with God. There have been some strains of thought within the church that have suggested universal salvation (everyone goes to heaven), but most traditional systematic theologies emphasize the personal nature of salvation and redemption. Anecdotally, one can note that in many societies across the globe, Christians are often persecuted or executed. The personal, individualistic elements of the faith make their allegiance and independence a threat to an autocratic society. In the United States today committed Christians are alarmed by governmental restrictions on the practicing of their faith. They see themselves as increasingly constrained. With good reason, many recognize that the Founders relied upon a Judeo-Christian foundation in the formation of the nation. It is understandable, therefore, that they equate the loss of personal liberty with the possibility of encroaching religious persecution. Because of their tragic history, the Jews have generally been apprehensive even to the point of fearing the motives of the Christians.
The non-believing rationalists just want to be left alone. They don’t want government dictating every little facet of their lives, and they don’t want the “church people” telling them how to live. They understand that there are instances that demand cooperation but do not want to be forced into unceasing alliances. Whether they know it or not, their guiding principle is Descartes “I think, therefore I am.” They examine the state of the nation and their personal position within it through the prism of ‘what makes sense.’ Rationalists are wary of believers…suspecting that their ultimate goal is the establishment of a theocratic state. Sometimes Rationalists suspect that believers are so heavenly focused that they’re no earthly good. To a lesser degree Rationalists view the humanists with some skepticism. Rationalists are aware of a universe beyond them. They choose to approach it rationally. The humanists, in their, view are too inner-directed…relying on feelings and perceptions.
True humanists as suggested above believe that all reality is based on the perception of the observer. The reason that anti-believing humanists would struggle to preserve individual freedom is that they resent any effort, by government or any ecclesiastical authority, to impose a definition of reality. They subscribe to the “to each his own” point of view. They yearn for …and demand that they have the freedom to maneuver within reality as they find it. An anecdotal example (an extreme one, I concede) of a dedicated humanist would be Cindy Sheehan. Her perception of the nation and its leadership seems extreme to many, but she endures…seeking to be heard.
So, how can we forge these disparate approaches into a coherent and effective force for freedom. Clearly, there is mistrust and distrust among them. Obviously, their goals and ends are at odds with one another. They share one overwhelming attribute: they have a burning passion for personal freedom. Each must yield some biases and reservations in order to achieve a common goal. The Believers, the community of faith, must be willing to forgo judgment, condemnation and proselytizing and allow the “fruits of the spirit” to be the evidence of faith while working in unity towards personal political freedom. The rationalists and humanists must refrain from minimizing and belittling the validity of faith-based commitment. Rationalists and people of faith must recognize that each human is either: a) created from the breath of God, or; b) rationality is projected from the internal to the other. Humanists must accept that recognition of a reality and source of Truth outside of the individual is not wild-eyed and bizarre, but is a means for understanding the unknowable. Total agreement and acceptance is not likely, but if these liberty loving individuals can put aside their vast differences, then perhaps this coalition can succeed.
None of these can restore freedom in the United States alone. For example, if evangelical Christians assume the mantle of restoration by themselves, the society-at-large fearing a movement to theocracy would vigorously fight them. The same is true for the other types of liberty restorers. Everyone, whatever the theological or philosophical justification, who cherishes personal freedom must shed their biases and fight together…or individual liberty will ultimately perish in the United States of America.
If you have comments on this post or the series, they're encouraged.
cnpearl@woh.rr.com
I: alone in the crowd II: All for One III: One for All
It is vital for a democratic republic that the citizens and the elected representatives share a moral vision that defines the public good while, at the same time, provides for maximum personal freedom. Clearly, there are elements of national existence that require collective action…national defense, foreign affairs, adjudication of contract disputes plus fair and just criminal codes…to name a few. If a democratically-based society is to survive and thrive, then the individual citizens must embrace a moral code that encourages maximum self expression while allowing for the coalescence of the nation to morally address issues of national concern. The Founders recognized the importance of the two-pronged approach and drafted a document (The Constitution) that provided the framework for its implementation. Sadly, over time the Founders’ vision has become distorted, and the Constitution has been twisted and perverted. Individual freedom, once shouted from the rooftops of the Republic, has been transformed into whimpering pleas from the cellars of the nation.
The Constitution and, theoretically, subsequent laws, rules and regulations represent a body of law that is anchored to a moral basis of individual liberty. Unfortunately, many of the laws (especially those expanding government power) have abandoned the anchor, and the country is adrift. Individual freedom has become a minor consideration in the governance of the Republic. It’s time for citizens who cherish their liberty to rise up and recapture the reins of power. How can this be achieved? By definition ..organizing individualists is akin to herding cats.
Please have patience as I identify those citizens most likely to successfully band together to seize the power and reassert the principles of personal liberty in the United States. First, let me state that I believe that people who cherish liberty are people of faith. In my view they represent three distinct points-of-view who share a burning passion for liberty. For the purposes of this discussion I’ll define them as believers, non-believers and anti-believers. Although these descriptions appear to be overly broad, I place them all in the context of faith…they’ve thought about faith, they’ve considered faith, and they’ve made decisions regarding faith. The believers have embraced supernatural faith. The non-believers have rationally chosen to ignore supernatural faith, and the anti-believers have determined that human capacity and human intellect are the sole determinants of human existence. In other words we have the believers, the rationalists and the humanists. Next I will describe how these various constituencies for freedom can successfully interact to restore individual liberty in the United States.
Because I am most familiar with the community of believers, I’ll begin with them. The Judeo-Christian tradition is one of a personal relationship with G_d. Although the Lord identified the Nation of Israel as His chosen people, He communicated through the Patriarchs and the prophets. Tradition Christian doctrine has emphasized the personal relationship via the act of salvation. The individual, recognizing that he/she is lost and depraved, accepts Christ (the Messiah) as Savior and is restored through Christ to a personal relationship with God. There have been some strains of thought within the church that have suggested universal salvation (everyone goes to heaven), but most traditional systematic theologies emphasize the personal nature of salvation and redemption. Anecdotally, one can note that in many societies across the globe, Christians are often persecuted or executed. The personal, individualistic elements of the faith make their allegiance and independence a threat to an autocratic society. In the United States today committed Christians are alarmed by governmental restrictions on the practicing of their faith. They see themselves as increasingly constrained. With good reason, many recognize that the Founders relied upon a Judeo-Christian foundation in the formation of the nation. It is understandable, therefore, that they equate the loss of personal liberty with the possibility of encroaching religious persecution. Because of their tragic history, the Jews have generally been apprehensive even to the point of fearing the motives of the Christians.
The non-believing rationalists just want to be left alone. They don’t want government dictating every little facet of their lives, and they don’t want the “church people” telling them how to live. They understand that there are instances that demand cooperation but do not want to be forced into unceasing alliances. Whether they know it or not, their guiding principle is Descartes “I think, therefore I am.” They examine the state of the nation and their personal position within it through the prism of ‘what makes sense.’ Rationalists are wary of believers…suspecting that their ultimate goal is the establishment of a theocratic state. Sometimes Rationalists suspect that believers are so heavenly focused that they’re no earthly good. To a lesser degree Rationalists view the humanists with some skepticism. Rationalists are aware of a universe beyond them. They choose to approach it rationally. The humanists, in their, view are too inner-directed…relying on feelings and perceptions.
True humanists as suggested above believe that all reality is based on the perception of the observer. The reason that anti-believing humanists would struggle to preserve individual freedom is that they resent any effort, by government or any ecclesiastical authority, to impose a definition of reality. They subscribe to the “to each his own” point of view. They yearn for …and demand that they have the freedom to maneuver within reality as they find it. An anecdotal example (an extreme one, I concede) of a dedicated humanist would be Cindy Sheehan. Her perception of the nation and its leadership seems extreme to many, but she endures…seeking to be heard.
So, how can we forge these disparate approaches into a coherent and effective force for freedom. Clearly, there is mistrust and distrust among them. Obviously, their goals and ends are at odds with one another. They share one overwhelming attribute: they have a burning passion for personal freedom. Each must yield some biases and reservations in order to achieve a common goal. The Believers, the community of faith, must be willing to forgo judgment, condemnation and proselytizing and allow the “fruits of the spirit” to be the evidence of faith while working in unity towards personal political freedom. The rationalists and humanists must refrain from minimizing and belittling the validity of faith-based commitment. Rationalists and people of faith must recognize that each human is either: a) created from the breath of God, or; b) rationality is projected from the internal to the other. Humanists must accept that recognition of a reality and source of Truth outside of the individual is not wild-eyed and bizarre, but is a means for understanding the unknowable. Total agreement and acceptance is not likely, but if these liberty loving individuals can put aside their vast differences, then perhaps this coalition can succeed.
None of these can restore freedom in the United States alone. For example, if evangelical Christians assume the mantle of restoration by themselves, the society-at-large fearing a movement to theocracy would vigorously fight them. The same is true for the other types of liberty restorers. Everyone, whatever the theological or philosophical justification, who cherishes personal freedom must shed their biases and fight together…or individual liberty will ultimately perish in the United States of America.
If you have comments on this post or the series, they're encouraged.
cnpearl@woh.rr.com
I: alone in the crowd II: All for One III: One for All
Monday, December 7, 2009
All for One
According to those eminent philosophers, Three Dog Night, “One is the loneliest number.” Though lonely, it is the most basic number, and thus, the individual is the basic component of a group, a community, a state or a planet. There may be other people who resemble us physically, culturally and intellectually, but because each of us is unique, they do not match us exactly. There is evidence, in fact, that cloned creatures exhibit some behavioral differences from their sources. Each of us possesses a composite of attitudes, physical attributes, preferences, dreams and goals that segregate us from others who may be similar. While there may be compelling biological explanations for the variations among us, those unique elements are the underlying justification for engaged monotheism. Each individual has a personal relationship with the Creator who, in turn, acknowledges the individual as unique.
One does not need a theological justification for recognizing true individuality. Rational observation illuminates that people differ in many ways. Simple deductive reasoning illustrates that no two people are exactly alike. Some can protest that it is impossible to know everyone on the planet, ergo there may be a series of exact duplicates scattered around the planet. O.K., so my Somali twin and I share which attributes? Biological science reinforces uniqueness. Each of us has our own retinal scans, fingerprints and DNA (Tiger Woods is aware of this). Despite superficial similarities, each of us is a unique individual. So, we can conclude that individuals are unique through theological, biological and observational methods of inquiry.
In spite of our individuality, there times we choose to “run with the pack.” Although there may be some inherent biological impulse to associate with others, it still remains a choice. From an historical perspective, early settlers in the United States (or the colonies) joined together to “raise” barns and for defensive purposes. They formed churches and social groups to enhance their relationships with one another and to broaden the pool for potential mates. In every case the associations were voluntary although there was some ostracism when it was deemed that an individual was not contributing to the community good. The individual, however, remained as the primary component of the community, and many people on the frontier periodically pulled up roots and relocated further to the west to escape too much “crowding.”
If the individual is the basic unit from a theological, biological and observational perspective, why is it that current society appears to want to suppress individuality—at least in a political milieu? Aberrant and audacious behavior are tolerated or encouraged in social intercourse, dress and entertainment, but forceful individualism is often marginalized in the political realm. “Wacko’s, weirdo’s, loons” are just a few of the pejoratives that are used to characterize those who resent being forced to become one of “sheeple.” Although some elements of voluntary association still remain, an ever-growing government has preempted many aspects of everyday life there were once the province of individuals.
The state, if it has not been formed by conquest, is a voluntary organization. The United States of America was formed by the voluntary association of the thirteen original colonies. The Constitution is the fundamental document of that voluntary banding that defines and limits the power of the federal government relative to the individual states and their citizens. Today we discover a massive federal structure that overrides the separate states and ignores the individual. The ability to act individually is unfettered freedom. Any voluntary association will necessitate that an individual relinquish some element of freedom in order to become a member. In the simplest form, a member will sacrifice Tuesday evenings to attend a Lion’s Club meeting. Consistent failure to attend could result in the member’s name being removed from the roll. The government’s relationship with the individual is much more coercive that the Lion’s Club. Failure to comply with government’s myriad rules and regulations leads to sanctions and penalties. Individual freedom is relegated to those minor areas of life where the government has not yet expressed its will.
One of the great tragic consequences of the growth of the federal government is that the states and local entities have grown at nearly the same rate. Some of the growth is a result of federal mandates and revenue sharing schemes, and other areas of proliferation come about because of the misplaced sense of mandate that local politicians assume. Each new rule, law or regulation erodes the liberty of someone(s). Given the nature of government evolution in recent decades, it seems that many rugged individualists are forced to join together to stop the “Blob” from consuming them.
The next entry in this series will explore how and why individuals should band together to salvage their freedom.
Please comment to: cnpearl@woh.rr.com
Part I: Alone in the Crowd
Part II: All for One
One does not need a theological justification for recognizing true individuality. Rational observation illuminates that people differ in many ways. Simple deductive reasoning illustrates that no two people are exactly alike. Some can protest that it is impossible to know everyone on the planet, ergo there may be a series of exact duplicates scattered around the planet. O.K., so my Somali twin and I share which attributes? Biological science reinforces uniqueness. Each of us has our own retinal scans, fingerprints and DNA (Tiger Woods is aware of this). Despite superficial similarities, each of us is a unique individual. So, we can conclude that individuals are unique through theological, biological and observational methods of inquiry.
In spite of our individuality, there times we choose to “run with the pack.” Although there may be some inherent biological impulse to associate with others, it still remains a choice. From an historical perspective, early settlers in the United States (or the colonies) joined together to “raise” barns and for defensive purposes. They formed churches and social groups to enhance their relationships with one another and to broaden the pool for potential mates. In every case the associations were voluntary although there was some ostracism when it was deemed that an individual was not contributing to the community good. The individual, however, remained as the primary component of the community, and many people on the frontier periodically pulled up roots and relocated further to the west to escape too much “crowding.”
If the individual is the basic unit from a theological, biological and observational perspective, why is it that current society appears to want to suppress individuality—at least in a political milieu? Aberrant and audacious behavior are tolerated or encouraged in social intercourse, dress and entertainment, but forceful individualism is often marginalized in the political realm. “Wacko’s, weirdo’s, loons” are just a few of the pejoratives that are used to characterize those who resent being forced to become one of “sheeple.” Although some elements of voluntary association still remain, an ever-growing government has preempted many aspects of everyday life there were once the province of individuals.
The state, if it has not been formed by conquest, is a voluntary organization. The United States of America was formed by the voluntary association of the thirteen original colonies. The Constitution is the fundamental document of that voluntary banding that defines and limits the power of the federal government relative to the individual states and their citizens. Today we discover a massive federal structure that overrides the separate states and ignores the individual. The ability to act individually is unfettered freedom. Any voluntary association will necessitate that an individual relinquish some element of freedom in order to become a member. In the simplest form, a member will sacrifice Tuesday evenings to attend a Lion’s Club meeting. Consistent failure to attend could result in the member’s name being removed from the roll. The government’s relationship with the individual is much more coercive that the Lion’s Club. Failure to comply with government’s myriad rules and regulations leads to sanctions and penalties. Individual freedom is relegated to those minor areas of life where the government has not yet expressed its will.
One of the great tragic consequences of the growth of the federal government is that the states and local entities have grown at nearly the same rate. Some of the growth is a result of federal mandates and revenue sharing schemes, and other areas of proliferation come about because of the misplaced sense of mandate that local politicians assume. Each new rule, law or regulation erodes the liberty of someone(s). Given the nature of government evolution in recent decades, it seems that many rugged individualists are forced to join together to stop the “Blob” from consuming them.
The next entry in this series will explore how and why individuals should band together to salvage their freedom.
Please comment to: cnpearl@woh.rr.com
Part I: Alone in the Crowd
Part II: All for One
Friday, December 4, 2009
Alone in the crowd.
The current debates surrounding various issues at all levels of government expose a fundamental tension inherent in self government. Who should reign supreme, the state (the collective) or the individual? The friction can be characterized in a number of ways, but one of the more common ones is “security versus freedom.” This is a false dichotomy because when one looses freedom, then security is at risk. In other words, when others make your choices for you, who will guarantee that those choices will be the optimal ones for you? As Ben Franklin stated,”Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither.”
In a political sense, the tug-of-war between the individual and society is fundamentally confined to democracies or republics, that is political systems that have a broad franchise with clear choices for voters. One-party states and tyrannies limit the individual and forces him or her into a collective mode. In an individually based structure, the citizen can choose to vote, act or think with or for the group. The collective or statist organization discourages or prohibits individual behavior. Thus, individually-centered communities can choose to become more collective or statist, but members of a tyrannical society cannot promote or encourage individualism without facing ostracism or bodily peril. To reiterate an old cliché: you can’t put the toothpaste back into the tube.
For a free people to ask the government to do more for them leads to an inevitable slide into tyranny. Each new role assumed by the state chips away at the bedrock of individual freedom. Again, an old cliché: the Golden Rule of business and government, he who has the gold…rules. They who have been ceded the power will wield it. After some time the state will not wait for the power to be given to it, it will assert its authority and assume the power. The nanny-state exercises power to protect the people from themselves, but as government continues to unabatedly become larger, the state begins to use power to protect itself from the people.
People who live in democratic societies may choose to become more collectivist for several reasons. A misplaced sense of compassion may lead them to conclude that “society” has an obligation to care for those in “need.” Human nature and our unique differences assure that the compassionate nirvana is never achieved. There are and always will be individuals whose circumstances place them out of the mainstream. The call for government remedies for an increasing number of perceived shortcomings leads to enhanced government power. Massive bureaucracies are developed to address the needs of the individuals, and after a time, it is discovered that some are “falling through the cracks.” New programs with greater government power are created to assure that all are treated fairly.
Political considerations are another motivation for increasing state influence. Often driven by ideology, statists believe that their way, their belief system, their method of governing is far superior to any alternative. Once they have their hands on the reins of power, they do not release them. They nurture the government leviathan so that they may exercise power and control. Dissent is either ridiculed or crushed.
Indifference is a major contributor to the loss of freedom and the growth of the state. Softball games, television shows, dining out, family vacations and a myriad other activities compete for thoughtful consideration. Fighting for individualism requires energy, passion and knowledge. It’s easier for people to leave the battle to others and kinda’ hope for a good outcome. Once individual rights have eroded to the tipping point, then the indifferent ones wring their hands and mutely cheer for the warriors who charge the barricades
Insolence is a big contributor to growth of government. Certain elites, either via education or wealth, determine that they alone are worthy for charting the course of the nation. The other citizens, they believe, lack the sophistication and knowledge to steer the state through perilous times. They implement programs that patronize the recipients, but none-the-less cause the government to grow as they make more people dependent on their largesse.
A final attribute that I will identify as a freedom-eroding, government bloating enabler is ignorance. Citizens don’t care, or they want more from government so they don’t have to do it themselves. They ignorantly sell themselves into serfdom because they believe they’re getting something for nothing from the government…or “I’ve paid taxes all my life, and they owe me this.” Some of them drool and grovel for government jobs because of minimal layoffs and rather slack work requirements.
Clearly, the descriptions that I have laid out above are not exclusive. Some big-state enhancers combine several of the categories. In my view, all are dangerous and toxic. In a future blog I will examine individualism and its motivations. Then, in a later one I will examine ways for freedom loving people to challenge the collective impulse.
Please feel free to comment. I cherish your feedback-positive or negative. If you prefer, you can email me at cnpearl@woh.rr.com
In a political sense, the tug-of-war between the individual and society is fundamentally confined to democracies or republics, that is political systems that have a broad franchise with clear choices for voters. One-party states and tyrannies limit the individual and forces him or her into a collective mode. In an individually based structure, the citizen can choose to vote, act or think with or for the group. The collective or statist organization discourages or prohibits individual behavior. Thus, individually-centered communities can choose to become more collective or statist, but members of a tyrannical society cannot promote or encourage individualism without facing ostracism or bodily peril. To reiterate an old cliché: you can’t put the toothpaste back into the tube.
For a free people to ask the government to do more for them leads to an inevitable slide into tyranny. Each new role assumed by the state chips away at the bedrock of individual freedom. Again, an old cliché: the Golden Rule of business and government, he who has the gold…rules. They who have been ceded the power will wield it. After some time the state will not wait for the power to be given to it, it will assert its authority and assume the power. The nanny-state exercises power to protect the people from themselves, but as government continues to unabatedly become larger, the state begins to use power to protect itself from the people.
People who live in democratic societies may choose to become more collectivist for several reasons. A misplaced sense of compassion may lead them to conclude that “society” has an obligation to care for those in “need.” Human nature and our unique differences assure that the compassionate nirvana is never achieved. There are and always will be individuals whose circumstances place them out of the mainstream. The call for government remedies for an increasing number of perceived shortcomings leads to enhanced government power. Massive bureaucracies are developed to address the needs of the individuals, and after a time, it is discovered that some are “falling through the cracks.” New programs with greater government power are created to assure that all are treated fairly.
Political considerations are another motivation for increasing state influence. Often driven by ideology, statists believe that their way, their belief system, their method of governing is far superior to any alternative. Once they have their hands on the reins of power, they do not release them. They nurture the government leviathan so that they may exercise power and control. Dissent is either ridiculed or crushed.
Indifference is a major contributor to the loss of freedom and the growth of the state. Softball games, television shows, dining out, family vacations and a myriad other activities compete for thoughtful consideration. Fighting for individualism requires energy, passion and knowledge. It’s easier for people to leave the battle to others and kinda’ hope for a good outcome. Once individual rights have eroded to the tipping point, then the indifferent ones wring their hands and mutely cheer for the warriors who charge the barricades
Insolence is a big contributor to growth of government. Certain elites, either via education or wealth, determine that they alone are worthy for charting the course of the nation. The other citizens, they believe, lack the sophistication and knowledge to steer the state through perilous times. They implement programs that patronize the recipients, but none-the-less cause the government to grow as they make more people dependent on their largesse.
A final attribute that I will identify as a freedom-eroding, government bloating enabler is ignorance. Citizens don’t care, or they want more from government so they don’t have to do it themselves. They ignorantly sell themselves into serfdom because they believe they’re getting something for nothing from the government…or “I’ve paid taxes all my life, and they owe me this.” Some of them drool and grovel for government jobs because of minimal layoffs and rather slack work requirements.
Clearly, the descriptions that I have laid out above are not exclusive. Some big-state enhancers combine several of the categories. In my view, all are dangerous and toxic. In a future blog I will examine individualism and its motivations. Then, in a later one I will examine ways for freedom loving people to challenge the collective impulse.
Please feel free to comment. I cherish your feedback-positive or negative. If you prefer, you can email me at cnpearl@woh.rr.com
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
House call
Why would anyone with a scintilla of intelligence promote big government? If one were to observe supertankers at sea, you would note that those huge ships are extremely difficult to maneuver. They can neither stop quickly nor turn on a dime. Government and large private bureaucracies are similar. When confronted with a catastrophe or faced with rapidly deteriorating conditions, bloated bureaucracies are generally ineffective. In and of itself a slow responding agency might be tolerable except for the fact that the government is often the party of last resort. In other words, if government cannot resolve the issue in a timely and effective manner, then no one else is in a position to remedy the situation.
One of the current battlegrounds surrounding the growth of government here in the United States is the debate about “healthcare reform.” This is the type of issue that is ripe for demagoguery as the various interested parties overwhelm us with multiple instances of anecdotal evidence either supporting or denigrating the proposals under consideration. Actually, the legislation that has been submitted thus far does not reform healthcare per se, rather the focus is on health insurance. I have not attempted to ascertain just how many health insurers there are in the United States, but I submit that if they were free to compete in all 50 states, then it seems likely that competition would radically enhance affordability. If there is only one source of insurance with no competitive restraints, then I would assume that costs will not be contained in a rational manner.
The debate has often centered on the quality of care as well as the cost. Well, I have an anecdotal gem for you. Nearly 32 years ago (February, 1978) I was diagnosed with Type I diabetes. With excellent doctors, phenomenal developments in medicines and technology, and some personal lifestyle changes, I am enjoying a robust life to the fullest. Next June I will celebrate my 64th birthday. When I was a mere whippersnapper, diabetes or “sugar” was deadly. One’s life was expected to be short and gruesome. I knew friends and relatives who suffered from the ravages of the disease, and I attended their funerals. After more than three decades with the disease, I do have some occasional discomfort, but if you didn’t know that I am a diabetic, you would not be able to discern it in a casual social setting. The issue is not health care.
There are remedies available for tweaking the system in ways that provide access to quality care for all citizens, and there are other mechanisms available for controlling costs without radically restructuring the health care delivery system. You do not tear down the house to repair a broken window…or several broken windows. You get new transparent glass and place it in the original framework. Then you glaze it to make certain that it does not get out of line. Personally, I would rather we dump the whole structure and morph into an individually-based cash system. I realize, though, that if I lead that movement, when I look behind me, I would be alone.
So, let’s tweak the current health care system to make it more accessible and more affordable for our neighbors, but let’s not let the government become the 800 pound gorilla in health care. I do not want Big Brother controlling every facet of my life. For example, if I own a shotgun for sporting purposes, I do not want the government telling me that firearms have been declared a health risk. “Give up the gun if you want to see your doctor.” I really detest having to write this, but I do not trust my government.
One of the current battlegrounds surrounding the growth of government here in the United States is the debate about “healthcare reform.” This is the type of issue that is ripe for demagoguery as the various interested parties overwhelm us with multiple instances of anecdotal evidence either supporting or denigrating the proposals under consideration. Actually, the legislation that has been submitted thus far does not reform healthcare per se, rather the focus is on health insurance. I have not attempted to ascertain just how many health insurers there are in the United States, but I submit that if they were free to compete in all 50 states, then it seems likely that competition would radically enhance affordability. If there is only one source of insurance with no competitive restraints, then I would assume that costs will not be contained in a rational manner.
The debate has often centered on the quality of care as well as the cost. Well, I have an anecdotal gem for you. Nearly 32 years ago (February, 1978) I was diagnosed with Type I diabetes. With excellent doctors, phenomenal developments in medicines and technology, and some personal lifestyle changes, I am enjoying a robust life to the fullest. Next June I will celebrate my 64th birthday. When I was a mere whippersnapper, diabetes or “sugar” was deadly. One’s life was expected to be short and gruesome. I knew friends and relatives who suffered from the ravages of the disease, and I attended their funerals. After more than three decades with the disease, I do have some occasional discomfort, but if you didn’t know that I am a diabetic, you would not be able to discern it in a casual social setting. The issue is not health care.
There are remedies available for tweaking the system in ways that provide access to quality care for all citizens, and there are other mechanisms available for controlling costs without radically restructuring the health care delivery system. You do not tear down the house to repair a broken window…or several broken windows. You get new transparent glass and place it in the original framework. Then you glaze it to make certain that it does not get out of line. Personally, I would rather we dump the whole structure and morph into an individually-based cash system. I realize, though, that if I lead that movement, when I look behind me, I would be alone.
So, let’s tweak the current health care system to make it more accessible and more affordable for our neighbors, but let’s not let the government become the 800 pound gorilla in health care. I do not want Big Brother controlling every facet of my life. For example, if I own a shotgun for sporting purposes, I do not want the government telling me that firearms have been declared a health risk. “Give up the gun if you want to see your doctor.” I really detest having to write this, but I do not trust my government.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Lessons from Germany
Greetings from the Fatherland. Travelling on Business in Germany and I had an epiphany today. But first, I have to back up a bit. Please bear with me and read on.
For those that don't know, Germany has a coalition form of government. That means that NO party can realistically take power without forming a coalition with another party. That's because minor parties actually have candidates and win elections.
For the past 3-4 years, that coalition has been - oddly enough - between the Christian Democratic Union aka CDU/CSU (their version of Republicans) and the Socialst Party of Germany aka SPD (their version of democrats, and yes, they are officially called socialists here). They called it the Grand Coalition, because those are of course the two major parties, and there was no clear winner in that election, so they had to share power. So in essence you had their version of a Republican Chancellor (president) with Democratic and Republican cabinet members and a split congress. And all the profesional politicians (and it really is a profession here), and all the news media, and all the people thought it was business as usual.
Fast forward to this past September's elections in light of the recent global economic crisis. The FDP (Germany's version of the Libertarian Party) made an absolutely HUGE showing at the polls than ever before in their history. I don't have the exact percentages right now. It wasn't enough to overtake the CDU/CSU (Republicans), but surpased the SPD, which has NEVER happened in their history. So now, Germany is officially governed by a coalition between their version of Republicans and Libertarians. What a huge difference!
So I read a newspaper article today about Angela Merkel's first major speech in the Bundestag (Congress, a la State of the Union address) since the elections. I am paraphrasing and I am sure something will be lost in translation, but basically it was very direct and told it like it is. She said Germany is in the worse economic crisis since the reunification, maybe since the end of WWII, maybe on the brink of disaster. It is going to get worse before it gets better and Germans should be prepared for that. But the road to survival and recovery is not to look to the government, it is to look within. It is not to take from producers to give to non-producers. It is not to loot the successful in order to support the failures. The government needs to get out of the way. But, she said, Germany has faced harder struggles before and overcome them, surving three currency colapses, rebuilding after the distruction of WWII, and creating one of the largest export economies of the world. The way out is through "Blood, Sweat and Tax Cuts," stealing/paraphrasing a line from Winston Churchill. It was all quite inspiring, something sorely lacking in our country from our leaders. But my favorite quote of all was when she said there is "Freedom in Responsibility," which was quoted in all the headlines and meaning if individual Germans take responsibility for their own lives, if individual German companies take responsibility for their own success, without looking to the government to solve every problem and bail out every failure, it will be liberating and Germany will not only survive the current economic crisis, but prosper in the global economy.
Maybe you have to really understand the history, but this is absolutely huge in a country that has lived and breathed socialism for the past 50-60 years. It is literally a 180 degree change in thinking. Also worth noting is that Merkel grew up in communist East Germany before the wall came down, and wouldn't even have had a chance to be Chancellor had it not. And this shift of political thought has only happened since the FDP (Libertarians) had such a big result at the polls, which indicates the people themselves are listening to the message.
Now, the vice chancellor and about half the cabinet are FDP (Libertarians). The coalition between CDU/CSU and FDP outnumbers all the parties combined, including the socialist, by a margin of 2:1. The Libertarian philosophy is alive and well and is being translated into real political action and policy. In short, Germany is on a course of freedom, liberty and prosperity they have NEVER seen, all due primarily to the Libertarian (called "Liberal" here) philosophy becoming mainstream and being translated into political elections.
This is all about the exact opposite of what is going on in our own country. As we move even closer towards the failed policies of Europe and Germany, they are moving on. We are now instituting every mistake they have already made over the past 50-60 years, while they are looking for the way out.
So, what's the lesson? It is not that Germany is great. It is that minor parties can and do affect change, if they win enough seats. Imagine what the tone in Congress would be if there were even 5-10% of the seats filled by Libertarians. What if it were 20-30%? One of the two major parties would be forced to make a coalition just to get anything passed. The Libertarian message of individual freedom and responsibility and small government would have to be factored in to every debate, every vote, every bill that is written or passed. The German FDP, although I am sure it would prefer to be the majority party, does not worry about it. What is important is the coalition of power and having real influence in policy. And they did it county by county, district by district. They started in the local and state governments and worked their way up. It has taken years and a crisis situation.
We, as American Libertarians can do the same thing. It CAN happen. We can take a lesson from the FDP playbook. We have the crisis situation, but unfortunately we do not have years. However, the ONLY way it will happen is to have Libertarians run for office and for the people to vote for them, in a big way. This is the reality of our political situation. You may not agree 100% with the Libertarian platform, but I would reckon you also don't agree 100% with the Republicans or Democrats. All that is needed is for good, sensible people like you to agree enough to vote Libertarian over a Republican or Democrat. We are a two party country. Why? Because is has been that way for 100+ years? Why? We can drive a wedge into this back and for shift of power between Democrats and Republicans, most of which you can't tell the difference between anymore anyways - same as it was in Germany and their Grand Coalition. All it takes is courage. The courage to run for office as a Libertarian and the courage to vote for those that do. If enough people do that, we've won.
Forget "spreading the word" or demonstrations, tea parties, and 9 principles and 12 values for a moment. Forget the media, including Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, or all the talking heads on Fox News and MSNBC for a minute. The reality is, without real Libertarians running for real offices and without real people voting for them, nothing will change, no matter how much we yell, scream, rant and rave.
Scott
PS and by the way - The FDP Vice Chancellor is openly gay as well. So Germany is now run by a woman and a gay man, both of whom espouse individual liberty, freedom and minimal government intrusion into the personal and economic lives of their citizens. So which is really the enlightened country after all?
For those that don't know, Germany has a coalition form of government. That means that NO party can realistically take power without forming a coalition with another party. That's because minor parties actually have candidates and win elections.
For the past 3-4 years, that coalition has been - oddly enough - between the Christian Democratic Union aka CDU/CSU (their version of Republicans) and the Socialst Party of Germany aka SPD (their version of democrats, and yes, they are officially called socialists here). They called it the Grand Coalition, because those are of course the two major parties, and there was no clear winner in that election, so they had to share power. So in essence you had their version of a Republican Chancellor (president) with Democratic and Republican cabinet members and a split congress. And all the profesional politicians (and it really is a profession here), and all the news media, and all the people thought it was business as usual.
Fast forward to this past September's elections in light of the recent global economic crisis. The FDP (Germany's version of the Libertarian Party) made an absolutely HUGE showing at the polls than ever before in their history. I don't have the exact percentages right now. It wasn't enough to overtake the CDU/CSU (Republicans), but surpased the SPD, which has NEVER happened in their history. So now, Germany is officially governed by a coalition between their version of Republicans and Libertarians. What a huge difference!
So I read a newspaper article today about Angela Merkel's first major speech in the Bundestag (Congress, a la State of the Union address) since the elections. I am paraphrasing and I am sure something will be lost in translation, but basically it was very direct and told it like it is. She said Germany is in the worse economic crisis since the reunification, maybe since the end of WWII, maybe on the brink of disaster. It is going to get worse before it gets better and Germans should be prepared for that. But the road to survival and recovery is not to look to the government, it is to look within. It is not to take from producers to give to non-producers. It is not to loot the successful in order to support the failures. The government needs to get out of the way. But, she said, Germany has faced harder struggles before and overcome them, surving three currency colapses, rebuilding after the distruction of WWII, and creating one of the largest export economies of the world. The way out is through "Blood, Sweat and Tax Cuts," stealing/paraphrasing a line from Winston Churchill. It was all quite inspiring, something sorely lacking in our country from our leaders. But my favorite quote of all was when she said there is "Freedom in Responsibility," which was quoted in all the headlines and meaning if individual Germans take responsibility for their own lives, if individual German companies take responsibility for their own success, without looking to the government to solve every problem and bail out every failure, it will be liberating and Germany will not only survive the current economic crisis, but prosper in the global economy.
Maybe you have to really understand the history, but this is absolutely huge in a country that has lived and breathed socialism for the past 50-60 years. It is literally a 180 degree change in thinking. Also worth noting is that Merkel grew up in communist East Germany before the wall came down, and wouldn't even have had a chance to be Chancellor had it not. And this shift of political thought has only happened since the FDP (Libertarians) had such a big result at the polls, which indicates the people themselves are listening to the message.
Now, the vice chancellor and about half the cabinet are FDP (Libertarians). The coalition between CDU/CSU and FDP outnumbers all the parties combined, including the socialist, by a margin of 2:1. The Libertarian philosophy is alive and well and is being translated into real political action and policy. In short, Germany is on a course of freedom, liberty and prosperity they have NEVER seen, all due primarily to the Libertarian (called "Liberal" here) philosophy becoming mainstream and being translated into political elections.
This is all about the exact opposite of what is going on in our own country. As we move even closer towards the failed policies of Europe and Germany, they are moving on. We are now instituting every mistake they have already made over the past 50-60 years, while they are looking for the way out.
So, what's the lesson? It is not that Germany is great. It is that minor parties can and do affect change, if they win enough seats. Imagine what the tone in Congress would be if there were even 5-10% of the seats filled by Libertarians. What if it were 20-30%? One of the two major parties would be forced to make a coalition just to get anything passed. The Libertarian message of individual freedom and responsibility and small government would have to be factored in to every debate, every vote, every bill that is written or passed. The German FDP, although I am sure it would prefer to be the majority party, does not worry about it. What is important is the coalition of power and having real influence in policy. And they did it county by county, district by district. They started in the local and state governments and worked their way up. It has taken years and a crisis situation.
We, as American Libertarians can do the same thing. It CAN happen. We can take a lesson from the FDP playbook. We have the crisis situation, but unfortunately we do not have years. However, the ONLY way it will happen is to have Libertarians run for office and for the people to vote for them, in a big way. This is the reality of our political situation. You may not agree 100% with the Libertarian platform, but I would reckon you also don't agree 100% with the Republicans or Democrats. All that is needed is for good, sensible people like you to agree enough to vote Libertarian over a Republican or Democrat. We are a two party country. Why? Because is has been that way for 100+ years? Why? We can drive a wedge into this back and for shift of power between Democrats and Republicans, most of which you can't tell the difference between anymore anyways - same as it was in Germany and their Grand Coalition. All it takes is courage. The courage to run for office as a Libertarian and the courage to vote for those that do. If enough people do that, we've won.
Forget "spreading the word" or demonstrations, tea parties, and 9 principles and 12 values for a moment. Forget the media, including Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, or all the talking heads on Fox News and MSNBC for a minute. The reality is, without real Libertarians running for real offices and without real people voting for them, nothing will change, no matter how much we yell, scream, rant and rave.
Scott
PS and by the way - The FDP Vice Chancellor is openly gay as well. So Germany is now run by a woman and a gay man, both of whom espouse individual liberty, freedom and minimal government intrusion into the personal and economic lives of their citizens. So which is really the enlightened country after all?
Friday, November 6, 2009
Why Libertarian?
What brings people to Libertarianism? For me it’s the chance to reform a governing body that fulfills it’s core responsibilities and nothing else. It’s a philosophy that replaces legalized theft with individual responsibility. Libertarianism encompasses the “morally superior” view, that we must not use government to FORCE our values, products, or services on each other but rather learn from our common human experiences on a free and level playing field making decisions we as individuals see fit.
People are made with a great capacity to learn and achieve. Today our perverse system of government is hell bent on snuffing out this great ability we possess through a dumbed down regulatory process that obliterates the ambitious through plunder and caters to the lowest common denominator for a simple vote. Libertarians recognize this as the unsustainable demise of our nation if left unchecked.
At this point in time, we have seen all the Republican and Democrat parties have to offer and it ain’t all that! One is a bastion of social intolerance coupled with fiscal waffling the other is a breeding grounds for failed Soviet style Socialism riddled with fiscal suicide.
So, why Libertarian? How about why Not Libertarian!
People are made with a great capacity to learn and achieve. Today our perverse system of government is hell bent on snuffing out this great ability we possess through a dumbed down regulatory process that obliterates the ambitious through plunder and caters to the lowest common denominator for a simple vote. Libertarians recognize this as the unsustainable demise of our nation if left unchecked.
At this point in time, we have seen all the Republican and Democrat parties have to offer and it ain’t all that! One is a bastion of social intolerance coupled with fiscal waffling the other is a breeding grounds for failed Soviet style Socialism riddled with fiscal suicide.
So, why Libertarian? How about why Not Libertarian!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)