There are many men of principle in both parties in America, but there is no party of principle.

Alexis de Tocqueville

Do we have a party of principle? What are the principles?

Do we even have men of principle? What are those principles?

Are you a Big Tent Republican? Does big tent preclude principle? Reagan’s big tent philosophy is often cited as reason to avoid getting bogged down in policy debates. Or for failing to excommunicate RINO’s. Did Reagan have no principles?

I have asked here before if there is even one principle to which conservatives can agree one must be bound to be accepted into the fold. I have not yet heard the response that was more than a vague exercise in goals.

Conservatives are for smaller government. What is smaller government? The current federal government is at minimum 400% larger than when Reagan ran and won on a platform of smaller government. Do all Reagan Republicans or Democrats agree it should be smaller than what he inherited from Carter? It is at least 800% larger than when Reagan supported Goldwater’s bid to bring smaller government. Would all conservatives today agree to a 90% reduction in the federal government? If so it would still be larger than the government JFK inherited from Ike. Was the government too small under JFK? A loosely defined goal is not a principle. Even if we could agree on a 90% reduction in federal spending that would still be a goal not a principle. The principle would be found somewhere in the argument concerning why a 90% reduction would be a good thing.

If we were the big ball party why would we tell people our big balls are better than the little balls the left likes? Are basketballs inherently morally superior to ping pong balls? What is the principle? Can we quantify it? Can we rally around it? Do we have big balls? Do we accept little balls into the fold? Many say we should.

In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock.

Thomas Jefferson

Smaller government is a style that appears, thanks to our dear leader, to be in vogue. It has been there before. Yet, we don’t have smaller government. We have not had smaller government in the preceding 100 years. Vague goals without defined principles are ineffective.

The left uses vague goals very effectively because they have no principles and cannot therefore be held to account when they defy those principles. (They do have one principle; state power, at all times at all costs.)

I have seen too many frequently espouse this as a way to hold a coalition together on the right. The problem is then, when we win, what are we going to do? With a fractious coalition of halfhearted conservatives with no binding principles we will get more of the same. Nothing will get done because nobody will even agree on what should be done. Or worse, as happens to the left, the dear leader will simply move to implement that which was HIS agenda and we will find, once again, that we were but a tool to move yet another progressive/compassionate/big government “conservative” to power at the expense of liberty.

What are the principles of conservatism? Of freedom?

It seems to me;

A strict adherence to the US Constitution is fundamental. They wrote it, they meant it; it has produced the greatest nation in history when obeyed and the greatest debt in history when ignored.

The rule of law; applied as equally to the Political Class as to the poorest OR to the most successful citizen.

Citizen Legislature; term limits particularly in the house. We need a citizen legislature that goes home and lives with the laws they pass and pays the taxes they impose.

Some other good ideas:

A repeal of the Income Tax, it was an evil construct from its birth. Kill it now.

A repeal of the 17^th Amendment, empower states by ending the direct election of US Senators.

A Balanced Budget Amendment.

Reasonable, constitutional, immigration reform that denies citizenship to any illegal alien and grants birthright citizenship only to the children of citizens.

End the Federal Reserve. They caused the Great Depression and now the Great Recession. It was not worse before there was a FED. The debt driven society they encourage threatens our national existence. Their answer to the current crisis is, in part, to encourage people to go deeper in debt.

Require regulations promulgated by the executive to be approved by the congress. (No more EPA Cap and Trade threats)

Require super majorities (60% or 65%) to raise taxes but not to lower them.

These last may not be principles but are at least specific goals that would, if implemented, unquestionably protect or enhance freedom.

We need another Contract with America. This time something real. Something that sticks. Something that defunds Washington and empowers Americans.

It is time for a new birth of freedom

 

Engineers are continually adding to the body of knowledge and principles that comprise their particular art. Bridges get longer, buildings get higher, cars go faster and yet arrive with a higher degree of safety at their destinations. The medical profession uses techniques and knowledge acquired thousands of years ago. And yesterday. We live longer and healthier lives because of it. Mathematicians need not discover Pythagorean’s Theorem today any more than a carpenter need invent a hammer to build with. They are tools that have been given to us by our forefathers which when used properly allow us to do things the original inventors could never do. Pythagoras could never have built the moon lander. Without Pythagoras, neither could we.

It is on their shoulders we stand.

Anybody who has ever had children can instantly grasp the importance of that statement.

Don’t touch that.

Don’t do that.

Don’t stand there.

Don’t dress like that.

Don’t drink that.

Work hard.

Be honest.

Study hard.

Eat to live, don’t live to eat.

Yes it is important to allow children to make mistakes, but one of the most useful lessons a child will learn is to trust their parents and, by extension, their forefathers. Sometimes, OK lots of times, a parent might say, “you shouldn’t do X,” but then allow them the freedom to do X. We do this in the hope that this contributes to building a trust in the parent by the child. “Hey, when my Dad says something is a good/bad idea he is usually right.” If we can build that trust; they can stand on our shoulders.

A good scientist has to understand the value of integrating the known universe with the as-yet undiscovered areas of science. Most of the great scientists in history understood they were building on the work of their predecessors. Sometimes their work would lead to clarifying earlier mistakes, but that was the exception, not the rule. They often collaborated with contemporaries even if competition was fierce. The goal was generally the same: to establish truth and build up our understanding of that truth. Build on prior work, cast aside failed theories, reach for core truths.

“Every science has for its basis a system of principles as fixed and unalterable as those by which the universe is regulated and governed. Man cannot make principles; he can only discover them.” Thomas Paine

Conservatism is all about standing on the shoulders of our forefathers.

Our revolutionary forefathers believed mightily in standing on their forefathers shoulders. Most of the active framers were extremely well read of both ancient and contemporary philosophies and theories of government. As they drafted various constitutions, state and federal, they applied the knowledge of their forefathers as intelligently as possible.

“Democracy… while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.” John Adams

 

They recognized democracy as a short path to tyranny. It was rejected. Some, like Hamilton, favored monarchy. He was denied. They were even familiar with early socialists and recognized it for the dark disaster it is. They examined the historical record of various forms of government. Their purpose was nothing less than the preservation of liberty. They rejected the forms that history had shown to be utter failures and tried to build on the only system that seemed viable. “A Republic, if you can keep it.” And they did a good job of it.

“The brave man inattentive to his duty, is worth little more to his country than the coward who deserts in the hour of danger.” Andrew Jackson

We slept.

Today we are up against a failed theory. Whatever name we give Marxism- Progressivism, Nazism, fascism, liberalism, socialism or communism - it has failed. The social democracies of Europe are failures. China recognized the failure of socialism and, while it maintains its murderous totalitarian government, it practices capitalism. The Chinese leadership recognized a fundamental truth that the American Left has been unable to grasp; Marxism cannot be made to work. Dozens if not hundreds of experiments have been conducted. Marxism, Progressivism and their cousins have murdered more people in the last 100 years than were killed in all the other wars in history. Hundreds of millions have died. Intelligent men have long since realized this is not how you build a legitimate government. The Left just puts their fingers in their ears, nah, nah, can’t hear you. It is a religion for them, all profits are evil and the right to private property must be destroyed are two of its primary tenets.

“How do you tell a communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin.” Ronald Reagan

Marxism is a dead end in every sense of the word. A Progressive is a fancy dressed Marxist.

Marxists, Progressives, Socialists and other leftists have been actively working for more than 100 years to destroy our liberty and the Constitution that preserves it.

It took five generations, but they are seeing success for their efforts. It is a testament to the strength of the foundations our forefathers laid that it took so long. Why do they destroy it? Because evil exists in the world; some men choose to serve it and some are useful idiots.

When our colonial forefathers recognized the end was coming to the liberties enjoyed by Englishmen in America, they acted. They acted not to revolutionize the world but to conserve what they already had. First they tried the political route. They stayed generally within the bounds of law and so on. They “begged of the King” to do the right thing. This helped to cement their righteous position when it came to war. They were protecting their God given rights and were within their rights to do so using whatever means necessary. If the time comes again when good men must act to defeat tyranny using force of arms it will be the tyrant that bears the burden of blood, not the patriot.

“The right of a nation to kill a tyrant in case of necessity can no more be doubted than to hang a robber, or kill a flea.” John Adams

 

Whatever the founders intentions; their actions did revolutionize the world. Never has any nation climbed so far, so fast. Our momentum was so great we did not reach apogee until decades after the left had cut power to the engines during the FDR and LBJ years.  The prosperity reached was so great its castoffs swept the world and raised half the planet from the Dark Ages. Some people were better left in the dark.

Our liberty is now grievously threatened and may be coming to an end. We are currently in the political phase of our battle. The Tea Parties were a nationwide gathering of freemen imploring their leaders to do the right thing. Not much different than the petitions sent by the colonists to King George begging of him to do the right thing. The Progressives now laugh at and deride our entreaties. One can only imagine the jokes and guffaws in George’s Court at the pretension of the colonists. I doubt they were as vulgar as one night of CNN Tea Party coverage.

“Ancient Rome declined because it had a Senate, now what’s going to happen to us with both a House and a Senate?” Will Rogers

 In a few short months the Republicans will likely retake control of the House and perhaps the Senate. They won’t have the numbers to directly undo the Progressive damage. They may not have the will even had they the numbers.

They must refuse to participate in bankrupting the nation. They must refuse to assist in the ills of ObamaCare. They ought to hinder any Cap and Trade disaster by refusing to put it in the budget. They may just lie and claim they are powerless in the face of the opposition.

“A national debt, if it is not excessive, will be to us a national blessing.” Alexander Hamilton

Boy that Hamilton. What a kidder. Thanks Alex. Or maybe we should thank Aaron. The mountains of debt that have been generated by both parties will sink us shortly. As Adams said, “Facts are stubborn things.” (Yes, he said it before Reagan.) The fact is this debt has reached a proportion that already calls into question our national ability to pay even the interest, let alone the principal. If interest rates take off as they did in the early eighties we could be looking at literally trillions per year in interest alone. Bush and Obama had the foresight to finance almost all of our debt short term. Financing a home mortgage on an ARM may be foolish; mortgaging your nation to an ARM is treasonous.

Within 18 to 24 months the fate of the Republic may well be decided. Two more years of trillion dollar borrowing will put repayment beyond reach. I don’t think that means blood and guts and bodies lying in the street, but when historians look back they will point to this time as the point of no return. It may have already passed last year when Dubya destroyed capitalism to save it.

“Mischief springs from the power which the moneyed interest derives from a paper currency which they are able to control, from the multitude of corporations with exclusive privileges… which are employed altogether for their benefit.” Andrew Jackson

Will the FED print us out of debt? To what end? More borrowing? More entitlements? More spending to destroy more cars? To buy more oil from those who would destroy us or toys or trinkets from those who murder their own? Do we take a mortgage to pay off our credit card debts so we can keep on swiping? Will we cut up our cards? Are we really going to print our way out of debt?  Just this once?

If we have government shutdowns and extreme leftwing acrimony, we may have a chance. If CNN and MSNBC are screaming at the top of their airwaves every night about the rightwing extremists in Congress, it will be like paddles to a flatliner. But if the Republicans retake either house and pass even one unbalanced budget, if they fund one day of ObamaCare or collect one penny of a Cap and Trade Tax, it will be the equivalent of blockading Boston Harbor; a declaration of war on the American people by a Political Class that surrenders all appearance of legitimacy.

Would we discard Pythagorean’s Theorem on the suggestion of a grade school math teacher? Because it is to hard for second graders to understand? Or for her to teach? Why  are we so eager to throw away the liberty bequeathed by our forefathers at the suggestion of a self-serving political class?

We could achieve no greater honor as Americans, as conservatives, than to stand on the shoulders of our forefathers. To preserve the liberty their blood purchased.

“Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!“ Patrick Henry

 

“with a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor”

There were some poor, many "middle" class and a few that were filthy rich. John Hancock was likely the richest man in America at the start of the revolution. Samuel Adams was generally broke. Everyone risked all.

Total War is not only defined by what you are willing to destroy in your quest for victory but what you are willing to lose.

"The only hope you have is to accept the fact that you're already dead.  The sooner you accept that, the sooner you'll be able to function as a soldier is supposed to function: without mercy, without compassion, without remorse.  All war depends upon it." Ron Speirs, Band of Brothers

You may lose your job, you may lose your fortune, and you may lose your friends. You may not get invited to appear on Fox or MSNBC. Your children are being taught in the schools to revile what you believe; you may lose them to the culture. If we continue down the road we are on, civil war will come to America, and you may even lose your life. All liberty depends upon men who are willing to risk everything. It has always been so.

I do not advocate civil war but I do recognize the inevitable result of tyranny. Psychology has laws as immutable as gravity or economics; people will only take so much.  Mass psychology is practiced by those in power in the same way the FED practices monetary policy. Statism bubbles are blown up and the pressure/anger is relieved by "conservative" victories when the statists recognize the pent-up anger has reached critical mass. Of course the conservative victories never quite undue the frameworks laid and successes made in the prior advance. As the recent stock and real estate bubbles resulted in economic devastation due to miscalculations of the FED, it is inevitable that the statists will miscalculate the anger generated by their actions. It may be this time. To use FED jargon, their models would predict a brief interlude of control by "conservatives" would be a relief valve on the pent-up anger and thereby safely deflate the bubble. What is going to happen when the Republicans retake the congress this fall and then fail to dismantle Obamacare, Cap and Trade, etc.? Are real Americans going to quietly sit through more shameless duplicity on the part of the Republican Establishment?

The left has been practicing a form of almost bloodless Total War against basic liberty for more than 100 years. They have been willing personally to lose all in order to accomplish their progressive goals. Why would they fight so sacrificially in support of tyranny? I don't know either but that is why they are called useful idiots. How many Democrats are not seeking re-election in 2010 already? But they voted for ObamaCare anyway. Winning is all that matters. Total War.

We're whipped. I saw a comedian once refer to it as chicken-whipped in order to maintain a family friendly show.

In fact, we are so badly chicken-whipped that many on the right faithfully and righteously support many of the goals of the progressives for fear of being labeled naïve or uncaring.

As long as that is the case; we will stay whup’d.

Who is for destroying Social Security?

Who wants to scrap the DEA and all federal drug laws?

Who wants to eradicate the FDA? The Federal Reserve?

The EPA and the Dept of Education?

The NRLB and AMTRAK?

No more Medicare or Medicaid at the federal level?

Seat belt laws?

Can we not get out of the UN? Must we fund this dictators club?

These are all things that were pushed through by the progressives at the expense of liberty.

I can’t get on an airplane or open a bank account without going through a virtual strip search (soon to be an actual virtual strip search). But in spite of all of the ridiculous nonsense it was ordinary Americans that stopped the EunuchBomber. It was ordinary people that stopped Richard Reid (and hopefully soon that other treacherous Reid, “Harry”). It would have been ordinary Americans that stopped 9/11 had they not been disarmed by a wayward government.

The IRS and Income Tax are both thoroughly evil and absolutely incompatible with liberty. Yet there are too many on the right who think it is only fair for the wealthy to be taxed this way. The self-made wealthy are punished for success while drunken trust fund babies take the floor to rail against them. We are all forced annually to testify against ourselves in plain contravention of the dreaded 5th.

Too many on the right still believe anyone invoking the 5th is guilty. Refusing to answer the question is prima facie evidence of guilt, right? Only guilty people have something to hide, right? The truth is that only fools believe such tripe.

If we are going to win a Total War all of the things the left have implemented must be destroyed. As soon as you decide that your favorite unconstitutional progressive program should be preserved then Total War is not being practiced, and the left wins another one of its two steps forward one step back battles.

We will see this shortly when the Republicans retake congress in the upcoming elections. Watch as they attempt to FIX ObamaCare instead of eradicating it entirely. We occasionally see some similarly moronic legislation to force the IRS to play “nice”. The Republican Establishment’s focus on making things work well, instead of standing on principle and asking if it should be allowed to exist, is as responsible for the state we are in as anything the left has done.

The answer is not easy but it is simple;

(Thanks EPU and nessa) Carthago Delenda Est, leave no stone standing upon another, plow the streets and salt the earth so that nothing can grow there again.

We must DESTROY every element of progressivism or like the noxious weed it is, it will grow back. We must accept with humility when our current or former positions are helpful to the enemy and destructive of liberty. And then change.

The men who founded this country did risk everything. Whether poor or rich they all knew death, prison or poverty was the price of failure. In fact many suffered all these things in spite of victory.

But not us. Unfortunately Samuel Adams perfectly described the Right of today when he said;

“If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you (Mitch). May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams

As long as unemployment is low and the dollar is strong nobody gets worked up.

Somebody recently asked a bunch of British veterans of WWI and WWII if, given the state of British society today, it was worth it. Most said no. They wouldn’t do it again.

Is there any doubt we would get the same response from Washington, the Adams’s, Jefferson or Paine were they to see the depths we have plumbed in the name of civility, profitability and providing for the general welfare?

There is nothing wrong with civility or profit until they are gained at the price of principle.

We do not live our principles.

How many would vote not guilty as a juror when the defendant is clearly guilty but you think the law is bad or unconstitutional? How could any juror ever vote to convict a person for violating a law the juror was unaware of before the trial? Ignorance of the law is no excuse we are told. Tens of thousands of pages of law, hundreds of thousands of pages of legally binding case law and bureaucratic regulation and we are responsible for every word? Are we to be bound by these millions of words while they refuse to be bound by the 7600 words of the US Constitution?

How many contribute to Wal-Mart profits even though it supports the healthcare trash being pushed and has people on staff specifically to teach its employees how to access the welfare state?

Who will buy a GM car if the deal is better than what Ford or Toyota offer?

Who takes their kids to Disney World or Disney movies?

What’s in our wallets? How many of us have credit cards drawn on banks that took bailouts?

Where are our PRINCIPLES?

Total War means TOTAL WAR.

Or does it?

The utter failure of the Republicans in the senate, not only to stop healthcare but their failure to even offer a serious fight to prevent its passage leaves regular Americans with some difficult choices. There were a thousand parlimentary tricks that could have been used to slow its passage and of course everyday closer to the 2010 elections the easier it would have been to stop passage altogether, yet they simply capitulated. No real fight was offered and the few Republicans like Coburn and Demint who seemed willing to fight were actually restrained by the Republican leadership.
We must embrace the truth of our situation.
Why has the left been so successful since the inauguration?
They spent a hundred years laying the groundwork. Starting with TR and ending with Mitch.
They’ve spent a hundred years getting leftists elected and appointed. They’ve built case law and regulations and legislative history and executive orders. It has apparently culminated in this last election.
Why is it so hard to believe a movement that would dedicate so much time and energy to reach the goal would miss the obvious and not have control of the “opposition?” McConnell never has to vote or do anything overt on behalf of the left all he has to do is sit this one out. Take a dive. Which on healthcare he dutifully did. McCain, Snowe, Spector have also somehow managed to be in the wrong place at the wrong time on bill after bill.

As Sherlock Holmes would say, “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” These people are purposefully posing as Republicans when their true intent is to advance the liberal agenda. It may seem improbable but LOOK at their results!!!

The truth is we ARE a bunch of Rubes. We continually allow these people to undermine or outright betray the country time after time in the clutch moments. Guess what, sleepers are SUPPOSED to look like us as much as possible while doing the enemies work. Yet half of those on the right defend these guys and block every attempt to purge this disease. Oh no, we can’t have standards. Or accountability. We’re a big tent.
As has been observed the third party route is a dead-end but the sentiment behind it is not. If we place our bets on today’s Republican Party, as constituted; we are going to lose. Or we can make the Republican Party BE the third party the country is crying for. If we can do away with the shape shifters and changelings that have undermined and denied every principle and value this nation was built on.
For one hundred years we have lost battle after battle to these people because we have failed to treat this like it is a war for survival. We continually give up ground that once surrendered is never recovered. We are afraid of appearing too zealous or suspicious. We have allowed ourselves to live in fear of being labeled racist or homophobe or rightwing extremist or whatever and then they label us anyway. We buy into a silly notion that somehow in the end we will win no matter how foolish or misguided our actions. We repeat ad nauseam silly platitudes about how elections have consequences yet act as if they don’t.
They treat this like it is a war and because of this attitude they are winning the war.
If our actions don’t change our future is a fine or jail time because we haven’t health insurance;
Starving because we haven’t a carbon credit to buy a Big Mac;
A ride on a cattle car because we are a drain on society.

 

 

Seems like every time I turn around I hear or read somebody saying America will get through this current crisis. Or Obama’s socialist debauchery or Romney’s Progressive activities. That the American Spirit is indomitible. It will always shine through, waters will part, the sun will shine, liberty will prevail, Gawd will never let America fall no matter how far she um, er, falls?!!!

These are the people who in the 90's said it was a new economy and the markets would now always go up.

I disagree with the premise that somehow as Americans we are immune to the march of history. I hear “We will never long surrender our freedoms!!!” Really?

If we compare America of 1809 with America of 2009, do we have freedom? What do we have? What have we permanently given up?

We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties.  James Madison

Will we ever eliminate the Public Indoctrination School System (P.I.S.S.)? Can you pass a P.I.S.S. Test? You know, global warming is real, kids will always have sex, abortion is a right, government is the answer, a public option is needed, gay marriage is a fundamental right. Just ask, most kids today know these things.

In 1800 I could legally own every weapon owned by the US military. Today? Even if we eliminate weapons of mass destruction from the list?

Of course we could trust you with these weapons; it’s your neighbor that can’t be trusted. Keep an eye on him for us, will ya?

Isn’t a government recipient voter a weapon of mass destruction?

Did Patrick Henry require a license to ride his horse? Did his horse have a plate stuck on his rear end? Did he not travel the public road system? Did people play foolish semantic “privilege” games with inalienable rights?

Can I still buy, sell or trade anything across state lines without my teamster being raped with taxes and regulations?

Is anyone foolish enough to think Washington or Jefferson would have created an FAA or TSA under any circumstances?

Will the FDA ever go away? The NEA?

Is Social Security still the third rail?

Now that Republicans have adopted the Democrat principle of Nation Building are we to forever expend treasure we don’t have to prop up governments around the world?

Will I ever again be free to work at whatever price I deem appropriate or will the minimum wage require me to be unemployed?

Will I be allowed to build the home of my dreams on land that I own or will I be forever at the whim of zoning boards and planning councils?

Must I always expect to pay for the privilege of running a business to some local jerk mayor or county councilman?

I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.James Madison

This foolishly naive notion that we as Americans will never give up freedom in the face of so many proofs that we have in fact already embraced a subtle tyranny is a little scary. Do we even know what liberty is anymore?

The people who today would never eliminate Social Security, the Income Tax, the Federal Reserve or the “privilege” of a drivers license will tomorrow defend ObamaCare as surely as they defend the other socialist constructs of the last hundred years.

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it. Thomas Jefferson

We can't get precinct committeemen to donate an hour a month to defend a nation that was founded by patriots walking on bloody bare feet though the snows of Valley Forge. Thanks for what you do Cold Warrior.

Conservative sites starve from lack of funding by either the big businesses they defend or the little guy they entertain.

The Great Experiment can fail. America can fall. Liberty can die.

The average American has paid no price for liberty, fiscally or physically.

We can understand how a "renter" who is enabled to buy a house by some government program can walk away when hardship strikes because they have no skin in the game. Liberty is no different than a house. Most Americans are "renters" of liberty and they will walk away when faced with hard times. In fact they have "walked away" by supporting government programs that promise to feed them, house them or keep them safe from terrorists if only they give up their liberty. We esteem too lightly.

I personally have no more use for an ESOL TSA agent wasting my time at the airport than I do for guvmint cheese.

I do not want to trade my liberty for safety.

Liberty is never free and sometimes downright dangerous. But I’ll take it anyway.

The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home. James Madison

We are at a breaking point for America. Assuming that somehow we will muddle through because we are Americans is synonymous with defeat.

There is a tremendous amount that would have to be done to dig us out of the current mess even if we turned on a dime today. Obama is not going to turn on a dime. Assuming the dollar lasts three more years; America will be $15,000,000,000,000 in debt. Then we replace Obama. Maybe!!! Then what? Will we have half-witted Mitt “he’s a real conservative” RomneyCare or his political twin elected to continue leading us down the road to perdition?

There is no point sticking our heads in the sand. America and liberty have never been more seriously threatened. For the second time in our history, (1776 being the first) the outcome is not certain.

Silly platitudes about America’s or the American People’s infallibility can only serve to reinforce a deadly complacency that has infected the nation. We don’t need apathy or despair either. We can win but it will not be as easy as electing a half dozen RINO’s in hard to reach districts. Or promulgating vague proclamations like “ending statism.”

We need to look to founding principles.

Back to basics. If a law can’t be justified according to what Jefferson or Washington or Franklin or Henry, et al put out there, it has no place in America. If a politician can’t be relied on to support that position; they have no place in government.

.

 

 

 “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. “

George Orwell

        One of the most frequently used words in every language, in every age, in every home, every business, and every educational institution. It isn't a bad word, doesn't even have four letters, but it is often treated as such. For example, "Why do you still believe the earth is flat?" OFF WITH HIS HEAD!!!!

The problem today is we don't hear enough of this word. We don't question enough the people we trust as leaders and we don't ask WHY?! When we see one failing government program after another we don’t ask WHY?! Not why is it failing? But why are we still letting the government do something that it has consistently shown it is incompetent to do. We used to ask why.

       Earlier in the last century we allowed the government to sell us on the idea of Prohibition. Many could agree then that alcohol was a source of a great many problems and contributed to marital failures, business failures, obviously drunkenness, violence, indolence, illness, etc. It wasn't really that hard to sell the notion of outlawing something that had so many negative features and only a few positive features. So they outlawed it. To their credit, and in relatively short order, the people saw the organized crime, extreme violence associated with turf wars, property crimes by users to pay for product, enormous numbers incarcerated for manufacturing, selling or using the product, as being a case in which the cure was far worse than the illness.

They scrapped prohibition after only a few years. They generally took it away from government except for minor regulations and taxes. For a short while most of the crime and other problems associated with prohibition did go away. There is a Humphrey Bogart movie in which one gangster tells another gangster that he has heard Prohibition is coming back. They are both encouraged by the prospect. In fact, an honest assessment of prohibition today could only conclude that the era of prohibition had two beneficiaries, criminals made a killing, and government grasped at and consolidated much power at the expense of the people. So organized crime and the government, two sides of the same coin benefited the most.

Yes, government as we have it is a form of Organized Crime.

                The end of prohibition did represent a considerable loss to organized crime. They had to find some other sources of revenue. Now when a business finds that one of its product lines is no longer viable it finds or creates an alternate product line to fill the void or suffers the consequences. Organized crime IS a business. There had already been an effort to eliminate gambling in many states and of course this offered them a revenue stream and they had been selling it through the same distribution network as alcohol. So they had the channel, they just needed a product to dump in the pipe. At this time there were few in America using marijuana, cocaine, or heroin. There weren't many using TV's, credit cards or cell phones either. That is marketing, take a product, new or obscure and convince as many as possible that they simple must have it. It’s genius.

      In comes the federal government too. They needed something to justify keeping all of the power they had accumulated as part of prohibition. Ban drugs and the problem’s solved. It worked better than Prohibition because it targeted a much smaller percentage of the population and thus would be easier to sell and maintain.

                So BANG, a War on Drugs. If there is one message we can take away from the war on drugs it is this, Prohibition was for beginners.

We accept too damned many things on the explanations of people who could have good reasons for lying. Frank Herbert

                How they banned it was both humorous and ridiculous, like most everything else the government does. The congress at one point had an expert testify concerning marijuana. He testified that when he smoked marijuana he turned into a bat. I know a number of people that have tried or do smoke marijuana and I have never heard of anyone saying it caused this type of delusional vision. In fact, the most likely effects I have personally noticed in users are; they laugh a lot at stupid things, they eat a lot of stupid things and they don't seem to be very motivated. Clearly the "expert" was lying and the reason the lie worked was in part the unfamiliarity the general public had with marijuana. Not very many had used it. Contrast that with today where the majority have not only tried pot but a great many have tried other drugs as well. Comedy is how congress starts; tragedy is usually how it ends and thus has gone the War on Drugs.

                The question for us today is WHY?! Why do we continue to support what is obviously a complete failure by any reasonable definition? More people use drugs today as a percentage of the population than ever did before they were outlawed. In fact, the drug war has caused at least a 600% per capita increase in drug use. In 1900, in small towns all across America, a person looking to buy heroin would most likely not be able to find anybody selling it. If he did, it would likely have been a pharmacist who may have refused to sell it. Not because it was illegal but because he knew Joe, and his wife and children, and didn't think Joe needed to have any more of that stuff and there wasn't enough profit in it to convince him to sell his soul.

Who was the pot dealer in America in 1900? There wasn't one.

                Not so today, through the genius of "War on Drugs" marketing and a solid distribution network, it is unlikely that any person desiring to purchase heroin, coke, dope, meth, whatever his little addicted heart could desire, would have any difficulty whatsoever finding someone to sell it to him in a city, town or village across the country. In fact, men under armed guard in maximum security prisons can get the drug of their choice.

                So the War on Drugs is a complete failure? Not really, it did exactly what it was supposed to do. The failure was in the American public's understanding of the purpose of the War on Drugs. Organized crime has turned enormous profits and the government has accumulated vast powers that directly violate the rights recognized in the constitution. Trying to get a significant number of Americans to raise a cry to congress to stop this tragic farce is practically impossible because few remember what it was like before and the government paints a much darker picture than ever existed. They speak of an overwhelming crime wave that would occur if we legalized drugs. Common sense shows that much of the current crime “wave” occurred as a result of the War on Drugs. Nearly all of the violence, theft, prostitution, property crime, etc which is committed today is committed to support a drug habit or defend drug turf that did not exist before those drugs were outlawed and they would in large part disappear if we just called the whole thing off.

The undeserving maintain power by promoting hysteria.

Frank Herbert

The Drug War is not the only tragicomedy that begs the question, WHY?!

The War on Poverty came at a time when poverty was rapidly declining in America. It now represents a clear line when the decline in poverty ceased. Year after year the plight of the poor had gotten better and then we started the War on Poverty. The result we have seen inner cities literally collapse. As much as ninety percent of children born in the inner city have no father, half will never finish school, a third or more of the male population will serve time in prison, they have suffered more than any other group from the War on Drugs both in terms of addiction and legal ramifications. This so called War on Poverty can only be described as a failure. That is if we assume the perspective of normal commonsense Americans.

If the purpose is to empower government and enrich organized crime it has been a thing to admire in its execution, government sends in billions to people who rapidly come to expect it as a right and spend it as though it cost nothing. It does cost them nothing after all. Much of what they spend is on various illegal drugs and organized crime turns a handsome profit. The devastation of an entire race of people, the destruction of some of the greatest cities ever built and the obliteration of so much freedom, consigning so many to a life of misery and slavery to both government handouts and mind altering drugs. It would have been easier and less harmful to give the money directly to the mobsters.

Then we have the War on Terror. It is a little different since one can hardly sanction terror or even the ignoring of terror. But you would think that terrorism was somehow new or special to the modern era the way it is treated. It isn't. It has been around for thousands of years. There are examples of terroristic activities going back as far as recorded history. Viking, Mongols, Huns, Visigoths. Terrorism has been around so long because for the most part it works. Look at the way the average American today cowers behind ESOL TSA stooges as though people born without freedom are now the guardians thereof. What has changed for America is how we deal with it, although we are not the first to make the mistake of treating it as other than an act of war.

Thomas Jefferson showed the right way to deal with Islamic terrorists in the form of the pirates of the Barbary Coast. Shell them, sink them and capture their cities. He did screw up in the sense of paying a ransom for POW's at the end of it. That probably led us back there 10 years later to finish the job. But it was a good start. And most importantly it established the principle of never treating with a terrorist if you really want peace.

It should be noted as well of Jefferson or Madison neither one built any nations for the Barbary Pirates. Jefferson started and Madison finished teaching a lesson that lasted a long time, don't screw with us and we won’t destroy you. Reagan carried on this proud tradition when he unleashed on Tripoli for its renewed role in terrorism. That led to shutting them down again. 

Some have used this as an example of how even Jefferson ignored the constitutional requirement for congress to declare war but not so. In fact in all three cases, Jefferson, Madison and Reagan acted against a foreign power that was actively engaged in attacking Americans. None of the three prosecuted the military actions to the point of complete conquest of a foreign nation but instead until the aggressors capitulated and agreed to leave Americans alone. When we act in this manner towards aggressors/terrorist we get real results.

Think back to the early days of our current war in Iraq, before it became a nation building effort, every terrorist nation on the planet suddenly wanted to talk peace with the US from Libya, Iran, Syria to N Korea, even China became conciliatory. It wasn't until we foolishly got ourselves bogged down in Iraq and to some degree in Afghanistan that all of the belligerents started acting nasty again. We need to understand we have no business playing nation builder to any belligerent. Terrorist nations are like criminals and after we punish them in war we should not embark on a costly effort to show them how to be good corporate citizens. We need to make sure the punishment is such that they never want to do "that" again. If they don't seem to feel that way, then we didn't do our job right. Next time we do it better.

Most nations in history that gave thought to belligerence and war had to calculate the risks and the rewards and then make a decision about whether the risks are justified in light of the potential rewards. Losing a war literally could mean losing your nation’s independence or significant parts of your territory or an irreplaceable share of your treasury. The deliberations of today's nations probably more closely resembles, "Well the risk's are ‘the American's are generous’ and the rewards are ‘the Americans are generous’.” Kind of like the movie "The Mouse That Roared." Here the Peter Sellers character is a sadistic killer who would gladly sacrifice his own children for the slightest advantage.

Soon it would appear we will be subjected to another war this one a “War on Carbon.” Being that we are carbon based life forms that would make us at war with ourselves. Sort of funny, except they are serious. We need to be asking WHY?!

I have seen the enemy and he is us?

Pogo

They speak as though the "science" is settled. Then some idiot climatologist comes out, seems like most climatologists at this point, and delivers real science that tells us global warming is either far from settled or completely unfounded. But the hysterics in favor of global warming, (I say "in favor of" because they really have invested so much in it they are disappointed more than relieved that the earth won’t be getting destroyed), just get that much more hysterical. As we have seen, they seem to have the ear of idiot politicians, who aren't too stupid to see another tax or power grab opportunity.

Without getting heavily into the science here I would point out a couple of things:

1.       Earth's climate has always changed.

2.        When Mars is also undergoing global warming or cooling or "climate change" in pace with what we experience here on Earth we can be sure it isn't anymore manmade here than it is there.

3.       When the earth warms, during natural warming trends, the areas that actually warm are primarily the areas farthest from the equator. This means the land area that can support normal human life actually expands. The areas that support crop growth expand and more people can be fed. And what do plants eat? Carbon.

If global warming had any truth to it at all, that truth is this; more people will be fed, fewer people will freeze to death and excess carbon will be absorbed by the greater biomass if there is an abundance of CO2 in the air.

Of course recently the phrase has been changed to "climate change" but the truth is we have nothing to fear except greedy power hungry politicians. Like every con artist they change their con when they realize the old one isn't working anymore.

Ask … Why? Say no.

I know some think this is the best run organization in the federal government but one does have to wonder. Between people actually going Postal (generally caused by being forced to work too many hours and not having enough time to watch your stolen NetFlix DVD’s) and then having to go beg the likes of Charlie Rangel for a $4 BILLION bailout it is a wonder the mail gets delivered at all. Of course if Rangel’s (Barney) Franking privileges are increased he may see his way to granting the bailout.

I wonder if this means another rate increase? Gee, the USPS has been so good about keeping rates low.

If going Postal means getting $4 BILLION for letting Rangel send a few letters for free I wanna go Postal. I’ll hand deliver Rangel’s letters. Heck, I’ll offer franking privileges for ALL the email they want to send.

Maybe instead of going Postal the USPS should consider going private.

“Sometimes the first duty of intelligent men is the restatement of the obvious.”
George Orwell.

Among all of the furor and angst over Obama giving a speech to a bunch of kids in school I have just one question, where are your children?

Are your children in the public school system?

The public school system will have roughly 18,000 hours to teach your children.

And they will teach your children that the government can solve any problem. And should.

This school system is hostile to free market economics and results in more than half of today’s graduates holding an opinion on communism as being a “lifestyle” choice like wearing red pants and plaid shirts. Maybe a little odd but not evil.

What do we have with this school system?

We have a school system that evangelizes the secular humanist religion.

We have a school system that denigrates and belittles the religion of the parents.

We have a school system that will teach condoms instead of abstinence as the best way to avoid STD’s. And Global Warming?

We have a school system that will distribute those condoms to your children behind your back.

We have a school system that in many cases has a nurse to help your daughter arrange an abortion behind your back. And encourage your daughter to do it.

We have a school system that fails to teach basic constitutional law.

We have a school system that instead teaches your child that 9 guys in black robes have the final say on what is law in the face of the plain language of the constitution.

We have a school system that does not teach proper skepticism of excessive government. How could they?

We have a school system that has never been critical of government except to say it is not doing enough, not spending enough.

You deliver your children to a school system that will destroy every value and belief you have regarding God, Liberty, Family and Justice. If they can.

You give them 18,000 hours to do it. You pay for the “privilege” of this treachery.

And now you object to Obama giving a short speech, whatever the content, to your child?

What damage do you think he is going to do in one hour that the Public Indoctrination System isn’t going to do in 18,000 hours?

I don’t care if Obama is in the Public Indoctrination System it is the kids who need to be removed. To be safely taught at home or at a private school that will listen to the customer regarding curriculum and values being taught.

The Public Indoctrination System will always be a political football. If today you were able to fix every ill in the schools it would not be twenty years before they were as bad as or worse than they are now. We would never allow the government to fund our churches because of the potential harm to liberty but instead of giving them one hour a week to teach Sunday school we give them 30 hours a week to teach global warming, the gay lifestyle as normal, the founders were evil slave owners, Che Guevara as admirable, Fidel or Uncle Joe as misunderstood. What don’t they teach our children? Reading? How to balance a check book? Basic Math? Critical thinking?

We act like “Holy Cow, Obama gave a speech in school and now my kid is a communist.” Get real. Your kid will be a communist because he attends a communist training camp.

Vladimir Lenin said, “Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.”

God said, “Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.” Proverbs 22:6

They are both right. Which method are you using?

Of course it is not being suggested that we sell seized guns to drug lords. That is just what these guys would imply. 

What a couple of boneheads these two.

Scott Knight of Chaska, MN PD “I certainly was not willing to turn those over to the public.”

And Lt David Whitlock, Colorado Springs, CO PD “The other [reason] is not introducing another weapon into the community."

Just two more elitist cops who refuse to acknowledge an armed citizenry is THEIR best defense.

Study after study proves More Guns, Less Crime.

Back in June I heard a brief story regarding Hal Turner a radio talk show host, white supremacist, holocaust denier, etc being arrested for threatening a few federal judges.

So what, right?

Nut jobs are out there.

As the evidence comes out it looks like, at least part of the time he was spewing his nonsense, he was getting paid by the FBI to do it.

I don’t have a problem with the idea of an FBI informant but at what point does your informant become an instigator?

If a guy goes to a Klan or ACORN meeting and manages to insinuate himself into the group that organized or leads the meeting and is able to learn of illegal activities and reports it back to his FBI handlers, great!! Crime solved or maybe even prevented.

When, the so called informant is the guy leading the meeting that seems to have crossed the line into instigating.

The feds paid this guy to do what he was doing. They knew what he was saying, the record is out there.

“Prosecutors have acknowledged that Turner was an informant who spied on radical right-wing organizations.”

A little investigative work shows Turner was saying the same types of things while on the FBI payroll.

It seems that you are only committing a crime when the FBI stops paying you to do it.

This isn’t a defense of Hal Turner, rather an indictment of the FBI and Federal Justice System.

We have all these liberals running around talking about how Rush or Sean or Glenn are inciting violence when the guys who are actually inciting violence are on the federal payroll.

Does it matter that the government’s idea of an informant is somebody leading the crowd? Was Robert "KKK" Byrd just another paid informant when acting as the Grand Wizard?

How many people giving speeches at Tea Parties and urging people to action were on the federal payroll as “informants?”

 

Michael Ostrolenk “Starting this year, Americans will have to get government approval to travel by air. As Privacy Journal revealed last fall, henceforth "Permission Now Needed to Travel Within U.S." Getting a reservation and checking-in for air travel will soon require Transportation Security Administration authorization.”

Robert Nozick quoted on American Thinker “I like to think that intellectual honesty demands that, at least occasionally, we go out of our way to confront strong arguments opposed to our views.  How else are we to protect ourselves from continuing error?”

Barack Obama quoted by Rockwell “They do it all the time. If you think about it, UPS and Fed-Ex are doing just fine. It's the Post Office that's always having problems.... there is nothing inevitable about this somehow destroying the private marketplace. As long as it is not set up where the government is being subsidized by the taxpayers so that even if they are providing a good deal, we keep having to pony up more and more money.”

BrianR “Let’s look at this another way: I have a right to own a Porsche. I can't afford a Porsche. How do I get the government to buy a Porsche for me?”

GunnyG “RINO/Bluebloods want to go along with change if it suits their purpose, i.e., lining their pockets, staying in power, and rolling over for the libs as necessary.”

Joseph Ashby “It is not working because of two basic truths. First, government does not have money that it first has not taken away from the people, so if the government spends more, the people necessarily spend less. Second, government (which does not earn the money it spends) will never spend as wisely as individuals who have earned the money themselves.”

ValiantForTruth “If we as Christians do not speak out as authoritarian governments grow from within or come from outside, eventually we or our children will be the enemy of society and the state. No truly authoritarian government can tolerate those who have a real absolute by which to judge its arbitrary absolutes and who speak out and act upon that absolute.”

Rosslyn Smith “The entire Republican establishment has lost a large section of the public for some time now. The elected officials did it by refusing to limit spending. The pundit class has done it by has largely showing themselves to be both obsessed with style over substance and forever ceding the shape of the debate to the Democrats and the mainstream media.”

 

At the RightOnline conference in Pittsburgh the final panel had some discussion of why we need to elect leftist Republicans (RINOS). The panel seemed in agreement that it was more important to gain control of the senate or the house than it was to be ideologically pure. I disagree and the corporate ethics problem as well as political history backs me up.

First, a little corporate history, unlike many on the right I do have a problem with Big Business. First they go Big and Multi-National and then they forget where they came from.

Second they quickly become focused on this year's bottom line and worry less about the mid to long term future. This lack of foresight is what puts them in the position of needing bailouts.

Combine the first issue with the second and you essentially have massive multi-national corporations that are on the one hand begging the US taxpayer for a bailout while on the other hand having absolutely no loyalty to the US as a nation. The nation that allowed them to be what they are. GM and Chrysler both looked at bailouts from the EU if I recall correctly. Is there anybody thinking GM or AIG or Citi cares about or has significant loyalty to the US?

Finally as Erick’s Diary, and the comments in it, point out they begin using our money (from Product sales) to directly oppose what we stand for. The left knows how to organize a real boycott of those who oppose them. The right? We just keep funding and supporting the companies that fund the left. Sometimes you get exactly what you deserve.

Let Arlen Spector be a Republican if it means we get control or let Jim Jeffords be a Republican if it means we get control. So we just held our nose and let them be Republicans and we didn't primary them and in return they showed their loyalty when the chips were down and we actually needed them right? Most here know, of course, when the chips were down; Jeffords handed the Senate to the Democrats and Arlen handed the filibuster proof majority to the Democrats.  Are we going to be foolish enough to think Snow wouldn’t do the same? Short term gain means long term pain.

We have made the same short-sighted mistakes as Big Business; we focused short term on the bottom line instead of practicing a long term strategy. We would have been better off kicking Jeffords out by primary or general election, same with Spector. As for Spector, Jeffords, Snow, etc, they probably can't even tell you what state they are from. Those on the right in the power structure have also forgotten where they come from. Let’s be honest; for the last eight years it didn't matter much who controlled the House and Senate.

The establishment right forgot it was the little guy who wanted SMALLER, LESS INTRUSIVE government that got them elected in the first place. Part of the reason they forgot; a significant minority of their Republican colleagues never believed to begin with. Our guys were rubbing elbows with Republicans that never understood what conservative meant. It's a contagious disease. I tell my kids, "They are the company they keep," how is my senator any different?

First we had a short-sighted, win at any cost view. Second they forgot where they came from. Finally they started spending our money on stuff directly opposed to what we believe. Same story as Big Business, remember when Wal-Mart had a buy “Made in the US” policy? No I don’t oppose free trade just unfair trade.

Sometimes a football or basketball coach realizes that the old “talent” they have is just phoning it in and they are left with a choice; let a bunch of halfhearted guys win enough games to show a winning season or start trading them off for draft picks. If they trade for draft picks they know they will have a few bad seasons at minimum; but once the new guys get the hang of the big leagues they may have a shot at the playoffs.

As Biden would say, “It’s time to rebuild the team to be more patriotic. It’s time to payout more RINO’s.”

We need to get rid of the short-sighted attitude that says we must have a winning season at the expense of getting to the playoffs. We need to get rid of the RINOs that have forgotten where they came from even if it means a couple of losing seasons.

The truth, while the vast majority of the country is conservative; the right has not had 10 winning seasons in the last 100 years based on an actual roll back of the statist agenda. We keep playing defense and predictably we keep giving up ground. We spent more than 10 years in Vietnam winning the “hearts and minds,” but we still lost. It is not enough for conservatives to say we are winning the hearts and minds (the battle of ideas) or we will lose this fight too.

If we try to purify the party and fail what have we lost? When I say purify I don’t mean party line voters I mean liberty line voters. Has our current approach stopped the steady march of the statist over the last 100 years? The only serious threat to the progressives in the last 100 years was Ronald Reagan. You remember him the extremist? One man didn’t stop the march and as soon as he was gone the socialists redoubled their efforts. Maybe a serious electoral threat from Americans at a few Republican Senators and Congressman would cause them to rethink their loyalties.

Ramblings from the Right

Sowell “Perhaps the scariest aspect of our times is how many people think in talking points, rather than in terms of real world consequences.”

Dr. Anne Doig President CMA "We all agree that the system is imploding, we all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize"

Coulter on Kathleen “Ole Miss” Parker "Oh, and one more thing. I was once employed by MSNBC. Speaking as an MSNBC insider, I regret to inform you: We MSNBC-ers hate the military, loathe cops, despise the South and absolutely detest Christians. No really, take it from me -- I'm an old MSNBC hand"

CincyConservative "The Democrats are furious, and are mobilizing real organized, astroturfed groups like SEIU, to oppose mainstream Americans, and as we see in Tampa and St Louis, this is going to lead to violence and further alienation of the American people."

Michelle "If, however, you are a member of Congress confronted with silly questions about whether you have read the bill, feel free to giggle."

Socrates "The right to health care implies only that the government must not interfere with our attempts to care for ourselves and others."

Patrick Bohan "As usual, Obama says the right things, but how many times has he said the right thing and turned around and did something else. Obama is good at deceiving the public and preys on gullible Americans that cling to and take his messages as gospel. It is time for Americans to stop listening to all of Obama’s words and look at his actions."

Find me at dreamsfrommyforefathers.com

Are you one of those deluded people who persist in the belief that you are receiving adequate healthcare?

Have you been so bold  as to speak your deranged opinions to your neighbor?

The White House wants to know.

They have setup a special email address, flag@whitehouse.gov, where your neighbors can intervene on your behalf and help the government identify you as a HealthCare Denier.

The White House wants to know so they can assist you in coming to the proper conclusions regarding how bad your healthcare really is, or will be, if you persist in your denial.

It seems like they are creating a list of early adopter volunteers for their new mental health program.

“It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion.”

Was it Goebbels or Obama who said that?

Does it really matter? They all have the best of intentions for us. Even those on their enemies list will receive special care.

Don’t be a naive Neville. Peace in our time means taking the blue pill and drifting peacefully away. If you don’t want the pill these guys will have a gas chamber waiting for you.

For the bureaucrat, the world is a mere object to be manipulated by him. Karl Marx

If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed. If you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed. Mark Twain

 Lysander Spooner of American Letter Mail Company fame as well as many other things once said

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."

I used the quote in a discussion and had somebody wonder why I am a CFL member if I agree with the quote. This is my response. I hope it clarifies.

I think that it is a clear statement of the facts as they exist but not as they should exist. We have to be able to view the world as it is and not as we wish it were.

Quoting Spooner does not mean I think we should throw away our constitution. I do think we need to recognize that the constitution is in some small way broken.

Broken?

Is it realistic to say that our constitution has sufficiently restrained the federal government?

As Madison said the constitution is only adequate to govern a moral people and it is unfit to govern any other. He was right, it governed a moral people just fine. We don't have a moral people any longer.

We have a nation of people that believe they can live at the expense of everybody else. As long as they launder the money through government it's not stealing.

Orwell once wrote "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act"

Or Ron Paul "Truth is treason in an empire of lies"

Truth? The constitution as it is currently written has not lived up to its primary task; to guard liberty.

Am I wrong? I think the evidence speaks for itself. Without changes that put some type of enforcement mechanism in the hands of the states or the people, someone aside from SCOTUS and the federal government, America will always wind up where we are now. And that assumes we can somehow stuff the federal government back into the box where it belongs.

The problem is the wife beater is in charge of determining the size and scope of the marriage contract.

deTocqueville as well as others predicted this. "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."

I don't think the constitution needs to be thrown away or even changed radically. I do think we need to look at it objectively, like a broken kite. We need to figure out what small adjustments we can make that will allow the kite to fly without applying so much duct tape that it won't get off the ground.

If we refuse to even consider the possibility that the constitution might be broken, we cannot fix it. We also deny the words of the founding fathers as evidenced by the fact that they purposely provided for an amendment mechanism to cover situations such as we currently have.

If, as I think, the entire purpose of the constitution was to defend liberty, it is not doing what it was supposed to do. In this sense, Spooner's quote, was correct.

Franklin said "Where liberty is, there is my country"

Are we Americans because of the soil we occupy? Or because of the ideals we cherish?

Another Ron Paul quote, "Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy."

I think the words "the constitution" could be used interchangeable with democracy in that quote because the constitution was created to preserve liberty not the other way around. The founding fathers did not determine to write a constitution and as part of the deliberation process decide to use that constitution to protect liberty. They were determined to protect liberty and decided a written constitution with proper checks and balances was the most appropriate way to accomplish the goal. Soldiers don't swear to protect and defend the constitution because it is by itself important, they swear to protect and defend the constitution because of the ideals that are embodied within it.

The constitution was not written to be revered it was written to be used.

Every aspect of the constitution was designed for the purpose of preserving liberty. Some directly protect liberty as in the case of free speech. Some indirectly, as is the case of having senators appointed by the states instead of being directly elected. (We already screwed up that balance of power.)

There have been many amendments to the constitution. Some have had tremendous impact on the actual working of the constitution. We do not live under the same constitution as Jefferson or Washington or Adams. They would not recognize the incorporation process of the 14th Amendment. They would not recognize the 16th amendment as legitimate. When the doctrine of incorporation was adopted, the old constitution, a contract between the states, ceased to exist. When the 16th Amendment was enacted every freedom guaranteed under the constitution was instantly and radically abridged. There is not one of the original amendments in the bill of rights that is protected, respected or held sacred by the federal government and because of the 17th Amendment; the states are powerless to enforce the constitution.

The 16th Amendment is particularly offensive to liberty. These thirty words entirely undid every other part of the constitution. Thirty words nullified the six-thousand words that proceeded them. Thirty words erased the right to free speech, religion, firearms, to avoid self incrimination, to an attorney, to a jury trial, to confront your accuser, to be secure in your person, houses, papers and effects.

Don't think so? Never heard of a church being threatened with loss of exemption for endorsing a candidate?  The IRS frequently lets people know if they bring an attorney to an audit they will be punished for it. More than one church (yes, they are crackpots) has lost exemption for stockpiling guns, what you want to use two rights at once? How about signing a 1040 return on penalty of perjury every year? Have you seen what happens to those who refuse to sign? Want a jury trial? Sorry you get IRS administrative court instead. Are you seriously wondering about IRS search and seizures? Did you know the IRS assigns fake IDs to agents? Want to confront your accuser? Sorry he doesn't work here anymore he maka pizza. The 16th Amendment is a Declaration of Ownership by a federal government that recognizes no limits on its power to tax or regulate every aspect of our lives.

Many think the problem with the income tax is the IRS. If only we could domesticate those guys the income tax would be OK. This is naive. How could you have an income tax without a draconian IRS? Elected officials love to blame and pretend to tame the bureaucrats of the IRS but if they ever did gentrify the IRS, the income tax would stop working. Nobody would pay. I don't like the IRS anymore than anybody else but the truth is they are doing the job congress gave them. (Of course there are some who, unfortunately, like the job they were given a little too much. Tyranny is like that.) The problem with the IRS is rooted in, and cannot be separated from, the existence of an Income Tax and the 16th Amendment.

I suspect any objection to Spooner's quote is primarily related to the final sentence in it "In either case, it is unfit to exist."  An unlimited power to tax supposedly free men, at any rate and under any conditions government might choose, is entirely at odds with the primary purposes of government which is to protect and preserve liberty. As long as the 16th Amendment is a part of the constitution; it is unfit to exist.

What am I doing at CFL if I think the constitution is broken? I assume Campaign for Liberty is about advancing the cause of Liberty. If Ron Paul is the "spiritual" founder of CFL and he is to be taken at his word, as quoted above, I am in the right place.

I love my country (the soil) and I love the ideals embodied in the Declaration and the Constitution.

If forced to choose between the two, I choose the ideals.

If truth is treason I hope I have done enough to be found guilty.

Agree? Disagree? If I haven't educated you..... Educate Me.