The Trouble With Communism

'Capitalism' was a word coined by Karl Marx as a term of derision for free market economies. Knowing this, I refuse to call it capitalism anymore. But I digress. Jordan Peterson explains the fundamental errors in the Communist Manifesto. 

This must have been part of a symposium about forms of government, or political systems. There are two other panel members with very dour looks on their faces, which leads me to believe that they are from a different school of thought from our friend JP.

When All Else Fails, Manipulate the Data

According to the New York Times (of all places), after decades of collecting health insurance statistics, the US Census is going to change the metrics, at exactly the same time a major change in health insurance policy is taking place. What scientist or statistician does that, unless their intent is to hide the true effects of this change? (The vulgar term for hiding the truth is called "fraud", as in "the regime is a fraud", or "the King is a fink!"

This is the lowest our government has ever sunk, the worst regime in my lifetime, and I lived through the Nixon years! Where are the torches and pitchforks?

One World Government

A couple of posts back, I said that President Obama was scheming against the interests of America and its citizens. To prove that I am not some tinfoil hat fringe lunatic (well, maybe I am, but not because of this), I provide this link to a document by the Obama regime (our government until we change it in November, God willing).

While you're waiting for the 2.24 megabyte PDF to download, I'll describe the highlights. The document is entitled, "Global Governance 2025: at a Critical Juncture". If the title doesn't give you chills, maybe the first paragraph of the Preface will:

The United States’ National Intelligence Council (NIC) and the European Union’s Institute for Security Studies (EUISS) have joined forces to produce this assessment of the long-term prospects for global governance frameworks. This exercise builds on the experience of the two institutions in identifying the key trends shaping the future international system. Since the mid 1990s, the NIC has produced four editions of its landmark Global Trends report. The most recent one, Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World, published in late 2008, noted that momentous change was ahead, with the gap between increasing disorder and weakening governance structures widening. The EUISS produced the first EU-level report on the factors affecting the evolution of the international system in 2006, The New Global Puzzle. What World for the EU in 2025? The report stressed that a multipolar system is emerging and that matching the new distribution of power with new rules and institutions will be critical to preserving international peace and stability.

The idea that peace and stability comes from global governance is as laughable as it is spooky. I suppose a centralized government that was sufficiently domineering could suppress human nature. Humans have always had their differences. That is why we have separate religions, separate states, separate political systems and so on. It is human nature to compete, to invent, to form groups that include some and exclude others. Our founders understood that any government that attempts to govern against natural law (including human nature) is bound to fail, as we saw with the old USSR, to name just one.

Then there's this, from Chapter 1:

Climate change has trespassed the boundaries of environmental politics to become the subject of the global political, economic, and security debate and a new focus of multilateral cooperation cutting across these and other domains.

...spoken with all the usual 'progressive' assertiveness that Anthropogenic Global Warming is a foregone conclusion. Despite the fact that the AGW hypothesis is not predictably reproducible (i.e., it's untestable, and therefore unscientific by definition) -- and despite mounting evidence to the contrary, it is essential to the 'progressive' agenda.

The biggest problem that I see with global government is a lack of diversity. Today, if I want to be oppressed, there are plenty of countries where I can go to be oppressed, especially in the Middle East. If I want to be free, there are plenty... no wait... The United States... no wait... not anymore -- although the US is still one of the freest nations in the world, which explains why we have an illegal immigration problem (as opposed to an illegal emigration problem, like the old Soviet Union and Cuba).

The last time I checked, the United States was a sovereign nation as defined by The Constitution. I do not appreciate presumptuous 'progressives' taking liberties with my liberty, and nullifying our constitutional sovereignty without the consent of the governed. And I'll be damned if I'll give my consent.

The Natural Progress of Things

I presented this to the Whatcom County Council in open session four weeks ago.

Honorable council members,

I made a new year’s resolution to attend each council meeting, because I was becoming alarmed at the geometrically increasing burden by all levels of government on our liberty. Our tax bill keeps growing in order to finance the increasing criminalization of normal human activity. Then, we’re told, we still aren’t paying our “fair share”.

So, I have sat fairly quietly in the peanut gallery since January 2012, watching as every two weeks, another raft of plans, grants, resolutions and ordinances pass. Sure, some fail, but never is anything repealed to make room for the new stuff. In general, the burden just gets heavier. Where does it end?

Seriously, what is the end game – total domination? I am fond of quoting Thomas Jefferson, who said, “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground.” It’s just so many words until you see it in action for a few months. But this has been going on for decades! Liberty rots without maintenance.

I hear all these lofty concepts and ideas with names like conservation, watershed, habitat, preservation… but invariably, invariably, the proposed action – the implemented action – involves the transfer of property from private ownership and private stewardship, to government ownership and government control, as if somehow, government would do it better than someone who invested their life’s work earning it.

Rent-seeking NGOs and non-profits exist for the sole purpose of promoting an agenda that you know at least half the public doesn’t agree with. These groups spend their days lobbying and litigating government even at our expense, to impose their views on the rest of us – it’s their day job – while the rest of us work at our day jobs, trying to mind our own businesses to support our families. We the People elect representatives – you – to protect our right to make our own choices. It is discouraging to see you do the exact opposite – and join forces with them.

I’m up here now because of the ag preservation discussion at the last meeting. There was zero mention of individual liberty. Now, I would expect the “progressives” to think, “This land was made for you and me” (sing along!), but even the conservatives among you questioned whether it was okay for a landowner to build a house on his own 40-acre lot. Which article of any constitution or charter grants you the authority to make that determination?

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground. In these council meetings, would it be so bad to err on the side of liberty? Thank you.

Karl Uppiano, etc.

Cyber Warfare -- Governments Developing Computer Viruses

Two articles caught my eye in the last week:

• 'Proof' Links Flame, Stuxnet Super Cyber Weapons: Researchers

Researchers say they have uncovered "proof" linking the authors of the Flame cyber espionage program to Stuxnet, the most powerful offensive cyber weapon ever developed -- both of which are believed to have targeted Iran.

• Obama’s data advantage

CHICAGO — On the sixth floor of a sleek office building here, more than 150 techies are quietly peeling back the layers of your life. They know what you read and where you shop, what kind of work you do and who you count as friends. They also know who your mother voted for in the last election.

I write software for a living. In recent years, most software vendors have become much more pro-active about hardening their software against security threats. If word of a vulnerability gets out, it is corporate suicide not to address the problem immediately. But this takes lots of time away from doing our primary job of developing programs that address what our customers really want: Programs that make them more productive or provide entertainment. It isn't that they don't want security, but addressing security concerns slows development and increases cost.

I just discovered our job got a lot more difficult and expensive. Until recently, most malware (i.e., computer viruses) was written by "hackers" who want to vandalize your machine, or by organized crime, which wants to steal your identity, and thus, your money. But now, two very sophisticated computer viruses have been discovered in the middle east that are so destructive, and so complex that they could only be developed by a nation-state: a government with the ability to print money or leverage its tax base for seemingly unlimited resources. But my employer doesn't have  unlimited resources. Not by a long shot.

So far, these weapons have been directed at Iran. Stuxnet successfully sabotaged Iran's nuclear program, by making computerized centrifuges spin out of control and fly apart. Flame is a spy tool. Suppose that a government wanted to aim its weapons at its own citizens, or at citizens in another country. We already have political candidates using computer data mining to get themselves re-elected. Who could stop it? Not the private sector.

Both Stuxnet and Flame have leaked out into the wild, which means everyday hackers and "script kiddies" will be able to use these powerful tools for their own nefarious purposes. Think of the dysfunctional computer nerd living in his parents' basement  -- or a crime ring -- with a pile of hand grenades. With these apps, it's essentially the same thing, only much harder to track. How much longer do you suppose the private sector will be allowed to develop software, when software is a military asset?

We're entering a brave new world, my friends.

Political Moneyball: The Conservative Strategy for Winning the Fight Coming After the Election

Kurt Schlichter, writing over at Andrew Breitbart's Big Government provides this advice to the tea parties:

The GOP Establishment we keep hearing about is real, and it is also doomed. That will not change whether the Establishment’s candidate Mitt Romney wins in November or not. After the election, the battle really starts; what is happening now are just skirmishes in a fight for control of the Republican Party. Not the soul of the party – if it had one, it auctioned it off long ago – but the mechanism of the party. The Grand Old Party matters only as a vehicle to carry our banner forward.

To do that, we need to seize control, and we do that by destroying the Establishment starting next November 7th. (Continue reading...)

This reminds me of what Dick Armey and Matt Kibbe said about the tea parties several years ago in a Wall Street Journal editorial, A Tea Party Manifesto: "The movement is not seeking a junior partnership with the Republican Party. It is aiming for a hostile takeover."

Restoring the US Government to constitutional fidelity will not be an overnight process. It is the long game.

Thanks to Dave and Maddie for sharing the Breitbart article.

How Liberals Think

This is from an email circulating on the Internet:

How liberals think on 10 major issues of the day:

1. The U.S. Constitution Is Unconstitutional

   According to liberal dogma, the Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution, and Bill of Rights are unconstitutional because all were crafted by an exclusive conclave of white male Christians.

   Women, Hispanics, African-Americans, Asians, gays, lesbians, transsexuals, the handicapped, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and the blind were all under represented, if at all.

   Because of this devastating lack of diversity, the Constitution must be regarded as a “living document,” subject to change in accordance with ever changing demographics and contemporary values.

2. Free Speech

   Freedom of speech must never be quashed, except for criticism directed at minorities and sensitive constituencies of the Democrat party.

   Burning Old Glory is protected free speech, whereas expressions of conservative values by people like Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage are unacceptable “hate speech,” which must be subjected to “fairness” censoring by the federal government.

3. Abortion, the Death Penalty and Assisted Suicide

   On issues of life and death, liberals are especially vulnerable to tripping on their own hypocritical double talk.

   Namely: A woman’s right to abort the life of an innocent child is inalienable; whereas execution of a convicted killer is cruel, unusual & barbaric.

   Starving a helpless victim like Terri Schaivo to death is acceptable; but using lethal injection to end the life of a brutal killer is not.

4. Religion

   Religious faith and belief in God are outdated pagan concepts, which do more harm than good. Sophisticated citizens can rely on the government for support from cradle to grave, obviating the need to rely on beliefs and rituals long since debunked.

   Symbols of Christianity such as the Ten Commandments, the Cross, Christmas trees, nativity scenes, and the like must be hidden from public view so as to offend no one.

   Publicly wishing a friend or family member “Merry Christmas” is clearly an act of civil disobedience and unconstitutional.

   While Christianity is to be suppressed at all costs, Islam must be openly promoted in the name of religious awareness, sensitivity and tolerance.

   The separation of state and government applies fully when dealing with Christianity or Judaism, but is irrelevant with regard to Islam and all other religions.

   Delivery of Christmas cards and gifts by the United States Postal Service is an unconstitutional violation of state-religion separation and must end immediately.

5. Taxes

   Leveling the playing field between haves and have-nots is the most important function of government, even more critical than national security.

   To support that objective, no government role is more essential than levying and collecting taxes, otherwise known as redistribution of wealth.

   Tax cuts are wrong when returned to people who actually paid taxes, but are perfectly fine when sent to those who paid none.

   Although most liberals deny that Jesus even lived, many use the quote in Matthew 22:21, “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s…” to justify higher taxes.

   Paying taxes is the “Christian Conservative” thing to do!

6. Marriage and Same-Sex Issues

   The traditional American family consisting of one man and one woman is just one of several possible arrangements, all of which are equally moral and acceptable.

   Marriage is no longer necessary to sanctify man-woman relationships.

   Although the institution of marriage is no longer vital to heterosexual partners, it is absolutely essential that same-sex couples be allowed to marry. To deny them that basic right is discriminatory, immoral, unfair, and clearly unconstitutional.

7. Racism, Diversity and Affirmative Action

   Liberals believe that discrimination based on race or gender is wrong. Except when waged against Caucasian men, in which case it is mandated by law and called Affirmative Action.

   “Our Diversity Is our Greatest Strength” is the liberal pledge of allegiance to socialism.

   Enforcing U.S. borders and immigration laws, including deportation of illegal aliens, is wrong because it targets Hispanics, obviously based on racial profiling.

   Those who support English as the official language of America are racists. But those who prefer Spanish and other foreign languages over English are not because of the inherent value of diversity.

   Conservatives who seek to preserve American language and culture are bigoted hate mongers, whereas new immigrants, including illegal aliens, must be allowed to maintain and celebrate their cultural heritage at all costs, even if it interferes with assimilation into mainstream America.

8. Preserving the American Dream for Working Class Americans

   According to liberal propaganda, they are the only hope for American families, notwithstanding the fact that Democrats support the influx of millions of illegal aliens who work for lower wages and without benefits, and drive down the standard of living for working families.

   Skyrocketing gasoline prices devastate working American families, but protecting Alaskan wild life is a greater priority.

   Businesses are oppressive institutions that must not be allowed to become too large and powerful. By contrast, government creates wealth & happiness and should be expanded whenever possible.

   Outsourcing of American jobs to foreign nations is driven by immoral corporate greed. By contrast, open borders and amnesty are acceptable because most illegal aliens are future Democrats.

   Huge profits are obscene and un-American, except when enjoyed by Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, George Soros, Oprah Winfrey, Ted Turner, and other liberals.

9. Global Warming, the Environment, and Energy Independence

   According to liberal technocrats like Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, Katie Couric, and Dennis Kucinich, global warming is a greater threat to the health and well being of humanity than terrorism.

   Some liberal extremists even think that the colors of the American flag should be changed to green, white, and blue so as to reflect the importance of the environment to our nation, while simultaneously deleting the color red, which symbolizes blood shed in illegal wars waged by Bushes 41 and 43.

10. Use of Military Force, Invading Foreign Nations

    Military force must never be used, except when needed to advance interests not vital to the United States, or to obscure a Democrat president’s sexual misconduct in the Oval Office.

    Invading a foreign nation is wrong, except when aliens from Mexico invade America.

Understanding liberal thinking is probably more trouble than it is worth. The more prudent action would be to take all necessary steps to assure that liberals are not elected or reelected to political office.

If you disagree with this list, click on "comments" below, and explain your position. I have some thoughts on a few points here myself, so I'll get the ball rolling with some comments of my own.

Modern History -- Unrevised

From an email that is circulating on the Internet:

This is just a history lesson and nothing can change it.

The day the Democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009. It was actually January 3rd 2007, the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress. The Democrat Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995. For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is "Bush's Fault", think about this: January 3rd, 2007, the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress:

• The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
• The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
• The Unemployment rate was 4.6%
• George Bush's Economic policies set a record of 52 straight months of job creation!

Remember that day -- January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee. The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy? Banking and financial services!

Thank you Democrats (especially Barney) for taking us from 13,000 DOW, 3.5 GDP and 4.6% unemployment... to this crisis by (among many other things) dumping 5-6 trillion dollars of toxic loans on the economy from your Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fiascoes! (BTW: Bush asked Congress 17 times to stop Fannie & Freddie -- starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy). Barney blocked it and called it a "Chicken Little Philosophy" (and the sky did fall!) And who took the third highest pay-off from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Obama! And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie? Obama and the Democrat Congress, especially Barney! So when someone tries to blame Bush, remember January 3rd, 2007: the day the Democrats took over!

Bush may have been in the car but the Democrats were in charge of the gas pedal and steering wheel. They were driving the economy into the ditch. Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress, and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat Party. Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 & 2011. In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases. For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budget.

And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009. Let's remember what the deficits looked like during that period. If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.

If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself. In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is "I inherited a deficit that I voted for, and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th."

I think that just about covers it...

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.

Kakistocrats? No, Saboteurs and Enablers

When I first created this blog in February 2009, I worried that the word kakistocracy (n., pl. -cies. Government by the least qualified or least principled citizens. [Greek kakistos, worst, superlative of kakos, bad; -cracy, government, regime]), might be a little too extreme, too over-the-top.

Looking back over the past two years, now I'm not convinced that "kakistocracy" even begins to describe the situation, what with unprincipled 'progressives', and uncourageous conservatives -- at all levels of government, topped off with a malicious administration. We don't have leaders, we have saboteurs and enablers. Given all that, rage seems like the only rational response.

Time to Start Playing Offense

Always after the fact, the Transportation Security Administration is playing defense with the terrorists.

• When terrorists first successfully hijacked airplanes with guns and knives, our government responded by requiring all innocent citizen travelers to submit to metal detector scans.
• When terrorists first successfully hijacked airplanes with box cutters and killed 3000 innocent Americans, our government responded by requiring all innocent citizen travelers to submit to metal detector scans and surrender all sharp objects.
• When terrorists first unsuccessfully detonated a shoe bomb aboard an airplane, our government responded by requiring all innocent citizen travelers to submit to metal detector scans, surrender all sharp objects, and remove their shoes.
• When terrorists first unsuccessfully detonated a shampoo bomb aboard an airplane, our government responded by requiring all innocent citizen travelers to submit to metal detector scans, surrender all sharp objects, remove their shoes and surrender all liquids.
• When terrorists first unsuccessfully detonated an underwear bomb aboard an airplane, our government responded by requiring all innocent citizen travelers to submit to metal detector scans, surrender all sharp objects, remove their shoes, surrender all liquids, and submit to full naked-body scans or intrusive pat-downs.

If government continues this pattern without a better plan,

• When terrorists first attempt to detonate a colon bomb aboard an airplane, our government will respond by requiring all innocent citizen travelers to submit to metal detector scans, surrender all sharp objects, remove their shoes, surrender all liquids, submit to full naked-body scans or intrusive pat-downs, and rectal probes.
• When terrorists first attempt to detonate a Tampax bomb aboard an airplane, our government will respond by requiring all innocent citizen travelers to submit to metal detector scans, surrender all sharp objects, remove their shoes, surrender all liquids, submit to full naked-body scans or intrusive pat-downs, and... well... what will We the People tolerate from our government?

Those full naked body scanners cannot detect explosives inside the body.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~ Benjamin Franklin

It is time for our government to stop responding -- playing defense -- and start playing offense. We Americans protesting TSA security procedures aren't ungrateful about the agency's attempt to enhance security, we're protesting the way it is being done. We demand something better. We know better options exist. We demand an end to politically correct pandering at the expense of our liberty and safety.

Education: The Elephant in the Room

Karen Karacsony posted this article on American Thinker:

For the first two hundred years of America's history, there was little in the way of public education. Thus, from the middle of the 17th century to the middle of the 19th century, education was most often a family affair (though churches, literary societies, and apprenticeships also contributed to the education of early America's youth).

As youngsters, our Founding Fathers were educated like most other children of early America. Of the six Founding Fathers, three were homeschooled: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison. Two were self-taught: Alexander Hamilton, and Benjamin Franklin (though Franklin did attend primary school for two years). And one, John Adams, was both homeschooled and privately taught (at a very small school). (Continue reading...)

Audience Wants to Say the Pledge of Allegiance

Least Qualified, or Least Principled?

Adapted from a speech that I gave at the Bellingham Tea Party ice cream social, on Friday, August 6, 2010.

How many readers know what the word kakistocracy means? Here it is again: kakistocracy n., pl. -cies. Government by the least qualified or least principled citizens. [Greek kakistos, worst, superlative of kakos, bad; -cracy, government, regime]

The unqualified don't know the terms and conditions set forth in the Constitution. They don’t know what they're doing, and they don't know what they're not supposed to be doing. They're simply wielding power over us, without direction or constraint. They might mean well, but they're unauthorized.

George Bush said "I've abandoned free market principles to save the free market system." He attempted to justify government usurpation of our Constitutional rights. He showed that he didn't know what he's not supposed to do -- very disappointing.

C.S. Lewis said "Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive."

But as bad as it is to have unqualified leaders -- who know not what they do -- unprincipled leaders are worse. Much worse.

Unprincipled leaders know the terms and conditions in the Constitution; they simply disagree with them. They see the Constitution as an impediment to their agenda, so they employ Machiavellian tactics to subvert the official specification for the United States of America. They work tirelessly to misrepresent the founding principles in schools, universities and the media.

The Constitution guarantees equal justice for all, and protects your life, liberty and prosperity. Any regime that distorts or disregards the Constitution is untrustworthy and dangerous.

Who's unprincipled? The usurper-in-chief and his minions and henchmen, Eric Holder, Rahm Emanuel, and a long list of unelected czars. About half of the Supreme Court who proclaimed -- in their confirmation hearings -- that they do not believe that the Constitution means what it says, or says what it means. They believe the Constitution is a "living document", to be interpreted as needed to achieve "social justice" instead of "equal justice".

But Bush is gone. Obama is here, and he's far more dangerous, in my opinion. We need to be aware of the danger, while simultaneously understanding Constitutional principles. The Obama presidency might be an interesting turning point, if we take away the right lessons. If McCain had won, I think we would have continued sleepwalking through history, instead of waking up. McCain and the others would have continued to usurp our liberties and mindlessly erode our constitution. Barack Obama's regime, on the other hand, is conducting a full frontal assault, with the pedal to the metal. And people are freaking out. Still, he'll do a lot of damage even after he's done. He's already appointed two justices who are the most radical and anti-Constitutional in our history. They'll be there for at least two generations, and they'll do untold damage. Bush's appointments won't do that.

If we hope to preserve our republic, we must elect principled statesmen who understand the founding documents. Who know the Constitution, chapter and verse, and who can explain where in the Federalist Papers, the supporting arguments can be found. This country has no room for kakistocrats of either kind.

I Want Your Money Trailer

Quotes by C. S. Lewis

Here are some brilliant quotes by C. S. Lewis, author of The Chronicles of Narnia. Of course, just because I agree with them doesn't make them true, but I believe them.

• We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.
• You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body.
• There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, "All right, then, have it your way."
• Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.
• Friendship is unnecessary, like philosophy, like art... It has no survival value; rather it is one of those things that give value to survival.

And I saved the best for last:

• Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.

Uphold and Defend in 2010!

If we want better government, then we need to vote for candidates who will swear to uphold the Constitution -- and then do it! Many of our elected officials simply have no idea what that entails. Still others believe that the Constitution is fundamentally flawed -- their oath of office is a lie.

The Constitution is neither lengthy nor mysterious. It is approximately 20 pages -- including all 27 amendments. You can read and understand it in a single evening. If you have questions, read the Declaration of Independence and the Federalist Papers to get a better grasp of what the founders were trying to accomplish. Contrary to "progressive" propaganda, it isn't difficult, and you don't need a Harvard law degree to do it.

I have made a checklist of things that we need in our elected officials, regardless of party affiliation. We need:

• Candidates who will remember that the Constitution is the official specification for the US Government.
• Candidates who will remember that the Constitution is the binding contract between We the People and the US Government.
• Candidates who understand that if elements of the Constitution have become obsolete, you amend it, you don't re-interpret it.
• Candidates who will remember that any regime that distorts or disregards the Constitution is untrustworthy and dangerous.
• Candidates who will remember that, if it isn't in the enumerated powers, it isn't authorized.
• Candidates who will remember that the founders never intended the "general welfare" clause as some sort of blank check to buy votes.
• Candidates who believe in the Bill of Rights -- all ten of them, including the second and the tenth -- and the enduring reasons why each one is still vitally important.
• Candidates who can't be bought with bribes from the party bosses to send your tax dollars to their state or district to advance the party agenda.
• Candidates who will remember that your money -- your property -- represents hours from your life that it took to earn it, and they had better spend your life sparingly and wisely, because it isn't theirs to take, and it isn't theirs to waste!

In order to restore trust in government, and truly promote the general welfare, we need to become constitutionally literate, and we must repopulate both parties with candidates who are constitutionally literate -- and then get them elected.

Oath of Office

In the midst of all of the impertinent campaign rhetoric, and all of the irrelevant campaign promises, there is really only one question that all candidates must answer to everyone's satisfaction: "If elected, you will be required to take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. What do you think that means?"

The Constitution is not some obsolete relic from a bygone era. The Constitution is the current, official specification for the US Government. It is the binding contract between the US Government and We the People. Any regime that distorts or disregards the Constitution is untrustworthy and dangerous. If their oath of office is a lie, how can we trust them with our liberty?

Buyer’s Remorse

You may have heard that some people are now experiencing buyer’s remorse from voting for Barack Obama. Perhaps they voted for Obama because he said he would benefit them, instead of voting for someone who would uphold and defend The Constitution, which benefits everyone. Although neither major presidential candidate in 2008 had solid constitutional bona fides, Barack Obama definitely held the short end of that stick.

It is hard to believe that Obama voters could not discern that he is a liberal, a socialist, a “progressive” – whatever you want to call it. And obviously radical to boot. All they had to do was listen to him. He used all the “progressive” memes and code words. So the problem is that the majority of voters must not know – or don’t care – that Obama’s principles are fundamentally at odds with the founding principles embodied in The Constitution.

The Constitution is the specification for the US Government. It is the contract between We the People and the US Government. Any regime that distorts or disregards The Constitution is untrustworthy and dangerous. How can Barack Obama – or any other “progressive” – even take the oath of office, and swear to God and to We the People, to uphold and defend the Constitution, if he rejects The Constitution and the principles it represents? Such a person is lying to God and everybody on inauguration day! The fact that there isn't national outrage speaks volumes about us.

As long as we remain constitutionally illiterate, as long as political parties continue to nominate, and as long as we continue to elect anti-constitutional politicans to public office, then buyer’s remorse will be a given.

Scott Brown Wins in Massachusetts

Well, Scott Brown won the election to determine Ted Kennedy's successor in the Senate. I am not going to gloat, but I am going to thank God for this gift. The oppressive health care reform bill is by no means dead, and cap & trade still looms. At this point, the radical "progressives" may back down for now, or they may double down instead. It is anybody's guess.

Since Barack Obama's favorite word is "audacity", and since he hails from Chicago, my money is on the double down. However, Congressman Barney Frank, in an uncharacteristic fit of reasonableness, said this:

I have two reactions to the election in Massachusetts. One, I am disappointed. Two, I feel strongly that the Democratic majority in Congress must respect the process and make no effort to bypass the electoral results. If Martha Coakley had won, I believe we could have worked out a reasonable compromise between the House and Senate health care bills. But since Scott Brown has won and the Republicans now have 41 votes in the Senate, that approach is no longer appropriate. I am hopeful that some Republican Senators will be willing to discuss a revised version of health care reform because I do not think that the country would be well-served by the health care status quo. But our respect for democratic procedures must rule out any effort to pass a health care bill as if the Massachusetts election had not happened. Going forward, I hope there will be a serious effort to change the Senate rule which means that 59 votes are not enough to pass major legislation, but those are the rules by which the health care bill was considered, and it would be wrong to change them in the middle of the process.

Perhaps this is the beginning of a bit more balance in Washington D.C., and some glimmer of hope for our liberty.