Bill Whittle Identifies the Problem, and the Solution | Must Watch

I have watched in horror over the past 50 years, but especially in the last ten or so, as our freedoms are simply swept away with impunity and arrogance. Bill Whittle lays it out as clearly as anyone I've ever seen. And the good news is, he has a solution. Watch & learn.

 

 So the video was taken down eh? Okay, YouTube, I'll try and find it elsewhere.

Try this... It's even bigger, longer, and uncut...

 

If that doesn't work, go here instead...

Property Rights No Longer Exist -- In the United States?!

Illegitimate means illegal. Against the law. Nobody in charge cares, and nobody who cares has the power to do anything about it. This is the most frightening time in my entire life. I have never seen anything like it. 

In Need of Masters

'Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.' ~ Ben Franklin

Inner city black neighborhoods are like war zones, with feral youth gangs raping and pillaging their own. Frightened residents, just wanting to be left alone, call the police. The police go in, and eventually somebody gets shot. The police amp up the force. 

'Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.' ~ Ben Franklin

Black Lives Matter go on the march against the police, and it seems looting and rioting is the result. The police amp up the force. 

'Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.' ~ Ben Franklin

Anti-Trump protesters show up to disrupt the peoples' right to hear a duly elected candidate for president. Looting, violence and rioting is the result. The police amp up the force. 

'Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.' ~ Ben Franklin

A bloodthirsty religious zealot shoots up a gay bar full of unarmed victims. Statists want to take the guns from the rest of us.

'Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.' ~ Ben Franklin

A candidate for president is guilty as hell, and if anyone else had done what she did, we'd be locked up like Martha Stewart. But Hillary walks.

'Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.' ~ Ben Franklin

Statists, community organizers, Cloward and Piven, Saul Alinsky, you know who I'm talking about, all want to stir the pot, because they know that when violence, chaos and dissent are prevalent, they can be our masters.

Good News / Bad News

Now here's a kakistocracy report worthy of the name:

• The good news is, the Whatcom County Council was sued for political malpractice.
• The bad news is, they got away with it. 

(More information...)

I don't know if this can be appealed in time to right the wrong. Perhaps now all We the People can do is vote to reject Proposition #9 outright, and the next chance we get, vote to remove the corrupt councilmembers from office. 

Enabler-in-Chief

Barack Obama prefers communism to capitalism, free markets and private property rights. He is more than a sympathizer; he is an enabler.

The argument goes that the US embargo against Cuba hurts the common folks, while giving their oppressors a scapegoat. That might be true if it weren't for the fact that the US is about the only country that wasn't trading with Cuba. We'll see if Cuba stops being a hell hole once we resume trading with them. I'm betting Cuba will still suck after the embargo is lifted. Seen Mexico lately?

I predict that Barack Obama will accelerate this kind of imperial, unilateral, unconstitutional action in the remaining years of his presidency. If we still have an operative Constitution left when he's done, I'll be eternally grateful to a most merciful God.

Need Less Freedom, More Control

I was on facebook the other day, and I became embroiled in a health care discussion. I asked the Pen Gillette question, "Is it possible we can solve this problem with more freedom instead of less?" The answer from the other participants was a resounding, "No, we cannot". They didn't even want to consider free market solutions. They don't understand free market economics 101, or they think the free market has already been tried, and failed. (We haven't had a free market in health care for over half a century, and it's getting less free all the time.*) The other commentators couldn't possibly see how it would even work.

According to them, we need more control and less freedom, and ObamaCare is just the ticket. It's sad, frustrating and frightening. Check it out... There are a few locally well-known names in that discussion. I really had to flap my gums rapidly on this one to un-twist my words, and dodge bullets.

*Is it any surprise the cost is going up? I realize that correlation does not imply causation, but this is an easily testable hypothesis. Hardly anyone wants to test it though.

You Have Been Warned

My Dad sent me this:

It's probably photoshopped, because I doubt that any government these days actually supports the Second Amendment. It represents a threat to them (as it was intended). They would never put up a sign like this.

Actually, the Second Amendment was intended as a threat to oppression and tyranny. If our government feels threatened by the Second Amendment, what does that tell you about our government?

Update: What is oppression and tyranny? That is when someone makes you do things you don't want to do, and takes things from you that you don't want to give up. How is that different from violent crime? It isn't! Someone making you hand over your wallet at gunpoint is oppressing you, tyrannizing you. If you had a gun, you could resist this tyranny. And here's the beautiful part: even if they didn't know if you had a gun, you could resist this tyranny. The Second Amendment guarantees your natural right to resist tyranny. A government that infringes on that right is by definition, tyrannical. Don't be fooled.

The Official Specification for The United States

I used to think The Constitution would protect me. It will, but only if We the People insist on it. That hasn't been happening lately. The Constitution can't uphold and defend itself. Americans need to hear 365 days a year, something like The Pledge of Allegiance. It goes like this:

1. The United States Constitution is still the official specification for the United States of America. 
2. It is the binding contract between We the People and The US Government. 
3. The Constitution lists the specific services that the US Government agrees to provide for its citizens. 
4. We the People agree to pay taxes to cover the cost of those specific services, nothing more, nothing less. 
5. The Bill of Rights lists the ten things that must always be observed, period. 
6. The terms & conditions of The US Constitution can only be changed by following The Amendment Process. 
7. Any regime that distorts or disregards The Constitution is untrustworthy and dangerous. 

It is my contention that the majority of social and political problems in this country could be avoided if everyone understood and observed these seven points. 

We the People must insist that our elected representatives live up to their oath of office to uphold and defend The Constitution.

The United States Jumps the Shark

The United States of America, "Inauguration Day",  Monday, January 21, 2013 (check local listings for time)

repeat (cc)

According to Wikipedia,

Jumping the shark is an idiom created by Jon Hein that is used to describe the moment in the evolution of a television show when it begins a decline in quality that is beyond recovery. The phrase is also used to refer to a particular scene, episode, or aspect of a show in which the writers use some type of "gimmick" in a desperate attempt to keep viewers' interest.

That script, which aired September 20, 1977, was identified as the beginning of the end of the TV sitcom Happy Days. 

In this episode of The United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama will be sworn in for his second term as President of The United States. This script is believed to have been in production since 1848, originally created by German humorists Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels with the working title Das Kommunistische Manifest. 

That episode originally aired first in Russia (starring Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin, among others) under the title Soyuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics). It ran for a staggering 69 years, from 1922 ~ 1991. The episode collapsed under its own weight after spreading a wake of unprecedented poverty and oppression. It ended in tears with 20 million dead.

The episode aired in Germany (The Third Reich, starring Adolph Hitler) with some modifications under the title Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers' Party -- Nazi for short). This version ran for twelve years, from 1933 ~ 1945. It ended with a bang (sometimes called World War II, but The Third Reich was the central character), but not before spreading a wake of unprecedented poverty, destruction and oppression. It ended in tears with 50 to 70 million dead, depending on which critics you read.

The United States has been slow to pick up the story line, given that the third episode (The United States Constitution) was so popular and successful (the first, British Colonial Rule was largely panned as a failure, and Articles of Confederation were deemed too weak). "The Constitution" episode has been on the air continuously since its premiere in 1787. It has had its twists and turns, including abolishing slavery (which predated The Constitution) and the Civil War, but The Constitution emerged intact, and some say stronger following that historical correction. But some plot complications began to emerge that would have profoundly disturbed the original authors. 

In 1913, mid season replacement Woodrow Wilson from the progressive acting school, took his role in a disturbing direction. Some distasteful plot twists include the creation of the income tax, including one of the most oppressive collection agencies in human history, The IRS. During this era, congress vacated its responsibility for regulating the currency, and the crony-capitalist Federal Reserve was created. This is in addition to a whole slew of new bureaucracies the likes of which the original authors would be most skeptical, not being mentioned in, nor suggested by the Constitutional script.

Despite these setbacks, things continued pretty much along the original plot line until a new character, Franklin Delano Roosevelt joined the cast for an unprecedented run from 1933 ~ 1945. In a stunning departure from the original plot line, this renegade gave us Social Security and a whole New Deal, not to mention packing The Supreme Court, all of which undoubtedly had the original authors spinning in their graves. The problem with these plot developments is that viewers become hooked on them, and it is well-nigh impossible to retire them. This is a continuing theme, as we shall see. To prevent future actors from nearly becoming emperor and totally screwing up the script, term limits were introduced. 

Harry S. Truman introduced a new twist, starting a war without a formal declaration by congress. The Korean War was the first of several unauthorized wars, and a serious departure from the original script. No surprise, the United Nations was a player here. Nobody seemed to care. Still numb from WWII, they seemed to overlook it.

In more recent times, we have had a string of bad actors come through the scene. Dwight Eisenhower brought the Interstate Highway System, though which appealing and nice to have, an earlier actor, James Madison (also one of the principal original authors) deleted a very similar scene 144 years earlier. John F. Kennedy went off the rails with the first (undeclared) involvement in the Vietnam War. He also introduced the Moon Shot. It was an exciting premise, but certainly not part of the original plot. The writers would not have supported this, even if it had been technically possible in their time. They would have suggested the private sector do that, assuming We The People really wanted it.

From this point on, the script has been veering completely out of control. Some say that it is because the viewers have no idea what the original script was all about. In addition to escalating the US involvement in the Vietnam War (again, with the UN's help and no formal congressional declaration), Lyndon Baines Johnson declared war on poverty, which grew government entitlements, but 40 years later, poverty still exists in roughly the same amount. The only difference is, the biggest health problem by the modern poor is obesity instead of starvation. Maybe that is an improvement. Oh, and the illegitimacy rate has grown to 51%. More than half of the children born in this country are bastards. That's a prurient plot twist that only Hollywood could love. 

Richard Nixon creates The EPA, one of the most oppressive, unconstrained and out-of-control bureaucracies of all time. OSHA is another departure from the original script. It seems nice to have until you realize that there just isn't any story line backing it up, and as usual, bureaucracies invariably exceed their original scope, and take over the whole plot. The two Bush presidencies (H. W. and W) brought us two more unauthorized wars.

Enter stage left, Barack Hussein Obama. A relative unknown (I mean really, we know practically nothing about this man -- his background is carefully sealed), this actor absolutely hates the original script, saying it "reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day". While this was taken out of context,  the fact is, he believes The Constitution was, and is flawed, in that it provides only "negative rights" -- limited government, but no entitlements. Duh! That's the whole point! Oh well. Although a knowledgeable audience would have rejected that story line, they renewed him for another season, even after he pushed through an economic "stimulus", ObamaCare, both staggering usurpations of the enumerated powers, and a whole litany of other plot lines that defies audience suspension of disbelief. 

So the original script is simply being ignored, to be replaced without any official action or fanfare, with the Marx story line. It happened so gradually that nobody really noticed. The original authors and the original audience are long gone, and the rest of us just haven't been paying attention. The United States actually jumped the shark on November 6, 2012, when the viewers officially changed the channel to the new story line. 

There are now more takers than makers in our viewing audience. There are more people who believe it's okay to take someone else's earnings without their consent, and give it to someone who hasn't earned it. Taking something from someone without their consent is called "theft" unless you're the government. Taxation for constitutionally authorized services is one thing. You get what you pay for. But it's quite another thing when government does more than We the People agreed to when we ratified The Constitution.

Government makes the laws, so somehow it's exempt from them. It would be different if it followed The Constitution. Why is theft considered illegal? Because property represents irreplaceable time from a person's life that it took to obtain it. Taking their property equates to fractional murder. On the other hand, generosity is giving your time and property willingly, freely. We do not have a Great Society, we have a sick society, consisting of a bunch of people who think they are entitled simply to take without asking, a part of someone else's life. 

Barack Obama isn't the problem, but he's a really nasty symptom, the tragic hero in this farce. The real villain is the viewing audience, who selected him as the American Idol. Jumping the shark is usually the marker for the time when something begins its final death spiral. I hope I'm wrong about that. We can change it, but it will require  the re-education of a large number of citizens about lib-classic and constitutional principles. Studying The Federalist Papers. It could take generations. In the meantime, hang on tight. It's going to be a bumpy ride. 

Got Principles?

I believe that most of the problems facing this country at all levels of government derive from unprincipled citizens electing unprincipled leaders – the blind leading the blind.

When I say “unprincipled”, I mean people who do not understand – or people who reject – the principles of the American form of government: constitutional government. Mind you, unprincipled does not mean “unscrupulous”. Nevertheless, the unscrupulous can easily take advantage of the unprincipled. It is a dangerous combination.

Many people think tea partiers and property rights wonks are a bunch of anarchists. We do not want anarchy; we want the level of limited government that will maximize liberty and justice for all. We believe humans are happiest when we are free to make our own decisions and take responsibility for our own lives.

In the chart below, you can see that self-determination coincides with maximum liberty. Liberty suffers in a totalitarian state, as it does in a state of anarchy. We are called “far right” because in recent decades, the political window has moved so far to the left. We actually want something closer to the center.

This chart is not to scale -- assuming a scale even exists. It is merely to illustrate the relationships being discussed here.
Red is on the far left (of course), and violet is on the far right. Yellow-green is optimal. 

Government derives its just authority from the consent of the governed. Our constitutions and charters are the official specifications for our government. They are the instruments of all government authority. Any regime that distorts or disregards the documents that they swore an oath to uphold and defend are untrustworthy and dangerous. It is crucial that we adhere to these documents, or amend them as needed, with the consent of the governed.

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground. ~ Thomas Jefferson

Elected leaders: I am sure that you have doubts from time to time about some of the votes you cast in session – where you might go either way. When that happens, I would only ask that you please give liberty the benefit of the doubt.

President Obama Suggests SCOTUS "Activist"

President Obama has said that it would be "activist" for the United States Supreme Court to find ObamaCare unconstitutional. He knows that conservatives dislike activist supreme court justices. He is trying to flip the definition on its head. The Supreme Court is supposed to provide checks and balances on the other two branches and vice-versa. President Obama knows that; he is demagogue-ing his head off.

The Constitution of the United States is still the official specification for the US government; the binding contract between the United States and We the People: Any regime that distorts or disregards it is untrustworthy and dangerous.

Obama noted that for years, conservatives had been arguing that the "unelected" Supreme Court should not adopt an activist approach by making rather than interpreting law, and held up the health legislation as an example. (Continue reading...)

For Emperor Algae Solyndra to suggest that the Supreme Court would be “activist” to declare a law unconstitutional when said law violates the most basic constitutional principles is ludicrous on its face. But a nation of unprincipled* voters, who would elect a poseur such as Barackula Hussein Ogabe would have no understanding of that. They would believe The One. Dangerous times indeed.

*Unprincipled doesn’t mean unscrupulous. An unprincipled person is simply someone who doesn’t understand how something is supposed to work. It would be like automobile drivers who don’t know the rules of the road. They’re a menace to everybody – including the ones who do understand the principles.

SOPA Support Crumbles under Pressure

A few days ago, I posted a letter I sent to my representatives in Washington, D.C. Apparently, it (and millions like it, as well as Google blacking out their logo, and Wikipedia going completely dark) got their attention. Heritage Action for America reports:

This week, controversial legislation that could result in government censorship of the internet and stifle innovation came under fire. Supporters of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect IP Act (PIPA), which claim to crack down on online piracy overseas, started peeling off the bills.

A day before any popular websites launched protests on Wednesday, Heritage Action released its key vote against SOPA and PIPA. It was picked up around the country, and thanks to dedicated conservatives taking action, made a big difference in Congress: (Continue reading...)

Keep slogging, anti-kakistocrats! It's an uphill battle. The natural progress of things is to deteriorate without maintenance. Our liberty requires maintenance.

Ferndale Oath of Office

On Tuesday, January 3, I witnessed the new members of the Ferndale City Council being sworn in. Here's what they promised, in front of God and everybody:

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the State of Washington, and that I will faithfully and impartially perform and discharge the duties of the office of [Title of Appointed Official] in and for the County of Whatcom, State of Washington, according to law and to the best of my ability, so help me God.

It is important to note that The Constitution of the United States and the State of Washington are included therein. The question I intend to ask (whenever necessary) is, "Which article of The Constitution gives government the authority to do that?"

This isn't some kind of "gotcha" moment. I simply believe that this is a fundamentally important question to ask. We the People are sovereign; government derives its just power from the consent of the governed. Those powers (and no more) are enumerated in The Constitution(s) and the City of Ferndale charter, as granted to government on our behalf by our forebears when they ratified or amended those documents.

Public Comment – Concerns Regarding Birch Bay Watershed Action Plan

Yesterday, I sent the following letter to the Whatcom County Planning Commission:

---

December 9, 2011

Karl A. Uppiano
5988 Malloy Ave.
Ferndale, WA 98248

File Copy – Whatcom County Planning Commission
5280 Northwest Drive
Bellingham, WA 98226

Subject: Public Comment – Concerns Regarding Birch Bay Watershed Action Plan

Dear Planning Commissioners:

I want to share my impressions of the public hearing last night. You may remember me; I was the only one who spoke on the principles of good government.

All through the meeting, I kept thinking of a quote by Ian Malcolm from Jurassic Park: “[they] were so preoccupied with whether they could that they didn't stop to think if they should.” A lot of the second part of the proceedings was devoted to how many angels could dance on the head of a pin, but no one questioned the forgone conclusion about whether the Birch Bay watershed actually needs fixing, and if so, whether the government should do it. Where does this authority come from?

• One commissioner noted that there was “overwhelming support” for this measure.

No, there was the predictable parade of NIMBYs, environmental extremists, vested interests (e.g., Sustainable Connections, contractors, consultants, etc., whose job it is to promote these measures), and only a smattering of people, including me, who questioned the fundamental premise – whether the proper role of government is controlling individual behavior.

• Several commissioners expressed concern about the size and complexity of the measure.
• At least one commissioner was concerned about the likelihood that the regulations would change over time.

James Madison addressed both concerns 230 some odd years ago, in The Federalist:

The internal effects of a mutable policy are still more calamitous. It poisons the blessing of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?

• One commissioner noted (as justification?) that if the county does nothing (or even if it does something), ever more stringent state regulations will follow.
• More than one commissioner was concerned that what is now voluntary will become mandatory.

Thomas Jefferson: “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.” As citizens, it is our duty to resist “the natural progress of things”. The natural progress of things is to deteriorate without maintenance. We the People must maintain our liberty at all levels of government. Government won’t restrain itself – that much is obvious, or should be.

• One commissioner mentioned that the county wants to help the people of Birch Bay, who want this.
• One commissioner suggested CAPR testimony should be disregarded. (Seriously?!)

Jefferson again: “The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits.”

• One commissioner suggested that if this is voluntary, why not simply publish the LID materials, and leave it at that?

Why not indeed? Instead of collecting government grants, and lobbying for the government to force people to go where they would not go voluntarily, why don’t the ReSources and Sustainable Connections people (and all the rest of the ICLEI/Smart Growth/Sustainable Development crowd) manufacture environmentally friendly LID products and educational materials that they can sell for a profit, in order to purchase buffers and offsets with their own money, and fund their own environmental public awareness campaigns and how-to programs? For the answer to that question, you need to understand that for many, the environment is nothing more than a convenient tool used shamelessly to promote a collectivist, illiberal agenda.

• Several commissioners expressed concern for the amount of time, effort and expense already spent for research and development on this project and the potential waste if it fails.

That’s a valid concern, but two wrongs don’t make a right. Again, we have to question the fundamental premise: Is this necessary? Is it proper?

I realize that quoting our dusty old founders might seem quaint, except for one thing: They had a lot invested in the American form of government, and the principles that they established as necessary for good government are still the official specification for the United States: the federal, state, and local constitutions and charters. These supreme laws have not been rescinded, but merely disregarded in recent years.

Once government becomes activist, picking winners and losers, working on behalf of one special interest or another, it becomes a fraud magnet – susceptible to lobbying, special interests, waste. Those problems are much less severe when government sticks to its affirmed purpose: that of protecting the civil liberties of all citizens, equally. I believe it is possible – preferable – to protect our natural resources without forfeiting our natural rights.

Respectfully Submitted,

Karl A. Uppiano

---

You may not feel that this is relevant to you if you live outside Whatcom County. If that is the case, then I would encourage you to Google "Sustainable Development", "Smart Growth", "ICLEI" and "Agenda 21". Then, attend your city and county council meetings. Be prepared for a shock. You might discover that, at the behest of environmental extremists, the government has made you a mere tenant on your own property. You can still develop and use your land, but only in very special ways, after paying the government exorbitant fees for the permission to do so. Tried any remodeling lately?

You're the 99%? What's the Problem?

Dude, if you're the 99%, then what in blazes is your major malfunction? Are you telling me that one percent of the population has you and all of the world's power and wealth cornered? Tell me another!

I certainly do not support corporatocracy (or union-ocracy) but if it weren't for the kakistocracy, we wouldn't be in this mess. An activist government is a fraud magnet. When government goes around trying to make the world "nice" by choosing winners and losers, and regulating everyone "for the good of the planet" or "for the good of society", that's when the special interests selfishly begin lobbying government to make their lives easier. If everyone had equal justice instead of social justice, then everyone could duke it out in the real world of good luck, bad luck, and the school of hard knocks and real work, on a truly level playing field -- not a government mandated one that gives special advantages to arbitrarily chosen "victim" groups, species and planets.

Here's life's first lesson: life ain't fair. I don't expect it to be. You shouldn't either. Government cannot make it so. Any government that governs against natural law is bound to fail. It is our individual duty -- not government's -- to help those less fortunate among us, including nature. True, some people are greedy, heartless bastards. But using government to force them to "play nice" (who gets to define "nice"?) always has, and always will, backfire.

Hear me now, and believe me later: to make the world a better place, the founders gave us the First Amendment. It's a great tool; you should try it. You can convince people to follow your lead -- voluntarily. You can convince people to join your church -- voluntarily. But the non-establishment clause says that you cannot make it mandatory.

If our politicians would follow The Constitution that they all take an oath to uphold and defend, the problems that we are facing today would be far less severe. Bailouts to large banks? Unauthorized. Take-over of the automobile industry? Unauthorized. Fraudulent grants to "green" industries? Unauthorized. The enumerated powers are very short, but the list of shame goes on.

The Current Regime is Giving Kakistocracy a Bad Name

In a well-choreographed move, Obama and the Democrats have managed to not pass a budget while simultaneously spending us into oblivion. Spending us into oblivion is a deliberate scheme invented by Cloward and Piven, to collapse the current free market, capitalist, constitutional system, in order to usher in full-blown socialism, thus relegating large segments of the population to degrading government dependency and zero productivity.

Now that the Republicans are insisting on a responsible budget, the Democrats are attempting to blame their self-induced government shutdown on the Republicans. They know full well that a government shutdown will anger a lot of people. They know that congress will continue to be paid, while military families will not. They know that even conservative or pro-military people will be angry at the Republicans, if the Democrats can shift the blame.

Now, I'm usually not a big fan of Democrats or Republicans. But in this case, the Republicans are doing the hard thing, the politically risky thing, the right thing, despite the Democrat setup. Oh, and one other thing: it was a 2010 election promise.

You have to love Michele Bachmann, who has pledged to donate her congressional salary to the military for the duration of any government shutdown. Democrats, take note: Michele Bachmann is what a true leader looks like. It's easy when you follow the Constitution.

Update: I know that some people are disappointed that the Republicans "caved" with the budget compromise. I am too, up to a point. But "Tea Party" Republicans moved the needle in the right direction.

“We control one half of one third of the government,” Darrel Issa, a California Republican told reporters. “We don’t mandate anything.”

Here's a play-by-play of what went down over the last month or so of negotiations.

'Progressives' have been relentlessly attacking our founding principles and the American form of government for 100 years. People are just waking up to that fact, and we're not going to fix it in one session of congress. Slow and steady wins the race. We won't make any significant progress until we re-acquaint the majority of our population with the founding principles of the American form of government. The government-run, union-run public schools have a gigantic conflict of interest when it comes to liberty and equal justice under the law. Repairing the education system in this country must be our first priority. The sooner we get started, the better. Because we won't see any significant improvement for a generation after that.

De-Fund Public Broadcasting

I like to watch PBS every now and then, when they have a good symphony, or a Fleetwood Mac reunion, or a Roy Orbison concert -- stuff like that. I was channel surfing last night, and I stopped to watch a music program on KCTS. At the bottom of the screen, they were running a crawler that said, "Congress to vote on de-funding public broadcasting. Call your congressman." Since I'm a good little do-bee, I decided to write (not call) my congressman:

Dear Congressman Larsen,

Support for public broadcasting comes in part from mandatory contributions from taxpayers like me. Which article of The Constitution gives government the authority to do that? I can find no such authority. Please de-fund public broadcasting.

If PBS and NPR want to run a non-profit, non-commercial broadcasting system with voluntary support from various politically active organizations such as the Tides Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and with voluntary support from various corporations and with voluntary contributions from viewers like you, then I'm fine with that.

If public broadcasting were to run programming that is consistent with my interests and core values, I might even voluntarily divert a portion of my own hard-earned income from other charitable causes. In light of recent events, however, I now know that public broadcasting is not consistent with my core values. Nevertheless, the IRS siphons a portion of my earnings out of every paycheck for public broadcasting. I am not at liberty to decide for myself. Please de-fund public broadcasting.

The "recent events" that I mentioned in my letter refer to a "sting" operation in which James O'Keefe recorded video of NPR CEO Ron Schiller making derogatory remarks about conservatives and the tea party movement (among other things), and posted it on the Internet. The video attracted widespread attention, and Mr. Schiller was relieved of his duties at NPR.

In the interest of fairness, I will link to this article, which is quite critical of the James O'Keefe video that brought down NPR CEO Ron Schiller. However, after all is said and analyzed, this article does not exonerate Schiller so much as it slimes James O'Keefe. I am not a big fan of O'Keefe's tactics, but I think we deserve to know what the leaders of organizations receiving public funds really think.

In the end, the question isn't whether public broadcasting is a worthy cause; it is whether government has the constitutional authority to subsidize it. If we really want it, then we'll voluntarily pay for it out of our own pockets, not someone else's.

The Failure of Limited Government

Our founders realized that any government that works against human nature is bound to fail. Therefore, they designed a government that works with human nature, and man's desire to be free – a government with liberty and equal justice as its central theme.

The one place they had to compromise was in their realization that all politicians lust for power, and that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. They implemented checks and balances, and tried to create a limited government – limited by The Constitution and further limited by the Bill of Rights (in case people didn't "get" the enumerated powers in The Constitution).

Limited government is the one place where the American form of government bucks human nature, and guess what? It is the only place the original design has failed. No one can say we have limited government today.

Founding Principles For Dummies

Sometimes people think that this nation's founding principles are inaccessible or difficult to understand. Actually, they are dead easy.

We have two main documents: The Declaration of Independence, and The United States Constitution. The Declaration of Independence (the preamble, mainly) describes the principles and values that the founders embraced (the why). The Constitution is the specification for the government that would implement those values (the how).

Here is the why:

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

(Emphasis mine). The document then goes on to list the grievances against King George and the government of England. This is why we fought the American Revolution. I quoted the entire preamble, because it is as beautifully written English as I have ever seen.

The highlighted section describes the simple principles to be specified by the Constitution and implemented by the federal government. Thomas Jefferson (the primary author) asserts that it is a given that all men are created equal, and not birth station, race, or gender sets them apart. That they have unalienable rights: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, to name only three (the actual number is infinite, and cannot be listed). Unalienable means that no man and no government can bestow or deny these rights, because they belong to the individual.

Therefore, the only powers that a government has, must come from individual citizens delegating their authority to the government. The US Constitution enumerates the powers that each of the three branches government has -- about 26 in all. All the rest (an infinite number) belong to the states, or the people. Because the list is infinite, it is only possible to list the ones we grant to the government, and not the other way around. The states and the people ratified the US Constitution, thereby agreeing that We the People delegate to the federal government, 26 of our unalienable rights. For the government to take on more rights and responsibilities without officially amending the US Constitution would amount to usurpation and alienation of our rights.

Many of the states feared that politicians could not be trusted not to usurp their authority. There was fear that some states would not ratify the Constitution without a Bill of Rights. James Madison, the primary author of the Constitution, felt that the enumerated powers and the consent of the governed would be sufficient to prevent usurpation. He felt that listing certain rights would focus attention on those rights, and thereby make usurpation of other rights just that much more likely. Madison relented; therefore, the first ten amendments comprise the Bill of Rights. Just to make sure, though, the tenth amendment says,

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Re-iterating Madison's contention that the government can only assume rights and responsibilities delegated to it by We the People.

It turns out, James Madison was right: Over the past 100 years, the federal government has usurped rights without our consent; without any corresponding constitutional change granting that power. Politicians' lust for power and control is so pervasive that enormous bureaucracies have usurped so many liberties, that we are now fighting just to protect the scraps in the Bill of Rights. For example, the first and second amendments are in serious danger with things like the Orwellian "fairness doctrine", "net neutrality" and gun control.

The Constitution Is a "Living Document" -- Not!

As an outgrowth of the post-modernist movement (the philosophy that there is no objective truth, and that everything is relative), comes the "progressive" claim that the US Constitution is a "living document". Post-modernism raises self-serving B.S. to the level of an academic philosophical movement that claims that everything means pretty much whatever you want it to mean -- even things written in the past by authors who had a very specific meaning in mind. Post-modernists claim that it is possible to "discover" meaning that even the original author did not envision. It strikes me more as a license to make stuff up, than any sort of rigorous discipline.

I don't know if post-modernism grew out of a conscious effort to deconstruct the Constitution, or if "progressives" picked up on post-modernism as a tool to misrepresent its original intent. I have to doubt that even the "progressives" believe that the Constitution is a living document, though they might have convinced themselves through constant repetition.

One has to wonder, though, what use any constitution is, if it can mean whatever anybody wants it to mean -- in particular, those in power. What protection does it afford against tyranny? Balancing liberty and government power was the original intent of the Constitution. Deconstructing the Constitution renders it inoperative, and endangers everyone's liberty. If parts of the Constitution have become obsolete, we amend it according to the procedures specified therein -- by the consent of the governed.

The Slavery Issue

"Progressives" like to argue that the founders were hypocrites for all this lofty talk about liberty, yet they owned slaves. This argument is so easily refuted, that I find it interesting that they still use it. However, most people are not familiar with any evidence to the contrary. Why is something so important not taught in school?

John Adams recalled in 1822, how the Continental Congress arrived at the decision to have Thomas Jefferson draft the Declaration of Independence:

The subcommittee met. Jefferson proposed to me to make the draft. I said, 'I will not,' 'You should do it.' 'Oh! no.' 'Why will you not? You ought to do it.' 'I will not.' 'Why?' 'Reasons enough.' 'What can be your reasons?' 'Reason first, you are a Virginian, and a Virginian ought to appear at the head of this business. Reason second, I am obnoxious, suspected, and unpopular. You are very much otherwise. Reason third, you can write ten times better than I can.' 'Well,' said Jefferson, 'if you are decided, I will do as well as I can.' 'Very well. When you have drawn it up, we will have a meeting.'

A meeting we accordingly had, and conned the paper over. I was delighted with its high tone and the flights of oratory with which it abounded, especially that concerning Negro slavery, which, though I knew his Southern brethren would never suffer to pass in Congress, I certainly never would oppose.

(Emphasis mine). Well, I had never heard about this before. What did Jefferson say about slavery? A few seconds after Googling "declaration of independence first draft", I had this. Near the end of the list of grievances, Jefferson writes:

he [King George] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it’s most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.

Those do not sound like the words of a man who endorses slavery! I never saw that in school! What I do see is all kinds of sordid innuendo about Thomas Jefferson and his slaves by "progressive" historians. Why then, did Jefferson own slaves? Well, life isn't simple. He inherited them. Jefferson knew that he could not simply free his slaves without a viable environment to release them into.

The reality is that it was politically unfeasible to abolish slavery at the time of the revolution. Before we could do that, we had to win our independence. Then we had to get a Constitution ratified. Neither of which could have happened if the founders had forced the slavery issue. Even with the principles of liberty and freedom in the founding documents, it nearly destroyed this country when we finally did get around to it. The United States was one of the first nations officially to abolish slavery. The founders were among the first to propose the ideas of individual liberty and self-government, implying the abolition of slavery as part of a system of government. It took a while for policy to catch up in practice.

The founding documents are crucial to our continued liberty and protection from tyranny. The US Constitution is still the official specification for our United States. It protects liberty and justice for all, your individual liberty and your property rights. Any regime that distorts or disregards its original intent is untrustworthy and dangerous.

The Reactionary Conservationist

Funny, I was brought up to be a conservationist -- when my family went camping, we kids were exhorted to leave the place cleaner than we found it, and not to leave messes or damage the plants or animal habitat.

I think that's all fine and dandy. But I am getting so tired of the green this and green that hype, especially when it's mandated by the government and not based on science that I accept, that I've become a bit reactionary. Today I'm more inclined to do something specifically to piss off the environmentalists, even when it goes counter to my personal inclinations. That's what happens when ideologues get control of an activist government.