Say Anything Blog

When I first heard about the mass shooting at Fort Hood yesterday, the first thought that came to mind was “I bet it was a Muslim.”  And an hour later ,they released his name.  It wasn’t John Smith, Paul Kaslowski or even Jose Rodriguez.  It was Nidal Malik Hasan.  Sure, we have some home grown terrorists, Bill Ayres comes to mind, and we have serial killers.  In any society there have been evil individuals.  Muslims are different.  And you know what, I am sick and tired of hearing the disclaimer “but the vast majority of the Muslims are peace loving…”  No.  Maybe the vast majority have not committed any crimes…yet.  But few Germans were actually involved in murdering Jews but most rejoiced in German ascendency and either turned a blind eye or quietly assented to the killing.  There may be proportionally few Muslims who pick up a gun or fly a plane into a building or cut the heads off of journalists but the vast majority of the Muslims in the world smile quietly in approval.
    How can I make such a statement?  Because I know my history.  Islam is not a religion of peace, never has been, never will be.  Unlike the other major religions of the world that seek to persuade people through words and example, Islam was born of the idea that persuasion on pain of death was not only acceptable but expected as they spread across the globe and conquered the world.  Yes, I am aware of the crusades and the Inquisition.  But Christianity was conceived of in the words and example of Jesus who was not violent so while there have been men who have used religion for political purposes and made it violent, given time it reverted back to its origins.  Islam is different.  Mohammed didn’t have Jesus’ patience.  When people were not persuaded by whatever eloquence he may have possessed, he got a group of followers together and declared war.  His followers swept across Africa and Asia, killing all those who would not convert.  Their goal has been and always will be world domination under the Caliphate and Sharia law.  Unlike Christianity, whose goal is also to persuade the world of the correctness of their understanding of God, Islam believes holy war is the way to go because that is how it began.  It is not going to change because there is no peace loving distant past or textural interpretation of the Koran to support moderation.  Moderation is only a result of minority status in a particular country.  It is a situation that is to be remedied as soon as possible.
    How does this apply to this situation and the United State’s interaction with Muslims?  As I stated in “Memoirs of a Former American”, we have, up to this point, refused to take the war with Islam seriously.  Not a war with Islamic Fascists or Muslim Terrorists but with Islam as a whole.  They are at war with us, there is no question.  They have been attacking the “West” for centuries and petro dollars have made them powerful in the last fifty years.  We are “the Great Satan” and need to be destroyed.  They are serious and we are asleep.  They not only use terrorism but our own courts and our foolish adherence to political correctness against us.  We have a tradition in this country, a noble tradition, of not assuming guilt.  In this case, it needs to be reversed.  Every Muslim should be looked on with suspicion unless proven otherwise.  The FBI should have plants and informants in every Mosque and any anti-American preaching should result in the expulsion of the guilty party.  Immigration from Muslim countries should be halted immediately.  There should be no Muslims in the military (would we have allowed Nazis during WWII or communists during the cold war?) and no Muslim clerics allowed in prisons where they have been recruiting and radicalizing the most violent members of our society for years.  CAIR and other Muslim organizations should be investigated and prosecuted for their support of terrorism. 
    Harsh measures for sure but do you think Americans are welcome in Muslim countries?  Do they not persecute their Christian populations with much harsher measures?  How many massacres, how many honor killings, how many terrorist acts do we have to endure?  Do they not laugh at our weakness?  Are they not just waiting for their numbers to grow as they have in Europe so they can impose their will on us?  If they want to practice the Muslim faith, stay in a country where is to the norm, there are plenty of them.  If we refuse to take the threat of Islam seriously, fifty years from now we will be where Europe is now, with open conflict with Muslims as they push for Sharia law and display open contempt for their “:host country”.  What comes after that, we will have to watch and see but whatever it is, it won’t be pretty.  They have declared war on us.  Are we going to join the battle or roll over and give in?

http://www.patricksamuels.com

A Violation of Contract

  On September 28, 1787 fifty-five delegates from the states, after several months of deliberation, presented a wholly new form of government to the states and the people for their consideration.  The purpose of this government was outlined in the preamble:
“We, the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

    This was the culmination of the principles of the Declaration of Independence.
“..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 of these ends, it is the Right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

  “We the people”  of the several states had agreed to form a government for a specific purpose.  Any such government formed with the “consent of the governed” is now an entity in and of itself and it has a contract with the people.  The people contract with this entity, relinquishing some part of their liberty and money, for the purposes of accomplishing ends they cannot achieve individually.  Regardless of what President Lincoln said about the government being “of the people, by the people and for the people”, the government, once formed, is an entity in and of itself, just like a corporation, an “individual” separate from the actual people that make it up.  However, in a democracy or representative republic, the rights of the people under the contract become obscured because we feel we are part of the government that it is “of the people” because we elect the people that run it.  If those people become despotic and trample on our liberty or steal our money, we are more inclined to accept it because in some sense, we voted for it.  This is not how we should think of it, however.
  Instead of a representative republic, let’s say that we had set up an absolute ruler for life.  We eliminated any elected officials and set up a king to make our decisions and applied all the constitutional limits, including the bill of rights, to this king.  What we would have done was make a contract with an individual rather than a corporation of elected officials.  We would have given him specific powers and expected him to perform according to the terms of the contract.  If he violated that contract, stealing money for purposes not in the contract, restricting liberties guaranteed under the bill of rights, acting with favoritism and refusing to protect the people, we would consider that king in violation of the contract and we would be well within our rights to remove him and replace him with either another individual or a new system that we believe would be more effective in performing our stated desires.
  Of course, we do not have a king, at least not yet.  We have a group of elected representatives who are supposed to run the government in ways that fulfill the purposes of the contract.  If we elect someone who seeks power not provided for in the contract or who supports policies that will be detrimental to the stated purposes of the contract, we can remove them through election or impeachment.  It is like getting ready to eat an apple and finding a bruise on one side.  You can cut out the bad part and the apple is still good.  However, if the whole apple is rotten, there is no saving it.  Our government is rotten to the core, we have a systemic problem in which the specific terms of the contract as well as its stated purpose are violated as the rule rather than the exception.  The vast majority of the people in the Federal Government, both elected and appointed, who have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America, routinely ignore both its letter and spirit.  That being the case, “we the people” are justified in responding to those violations.  It is our right and duty, considering our posterity, to “alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government.” 
    Although the essays that follow will detail these violations, allow me a summary.  The purpose of the contract was to “establish a more perfect Union.”  A union of what?  Sovereign states who had sent representatives to the convention to better insure their cooperation as a national confederation.  These states have become, for all intents and purposes, simply political extensions of the Federal Government, which is the complete opposite of the original intent.  While within the first century of our history, the states theoretically had the right to withdrawal if they found their sovereignty threatened, the Federal Government under President Lincoln decided they no longer had that right.  States, like individuals, that are forcibly restrained lose their ultimate right of self determination and have liberty only at the behest of the ruler.  God given rights have become state given rights.
    “Establish Justice.”  Is there any justice in a country where those with the best paid lawyers or connections can get away with anything?  Where those who are entrusted with the power of government operate above the law?  Where rules and regulations are used to destroy those who threaten the power structure while those within that power structure ignore them with impunity?  Where individuals and groups are afforded privileged status not through merit but heredity?  The equal application of the law is the hallmark of a just society and is our only protection from the tyranny of man.
  “Insure domestic Tranquility.”  The purpose of government is to create an environment where the people can prosper in peace.  This requires sound economic policy.  As Thomas Jefferson said, government “should not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.”  The adoption of heavy taxes and policies that disincentive productivity are one thing.  Placing upon us debts we have no hope of repaying and destroying our currency is another.  There will be no domestic tranquility when the dollar collapses, the economy really goes in the toilet and people have trouble providing for their basic needs.  These policies are criminal and put us in grave danger.
    “Provide for the common defense.”  We have the greatest military the world has ever seen but we hamper it with politically correct rules and regulations that make it impotent, and have done so since the Vietnam War.  If we are not willing to do what is necessary to destroy the enemy, we will lose any conflict.  To make this worse, we now have an administration whose policy it is to coddle terrorists, cozy up to brutal dictators and allow our monetary policy and energy resources to be held hostage by countries who do not have our best interests at heart.  Add to that a decades long dereliction of duty in the enforcement of our borders and we have a government that has put us at risk economically and physically.  This is the most fundamental function of government, our common protection, and to expose the people of this country to harm through neglect or active policy is the height of irresponsibility.
    “Promote the general Welfare.”  This does not mean to create a welfare state!  This is to guarantee our right to the “pursuit of happiness.”  We should be able to pursue our desires and dreams on a level playing field unencumbered by onerous taxes and regulation.  The more government gets involved, the less level the playing field and the more of our wealth they confiscate.  Socialist democracies have found very creative ways to wring more and more money out of their people and ours is no different.  Politicians who believe they need to protect us from ourselves have passed the most restrictive and absurd regulations.  Government is responsible for maintaining a fair and just system and we are responsible for our actions within it.  Our government believes it is responsible for us, protecting us from our own failure and stupidity while punishing our success.  This is not freedom.
    “Secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”  Will our children be free when they suffer the consequences of our crushing debt?  Will we be free when the President, through his communist underlings, silences dissent in the media?  Will we be free to live as we want, eat what we want, live where we want, when the government decides what is good for us and what areas are environmentally acceptable?  Patrick Henry said that “Liberty ought to be the direct end of your government.”  Our liberty, and that of our children, is the last thing on this government’s mind.
    When the people agree to form a government they need to be vigilant to ensure that the terms of the contract are met.  We have not been.  We have had times when we traded freedom for security.  There have been times we have allowed government power to protect the greed of special interests.  We have submitted to pressure to do things “for the children” that have done nothing but ensure their slavery.  When we start to use government as a means to ends not within the parameters of the contract, there is no stopping it.  The person that uses it one day may find it used against him in the next.  As each new interest adds another layer of complexity and power, government grows and grows until it no longer becomes responsive to “we the people” but only to itself and the perpetuation of its power.  Once that happens, the contract becomes null and void and it is time to start over. 
 
Patrick Samuels
http://www.patricksamuels.com

Declaration of Independence

    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 nations of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which lead them to separation.
    We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, Property, 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 of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter, abolish or withdrawal from it and to institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing and limiting its powers in such a form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness, and secure their Liberty.  Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience has 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 and Duty to throw off such a government and to provide new Guards for their future security.  Such has been the patient suffering of the citizens of the United States of America in the State of ________ ; and such is now the necessity which constrains us to withdraw from from our voluntary association with the other states and the Federal Government of the United States of America.  The History of the Federal Government for more than a century has been one of continual and flagrant violation of the compact under which we agreed to live in unity as united states and through usurpations and injuries, it has reduced the liberty of individuals and the sovereignty of the states with the direct object of establishing an absolute tyranny.  To prove this, let these Facts be submitted to a candid world.

The national government, through word, law, and regulation, has made war on the free market system, private property and individual liberty, that have historically been the foundation of this nation and responsible for its strength and prosperity.

The congress has voluntarily relinquished its responsibility for drafting or even reviewing the legislation it passes, outsourcing the legislative process to special interest groups that have agendas often at odds with the well being of the citizens and the nation as a whole.

The congress has routinely written laws in ways that are unclear, or obscure their true intent, leaving their interpretation open to a variety of abuses, removing the protection of the law and exposing us to the tyranny of men.

The national government has refused to assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good, and has substituted laws and regulations that are injurious to the welfare and prosperity of the people.

The national government has burdened us with debts and obligations far beyond our ability to repay.

The members of congress and the administration have refused to be held accountable for illegal and criminal actions, setting themselves above the laws they have imposed upon the people.

The national government has multiplied departments and offices with the complicity or negligent consent of congress and has allowed these offices to multiply statutes and regulations that have the force of law with no input from the representatives of the people and no opportunity for redress.  These new offices have done little more than send swarms of new officials to harass the people and eat their substance.

The national government has refused to secure the borders of the United States from those who desire to do injury to its citizens and institutions.

The national government is seeking to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws and traditions.  Through treaties and obligations to the United Nations, it has sought to undermine the sovereignty of the citizens of this state and nation, and in so doing place us under an authority wholly unaccountable to us.

The national government has sought to bring suit against those whose duty is to protect us from foreign invasion and attack, trying them for acts not criminal under previous administrations nor according to the dictates of common sense. 

The national government has used and misused the military forces of the United States, imposing rules and regulations upon them detrimental to their stated mission and purpose.  Such actions unnecessarily jeopardize the lives of those who serve in the armed forces and emboldens the enemies that desire to do us harm.

The executive branch has embarked upon a course of foreign policy that serves only to anger our staunchest allies and strengthen our enemies.  It has also long pursued a course of action that has placed the acquisition of our most crucial resources dependent upon the whims of our enemies while unnecessarily restricting the development of those same resources domestically.

The national government has infringed on our right to adequately protect ourselves as we see fit as guaranteed under the Constitution.

The national government has forbidden the governors and legislators of the many states discretion in their affairs and has imposed burdensome regulations upon them while refusing to provide the means for their implementation.

The national government has by law codified discrimination, setting one class of citizens over another, when the other has been responsible for no wrong or injury to the priviledged class.

The national government, through word and statute, has shown contempt for the religious tradition largely responsible for the foundations of this nation and its system of law and justice, and embraced by the vast majority of its citizens, while tolerating and supporting religious traditions that lead to the degradation of society or seek to inflict physical harm upon the people and their institutions.

The national government, through regulation and statute, has made continual efforts to dilute the cohesive nature of our common language and culture.

The national government through legislation, treaty and judicial fiat, has continually eroded the privileges and responsibilities inherent within the family, seeking to substitute itself as the primary educator and caregiver of succeeding generations.

The national government has used the courts to impose upon its citizens policy they would never have agreed to through their elected representatives.  Those same courts have nullified referenda legitimately passed by the people of the states in their effort to reestablish some degree of control over their various destinies.

The national government had abrogated its responsibility for monetary policy, entrusting it to unelected officers, and has cooperated with their institution, adopting policies that will lead to the destruction of the national currency.

The national government has imposed a system of taxation that in in inherently unjust, placing heavy burdens on some while exempting others. Coupled with this system is a structure of subsidy in which wealth is taken from one citizen and given to another.  Such a system destroys the motivation for productive enterprise within the one who is forced to give and the recipient.

The national government has imposed a code of taxation of such complexity it perplexes even those whose are tasked with its enforcement, and provides an easy pretext for the government to find wrongdoing among its citizens.

The national government has abused its taxing authority, requiring payment not only for privildged endeavors but for the exercise of our fundamental rights, reducing us to mere servitude.

The national government has stated its intention to develop a domestic security force with powers equal to the military and accountable only to itself.  The purpose and targets of this force have not been made clear.

The national government has intimidated and coerced private businesses and financial institutions into accepting regulation and domination by the national government.

The national parties, in order to maintain their power, have used the law, intimidation and outright fraud to ensure their continual appointment, making a mockery of the electoral process.

The executive branch, without the required consent of the legislature, has taken upon itself the power to make war and peace, suspend at times the right of habeas corpus, utilize the treasury and impose regulations and orders with the force and penalty of law.

The national government has detained and murdered its citizens without due process or just compensation for the exercise of their rights under the compact of the Constitution or as a consequence of their ancestry.

The national government has appropriated for itself the power to confiscate the property of its citizens for any use whatsoever, without just compensation.

The national government has made repeated attempts to intimidate those who oppose its growing power through the exercise of their rights under the Constitution.  It has labeled them traitors and has sought to use the power of the government and its agencies to silence them.

    In every stage of these oppressions we have sought to petition our government in the most humble and orderly terms.  Our petitions have been answered only by ridicule and repeated injury.  A government whose character is thus marked by every act a tyranny,  is unfit to govern a free people.
    Therefore, in the interests of preserving the ideals and principles that made America the most free and prosperous nation in the world before they are completely obliterated by the totalitarian policies adopted by the National Government of the United States of America, And in order to insulate ourselves and our posterity from the disastrous results of the economic and moral policies long adopted by said government,  we, the representatives of the people of the Sovereign State of___________ and by their authority, do hereby relinquish all ties to the United States of America, Absolve ourselves of all allegiance to the same and dissolve all political connections, responsibilities and privileges of that union, and take our place among the free and sovereign nations of the world with all the rights and responsibilities of an independent state.  We do so appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions and relying on the Protection and Wisdom of Divine Providence.  We the Undersigned, do hereby pledge to one another our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor in support of this Declaration.

Patrick Samuels
author of “Memoirs of a Former American”
http://www.patricksamuels.com 

Does any state have the guts for this?
Even if the reader does not agree with the idea of secession, it is my hope that this compilation of abuses by out government will motivate the citizens of this great country to stand up and resist this rapidly evolving tyranny.

Is it All President Obama’s Fault?
A Look at the Constitutional System Through the Debate over Ratification

    The unrest we are seeing across this county is now on a scale not seen since the war protests of the sixties.  Yet this is very different.  Today’s protesters cross the socioeconomic spectrum, they are from both political parties and no political party.  What unites them is not age or drugs or religion.  What has brought all these Americans together is a mixture of anger and fear.  The fear is for the future, their own and their children’s.  They fear the results of too much spending and borrowing.  They fear an administration that puts those who disagree with them on watch lists and uses mob-like tactics of intimidation to get its way.  They are angry with a congress that rushes legislation through without reading it.  They are angry with a government that ignores their concerns, labels them with sexual innuendoes and is indignant when anyone dares question their wisdom or methods.  They are angry with a government that demonizes business for jets and junkets yet enjoys all those perks and more on our dime.  This list could go on and on.
    Most of these people are not mindless political operatives like the rent-a-mobs bused in by leftist groups.  These people know the issues, they understand basic American government, they know the Constitution and have a reasonably clear understanding that the government we have in Washington is not what was intended in 1776.  Most understand that this government has been overstepping it’s bounds for a long time and this energetic administration’s desire to expand it so much farther and at such a pace has finally coalesced opposition to the statist agenda.  How far the opposition is willing to go will determine its success.  If it is merely preoccupied with stopping the current agenda of health care, cap and trade and out of control spending, its effectiveness will be short lived.  The statist will merely pause, regroup and implement their agenda piecemeal or in another form.  Government has been growing nonstop for over a hundred years with only the slightest pause here and there.  If the goal is to roll back the Great Society programs and the New Deal, repeal the sixteenth and seventeenth amendments and dissolve the Federal Reserve, then there is some hope for restoring lost liberty and reversing our slide into tyranny.
    While President Obama’s ambitious agenda has provided the catalyst for liberty loving people to finally speak up, there is a larger question that must be asked.  Is President Obama and the statist agenda really outside the mainstream or is it a logical result of our system of government?  There are several possible answers to the first part of the question.  Those who love the tenth Amendment would say “yes”, this government has taken powers for itself that are far above and beyond the specifically enumerated powers enshrined in our foundational document.  Those who understand history could easily reply “no” and point to the fact that the history of the world has been, with few exceptions, a history of tyranny.  Every government seeks to expand its power as much as possible and our government has demonstrated that it is no different.  It has pushed and pushed and until now, we the people, have yielded.
    For those who love and respect the Constitution, the answer to the second part of the question is an emphatic “No!”  Many believe the Constitution to be an inspired document developed by brilliant men who put together a form of government with checks and balances that would be strong enough to do the necessary things government needs to do while safeguarding the liberty of the people.  While I agree that the Constitution outlines a form of government superior to most, it is not perfect and its flaws were evident to many during the ratification process.  Perhaps as the American people are asking questions about their government that haven’t been asked in a long time; questions like “what are the limits of government power”, “what is the proper role of government in our lives”,  perhaps we need to explore the more fundamental question of “is the form of government we have the most effective in securing the liberty of the people and safeguarding the ideals of the American Revolution?”  For years people have explored the possibility of a new constitutional convention to repair our broken system.  Such a move is met with fear by many but as we contemplate how best to restore our lost liberty, a look at the arguments and warnings from the losing side of the ratification battle in 1788 may be instructive.
    One thing to keep in mind when we talk about the Constitution is that it was formulated in what can only be described as a “bait and switch” plan.  Most delegates went to Philadelphia to amend the Articles of Confederation which, admittedly, had demonstrated serious inadequacies.  Instead, a whole new form of government was proposed.  What happened in 1787 we would call a coup today.  The delegates ignored the confederation’s rule of unanimity, circumvented the current congress and submitted its approval to special state conventions.  The plan was put before the people as an all or nothing proposition, there was no bill of rights or any other amendments.  Opponents like Patrick Henry said only a fool would buy a defective machine in the hopes of repairing it afterward.  In Pennsylvania they tried to get the legislature to move quickly on ratification and when some members stayed away to prevent a quorum from approving, a mob went out and dragged them into the chamber for the vote.  There were efforts in New York and Boston to suppress pamphlets critical of the constitution.  Opponents said the quick ratification by several states was done despite substantial opposition.  Some delegates readily admitted voting for the constitution against the wishes of their constituents.  Does any of this sound familiar?
    The greatest debate over ratification of the constitution was held in Virginia where passage was far from assured.  Passage in Virginia was crucial because without it the nation would be geographically split and deprived of the weight of one of the most powerful and prosperous states.  It was also pointed out by the proponents of ratification that George Washington would be ineligible for the presidency if Virginia failed to ratify.  So the battle was joined by two of the leading men not only of Virginia but of the nation; James Madison and Patrick Henry who stated, “I look upon that paper as the most fatal plan that could possibly be conceived to enslave a free people”.  Many of the quotes and concepts that follow will be from those men and others in the Virginia debate but there were opponents in other states whose voices will be included as well.
    First and foremost among the arguments against ratification was that the Constitution contained no “bill of rights”, something Virginia had adopted over a decade previous and which Patrick Henry had a large hand in creating.  Richard Henry Lee argued that if the constitution were to be adopted without any amendments, particularly without a bill of rights, the new government would be what he termed, an “elective despotism”.  James Madison argued vehemently against the inclusion of a bill of rights.  In reality the federalists did so because specific attention given to individual liberties would impair the efficiency of the powerful central government they wanted.  A scant decade after ratification, John Adams’ Sedition Act ignored even the explicit first amendment, demonstrating the underlying motives of the Federalists.  George Nicolas also stated in support of ratification that as long as the people remained virtuous and uncorrupted there would be no abuses by congress because the people would not tolerate them.  Patrick Henry immediately jumped on this assertion, stating that when virtue and revolutionary sentiment faded, there would be nothing to prevent a slide into tyranny.  Even the Declaration of Independence supports Henry’s point when it states “that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while the evils are sufferable, that to right themselves….”  Most people, then and today, want to go about their lives and not think about their government.  They don’t want to make the time to get involved.  After all, we elect people to “represent” us and they are supposed to do so with our best interests at heart.  So people are “disposed” to put up with little things, allowing them to accumulate until at some point they do become insufferable.  Today we see that reaction in the tea parties, the protests and the town halls.
    Henry argued that the defects needed to be remedied first and that the supporter’s contention that civil liberties were protected by “implication” as a most foolish notion.  He saw nothing but extreme danger in the use of “constructive power”.  He said, “If they can use implication for us, they can also use implication against us.  We are giving power, they are getting power;  Judge, then, on which side the implication will be used!”  The opponents of ratification believed the implied powers and vague language of the constitution made it too reliant on those who would be wielding the power.  If that was the case, the people were getting a government of men, not of laws.  Such a government cannot be trusted for any grant of power carries with it the seeds of oppression and unless the plant is closely watched and frequently pruned, tyranny will be the result.  If the administrators are just and honest, fine.  But a defective construction opens up a Pandora’s Box of evil if the administrators are less than virtuous.  The people were being asked to grant great power to the government and take the chance that they would not be abused.  Liberty cannot rest on the contingency of the people in charge being good or bad.
    We all know that power is a corruptive influence.  Any form of government could be implemented to protect the liberty of the people if the people running it decide to respect those liberties.  Human nature is what it is, however.  Politicians and others who seek power do so not with the idea of limiting themselves, but of expanding that power to the highest degree they can.  The challenge then, is to develop a form of government that will prevent those in power from having the ability to expand it or exercise it in a way that aversely impacts the freedom of the people.  For many of the revolutionary generation this was to be accomplished by keeping politics as local and representative as possible while protecting the people with a bill of rights that limited that representative government’s power.  Patrick Henry believed that only a government small in scale, close to home and broadly representative could operate without infringing on people’s liberties.  Not that it would be benign but it would be much more accountable.
    The power of taxation was also a hot topic.    James Madison, stated that the power of taxation would be little used by the government.  “It can be of little advantage to those in power to raise money in a manner oppressive to the people.”  Keep in mind that this issue was debated long before the sixteenth amendment and only concerned Article 1 section 2.  Several arguments were proposed by the opposition, I will detail two of them.  The first was a concern that through the use of the power of direct taxation the central government would annihilate the states because the people would not bear double taxation.  We see this “annihilation” of the power of the states in the use of federal money taken from the people and redistributed to the states with all the rules and regulations the federal government requires for its distribution.  George Mason added that the congress was insufficiently representative to be trusted with direct taxing power.  He said that it would sit at “aristocratic” remove from the people and have no “fellow-feeling” for them..  How true this has become.  He also thought they would be easily corrupted and would tax the poor in the interests of the rich.  While the reverse has become true, that makes it no less unjust.
    This creation of a new “aristocracy” was a constant theme of the opponents of ratification.  Self made men like Henry did not want to see the government end up in the hands of the landed gentry.  He thought little of the supposed checks and balances believing the president could become a despot and the senate dominated by a handful of members would degenerate into a “sinkhole of corruption” and become the president’s accomplices in diplomatic treachery.  He was not the only one who felt this way.  “Centinel” wrote that the constitution had “its true features concealed” in a “daring attempt to create a despotic aristocracy”.  Melancton Smith of New York warned that the constitution would create an aristocratic tyranny that would result in despotism.  In our day of career politicians where the only way to get rid of many of them is to wait for them to get old and die, these were certainly not unfounded fears.  The aristocracy may not be the same as it was in Henry’s time but today’s closed political class is no less privileged, arrogant or secure.
    Patrick Henry also attacked the “consolidated government” because he regarded it as a misguided attempt to conceal a lust for power and greatness that would lead to large armies and navies and an expensive government of “place men, colonels, courtiers and tax gatherers” who would design legislation to serve the interests of the “ambitious few”.  He believed that such a government would inevitably become tyrannical.  He said “I dread the operation of it on the middling and lower classes of people.”  Another very wise statement.  President Obama has placed the crosshairs on anyone who makes a decent living, middle to upper middle class, we may call them.  They are the “evil rich” who need to get some “skin in the game” and “spread the wealth”.  However, if you are a billionaire instead of a millionaire, now you are a contributor to the party and the tax code helps you out.  The same goes for “Big Business”, which receives billions of dollars in bailout money while “small business” gets squeezed through onerous regulations and taxes.  The lower class is made a lot of promises but after forty years of the “War on Poverty”, government intervention on behalf of the “lower class” has done nothing but make sure they stay “lower class”.  Henry was right.  If one can afford the lobbyist, one is taken care of.  For the rest of us, this government operates in ways that are more and more tyrannical.
    Finally, Henry also argued that the convention had no right to use the phrase “We the People”.  The states, not “the people”, had sent the delegates and by using this phrase and all its implications, this government would hold a coercive power over the people that the confederation specifically prohibited.  To those of Henry’s mind, as well as those who had developed the original congress and confederation, the national government was meant to be a body in which the states would cooperate.  “The said states hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other….”  Article III It was the states that had the taxing authority to support the national government (which didn’t work very well at the time), it was the state legislatures that sent delegates to the congress with strict term limits and it was the states in supermajority that would decide the most important issues of the time.  The national government in the early revolutionary period was never meant to directly represent the people nor have any impact directly on them through tax or regulation.  In the Constitution, Henry and others saw the abandonment of that principle, the circumvention of state sovereignty and an eventual tyranny directly over the people.
    Ignoring Henry’s statement that “If you give too little power today, you may give more tomorrow.  But the reverse does not hold.  If you give too much power today, tomorrow will never come,”  Virginia ratified the constitution, although it had already become law with New Hampshire’s ratification four days prior.  That was not the end, however.  There was still the question of amendments which the Virginia resolution allowed to be recommended.  Besides the “Bill of Rights” there were several amendments offered that Madison dismissed.  Included among them were limits on presidential terms, the requirement of a two thirds vote for commercial laws and treaties, a prohibition of direct taxes unless states failed in requisitions,  and a different method for impeaching senators.  George Clinton of New York, even after ratification, called for a second convention to repair those parts of the constitution that “appear so objectionable to a majority of us.”  The last thing Madison and the federalists wanted was another convention where radical changes might be made.  He believed public opinion was too “unsettled” to risk it.  The Federalists prevailed.  There was not another convention, the Bill of Rights was adopted and we have been operating under the Constitution as the supreme law of the land ever since.
    We now come back to our original question.  If the 1787 convention would have amended the Articles of Confederation instead of replacing it with the Constitution,  would we be where we are today?  There is no question that the opponents of the Constitution’s ratification look prophetic.  Yet the Articles had severe flaws and it may be doubted whether the confederation would have remained unified, particularly in the first fifty to one hundred years of our history.  Ultimately, it comes down to this.  Every system of government has its flaws, including ours.  It is the character of the people in power that make it tyrannical or not.  The opponents of ratification understood that the more distant and powerful the government, the more tyrannical its tendencies.  Power relinquished by the people is never returned for government has an insatiable appetite and will always seek more.  If our representatives would have retained the “revolutionary ideal” and valued the concepts of limited government, Washington DC would still be a sleepy town on the Potomac and the real centers of power would be found in the state capitols.  Power over the people would be more subject to their review simply due to proximity.  That was the desire and intent of the majority of the revolutionary generation.
    So is it all President Obama’s fault?  Certainly he and past presidents, and the current and previous congresses, are responsible for their actions.  That this current crop is more totalitarian than most is obvious.  However, as long as there are elections, we get the government we want.  If we elect people of low character who are going to interpret the Constitution in ways that enable tyrannical actions, or we let them get away with ignoring it and the bill of rights entirely, the fault, ultimately, lies with “We the People”.  A flawed system populated by politicians of flawed character will always have a tendency towards tyranny and corruption.  The need is to elect people who have the character and fortitude not only to resist those tendencies but to rework the system in ways that limit its power and restore liberty and freedom to the people.  The fate of the country, as always, rests in the hands of the American People.

“Liberty ought to be the direct end of your government”  Patrick Henry

Quotes from:
A Son Of Thunder Henry Mayer
The Forging of the Union 1781-1789 Richard Morris

Patrick Samuels
http://www.patricksamuels.com

Who Will Lead Us?

    I am a regular talk radio listener and of late, there has been much discussion concerning who is going to rise up and assume a leadership position or positions and give real teeth to the tea party movement.  Jerry Doyle has been asking this question and Glen Beck is looking for his 56 “founders” who will root out the corruption in Washington and begin anew according to the principles of the founders of our great nation.  As I have listened to the debate it has occurred to me that most people are looking for the solution in the cause of the problem.  Don’t most of us believe that Washington caused just about all the problems we are currently dealing with?  The housing mess, bank bailouts, the falling dollar, the so called health care crisis, rising unemployment; have not the policies adopted by politicians in Washington caused these problems?  We know the answer is yes and we understand the absurdity of expecting Washington to do anything more than mess it up further.  We understand that the only real solution is devolving power from the Federal Government and returning to individuals, states and the private sector responsibility for all the things not specifically enumerated in the Constitution for the Federal Government. 
    So who is going to rise up and fight for those principles in a way that motivates others to do so?  Among those in Washington I have heard only one voice in recent years come close and that is Ron Paul’s.  The problem is, I don’t think he is the one we are looking for.  He is principled and smart but he lacks the charisma and the ability to get a lot of other people to follow his lead.  Out of all the people who ran for president, do I wish he was the one in the Oval Office?  Sure.  But leaders need more than principles and good ideas today. The shy, quiet but brilliant James Madison could never be elected today.  It is unfortunate but true.
    So where do we look?  As unhappy as many tea party supporters are with the Republican Party, many are looking there.  I suppose the hope is that they have learned their lesson and will become more conservative.  This from the party that nominated John McCain for president even after their losses in 2006.  Does anyone seriously think that the Republican party will become the constitutional party?  Is any Republican going to propose that we phase out all the social programs the statists have saddled us with over the last hundred years?  Are they going to get rid of the Fed, Medicare, the EPA, the Department of Education and all the other garbage that results in statist control over so many things this government was never meant to have its hands in?  After the Reagan and Gingrich “revolutions” we still have a bigger and more intrusive government.  Republicans may say some of the right things and may nibble around the edges of the federal pie, tweaking this and calling for reductions in that, but none of them have the courage to do anything substantial.  Their problem is the same as the Democrat problem.  As long as the Democrats are led by the likes of Pelosi and Reed they, as a party, will advance the statist agenda.  As long as the Republicans are led by men and women who only believe in slightly smaller government are are afraid of the Democrats and the press, we will end up with a statist agenda.
    Back to the original point.  Can we really look for leaders to emerge from the very people that put us in this mess in the first place?  Almost all the people in Washington and most of those at the state level are “career politicians”, people who have never held a real job except perhaps as a bloodsucking lawyer, people who no longer have any idea about the realities of life and economics, people who live in a bubble created by their own ego.  Yet those are the people we keep sending into government.  Why? Because we have been conditioned to believe that only by operating within the two party system will people get elected and those two parties have rigged the system in their favor to substantiate that perception.  This has ensured the reelection of a majority of the same people and have made seats like Pelosi’s secure for life.  As we saw with Ted Kennedy, the only way we get rid of some of these people is to wait for them to get old and die.  Did not the founders set the example that stepping down after a time of service was the pattern to be followed?  Perhaps it was inconceivable to them that people would make a career out of public service which is why they did not include term limits in the constitution.
    It is my belief that only by destroying the monopoly of the two party system is there any hope for making real and lasting change in the direction of this country.  The new leaders will not be Democrats or Republicans but independents from the tea party movement itself.  People who will rise up and be recognized by the people themselves as leaders.  Perhaps it will be organized into a new political party and that is alright, that kind of organization is needed at some point.  Will this ensure Democrat control by taking conservatives from the Republican party?  It may over the short term.  But the reality is that we have been a people without a party for a long time and it is time we represented ourselves.  We can yell and protest all we want but neither party has any interest in doing anything other than placating us for a short time and going about the consolidation of their power over the long term.  It is time ‘we the people’ took the power from our ‘masters’.  It is time we rose up against the aristocracy that exists among our political class and restored common sense to government.  It is time to derail the statist agenda and restore liberty to the people.

“The People” are speaking up like never before.  Town halls, protests, Tea Parties; the American people are voicing their displeasure with the way things are going in Washington.  We do not want government run health care, cap and trade, exorbitant spending and a host of other things this current crop of statist politicians are attempting to impose on us.  We assume that because we have voiced our opposition so loudly and we live in a representative republic, our representatives must listen to us.  After all, they work for us, right?
    Not really.  We know that the vast majority of politicians are bought and paid for by special interests and right now the special interests that are running the show and writing the bills are socialists and Marxists.  We cannot assume we will be heard.  If this summer has shown us anything, it is an us (the people) vs. them (politicians) struggle.  They argue, they insult, they ignore.  We scream louder and in greater numbers.  Just remember, we are the ones outside the palace gate and the royalty within can ignore us if they so choose and do whatever they want.  They have become King George.  Have we the courage to become patriots?
    The question we must ask ourselves is, are we prepared to deal with the consequences of losing?  This is a crucial question because as president Obama works hard to keep his campaign promise to “transform America” into a totalitarian state, the result of that transformation for you and I will be profound.  Consider some of the following consequences and ask yourself if you and your family and we as a community are ready to deal with them.
    The Tea Parties were originally protests against government spending.  President Obama has already run up a trillion and a half more in debt and promises more in the future.  His projected ten year deficit just went up by two trillion dollars in a few months.  As the economy continues to tank due to his policies, tax revenues will slow, he will spend more, especially if health care passes, and we will be in even worse shape.  Then there are the unfunded liabilities (Social Security, Medicare, etc.) which amount to around one hundred trillion dollars.  That is a quarter of a million dollars for each one of us.  There is no way we can pay this off or grow our way out of it.  The only way this problem can be solved other than hard political choices (phasing out the social safety net, paying off the public debt) which we all know are not going to happen, is to inflate the currency.  Hyperinflation, if it is not caused by the monetization of our debt (printing money as we have been) will be deliberately caused by the administration to reduce the debt.  Are you prepared for the dollar menu to become the ten dollar menu, the hundred dollar menu, the thousand dollar menu?
    Consider also that this administration has the arrogant idea that it can control the economy, so it will assume it can control the rate of inflation.  This is not true, of course, so what will happen when prices go spiraling out of control?  Wage and price controls will be imposed.  FDR did it, Nixon did it, Obama will do it.  He has already tried to fix wages for executives, you don’t think he will try to fix everyone’s?  This will result in essential shortages, it always does.  Are you prepared for this?  Most sinister is that this economic crisis may result in the shadow government Obama has been developing with all his czars and special advisors essentially taking over, particularly if there is a lot of “civil unrest”, staged or real.  “Never let a good crisis go to waste”.
    Let us move on.  Cap and trade has already passed the house and President Obama is itching to sign it.  Are you prepared for European like gas prices?  Are you prepared for your electricity rates to “skyrocket” as Obama promised?  Are you prepared for the day the government worker knocks on your door to install your government approved and wired programmable thermostat and hooks you up to the smart grid so the government can regulate your electricity use?
    Health care, the topic of the day.  We all know that government health care will result in rationing and poor care.  It has everywhere else it has been tried.  But in this bill your medical and financial records will be at the fingertips of government.  Do you have a way to keep their mitts off your money?  Do you have another way to access medical care?  Are we working to develop one, an “underground medical establishment”, so to speak?  What are you prepared to do when some government bureaucrat tells you to go “take a pain pill” instead of offering life saving treatment?  What are we prepared to do if government becomes “partners with God” as Obama has stated, and makes life and death decisions based on costs and politics?
    How about our First Amendment rights.  If health care fails the administration is going to lay blame one place, alternative media.  We know that the “Diversity Czar” thinks Hugo Chavez and his glorious revolution is a great example.  With localism and diversity panels, he and Obama are laying the groundwork for eliminating talk radio.  The Internet has been in the crosshairs as well, certainly China and Iran demonstrate the possibilities there.  Do we have a network capable of disseminating information or coordinating our efforts if these now “traditional” means of communication are no longer available?  How far are we willing to go to secure this right?
    While we are at it, what about the second amendment?  All the statists are gun control advocates and there is no question that there will be continued attempts to take guns from law abiding citizens.  How serious are we about our bumper stickers that say “you can have my gun when you pry it out of my cold, dead hands”?  Are we willing to knock out the windows in our house and shoot down the brownshirts that come for our means of defense?  Are we prepared to come to the defense of our neighbors when the Gestapo comes for them and their guns?  Do we have a plan in our community to protect ourselves from a totalitarian government?
    Finally, let’s bring it home.  What about the children, your children.  I homeschool mine.  What do we do when that becomes illegal as it was in California for a time.  What do I do when they are ready to throw me in jail for refusing to send my children to a government indoctrination center (public school) or even take them away for “neglect”?  What about something a bit more immediate.  What if the government requires you to have your children vaccinated against the swine flu?  The last time the government did this in the seventies, many more people died and were irreparably harmed by the vaccine than were sickened by the flu.  Are you willing to trust your government when they say it is “safe and effective”?  Are you prepared for the consequences of resistance?
    This has been written to make you think about the future.  Some of this may happen regardless of the outcome of specific legislation.  I believe in the axiom, “Work for the best and prepare for the worst.”  On a personal level, we can make ourselves as self reliant as possible.  Store up some non-perishables to weather the crisis, particularly the difficult months when hyperinflation causes massive instability.  Unplug from the system as much as possible.  All electronic media and records are suspect and subject to government access.  Keep it in mind.  Buy a gun if you don’t have one, stock up on ammunition.  I know all this sounds “tin foil hat” to some but these are just basic emergency preparation every person should take.
  As a community, here are some things to think about.  First, reestablishing community is essential.  We have lost that in our technological age.  We have become isolated from one another.  We need to connect again, get in the habit of helping each other.  We ought to consider developing a system of barter among ourselves so we are prepared for wage and price controls or, dare I say, tax avoidance.  If that hasn’t been nutty enough, what about developing a basic community defense plan or even…a militia.
    It may be that we will win the fight and much of this will not happen.  It is my hope that this is so.  Be assured, however, the statists will not give up and they will try again.  Few could have imagined the horrors of the Third Reich after Adolf Hitler was democratically elected in 1933.  Men are men and those who thirst for power have been the same throughout history.  It can’t happen here?  It already has.  Consider how we have treated the Native Americans, the thousands of political prisoners under Woodrow Wilson, internment camps under FDR, the killing of David Koresh’s followers, and more recently, the illegal confiscation of guns in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina and the forcible removal of the children of the Mormon sect in Arizona..  Things can change very quickly.  A terrorist attack, foreign or domestic, our bonds becoming unmarketable, a natural disaster, Iran cutting off oil, anything could prod this administration to rapid and severe action.  It could be next week, next month or the next decade.  Will we be ready?  Will you?

http://www.patricksamuels.com

For five months now the people have been raising their voices in an ever louder chorus of dissatisfaction with the direction this government has taken.  It started with “Tea Parties” and other rallies.  Now the focus is on congressional town hall meetings.  Based on the comments and questions at these meetings, one would be led to believe that ninety percent of the people are opposed to the proposed health care legislation in particular, and the direction of this government in general.  The politicians have dismissed this opposition in several ways.  They claim the protests have been organized by the Republicans or the drug or insurance companies, that they are racists just opposing a black president, or that they are just kooks.  Most of the media is supporting one or all of these views.
    Who are the protesters?  As one of them, I can definitively assert that I have never been approached by a drug or insurance company or the GOP to show up at a tea party or town hall meeting and I don’t know anyone who has.  That is just wishful thinking on the part of Democrats.  So who are we?  The perception of those who come to the meetings is that these are just everyday citizens who have arisen in response to too much government spending and control.  It is the belief among conservatives that the majority of Americans are conservative and this all out assault on their values and pocketbooks has motivated them like never before.  The statists believe, on the other hand, that they are a small, organized minority bought and paid for by the GOP or the big insurance or pharmaceutical companies.  They listen to talk radio and watch Fox news and they do not represent the majority of Americans. 
    How close either perception is to reality and which one the majority of our Washington politicians believe to be true will determine whether or not President Obama’s legislative steam roller is stopped or not.  The stakes have not been higher since the Missouri compromise and the Dred Scott decision.  Consider the amount of power this government will have over us if the two major pieces of legislation of the Obama administration become law.  The Cap and Trade bill will give the Federal Government control over every economic decision we make.  It will determine what products are available to us, what businesses are acceptable and which are not, how we go about some of the most basic tasks of our everyday lives.  Health care legislation will exert government control over our lifestyles, what treatment we get when we do need medical care and whether our lives are productive enough for the state to justify the expense of keeping us healthy or alive.  When the very food we eat, the cars we drive, the temperatures of our homes, the light bulbs we use and the surgeries or medicines we are allowed are all determined by government, we can be called nothing other than a totalitarian state.  The government will have total control over every aspect of our lives.
    Perhaps totalitarian seems harsh but the tyranny of the state is the tyranny of the state.  We may consider this a “soft tyranny” because it will be implemented by and army of lawyers, social workers and bureaucrats but do not be fooled.  Our liberty will be gone and the consequences of non compliance will be harsh.  And keep in mind technology has given this government investigative and enforcement powers far beyond what Stalin could have dreamed of.  When all our financial and medical records, our communications and transactions are not only part of the government database but regulated by government entities, the ability of the government to find, harass and punish dissenters is unparalleled in history.  At a basic level, those who are protesting understand this.
    Can we separate the perception of both sides from the reality of who the protesters are?  I am not a pollster but based on my experience in the tea party protests and the town halls, I believe the reality is this.  While we can hope that this movement has awakened the “silent majority”, I do not believe this is true.  Perhaps this is, as many claim, a “center-right country but I believe the vast majority of Americans are ill informed or apathetic when it comes to government and politics.  In most cases the people who find their reality in television do not understand the reality of government.  Then there is the systemic problem that the majority of people in this country receive benefits from a government for which they have not paid.  These realities support the statists, their reelection and their ability to twist the truth and get what they want. 
    I believe that the people showing up to protest are well informed citizens who are not organized by the GOP or some big business group.  We are informed because we make ourselves so and have for a long time.  We read, we listen to talk radio, we watch the news and perhaps have a preference for Fox news.  A majority may be registered republicans but we come from all political parties and no political party.  We have finally been motivated to stand up and be seen in ways we have not been accustomed to.  I also believe that we are the same classically liberal, informed minority that has existed for a long time.  There are not more of us, we are just more visible.  Up until this point in our nation’s history, we have been slowly retreating, occasionally winning a battle but surely losing the war against bigger government.  No matter how influential people on both sides believe the “alternative” media is, the results speak for themselves.  Government grows, freedom is lost and we become more burdened by debt and taxes.
    This is not meant to be discouraging.  It has always been a dedicated minority that has made a difference in history.  What we have now is a battle between a focused minority in power and a minority on the outside that is finally finding its voice.  The big problem for us is that we cannot wait for the next election to derail this power grab.  We must continue to loudly voice our opposition but ultimately the results of this contest will be determined by those who hold all the power.  How forward thinking are the statists and how much influence will they yield over the rest of their colleagues in congress.  Will they be able to convince enough of them to “take one for the team” if necessary?  The statists have been working toward this goal for a long time and now that they can grasp the brass ring, they are pushing hard for it.  They know the incontrovertible fact that once power is given to government, it is never relinquished.  If these proposals become law, they will never be repealed.  They may be “reformed” in the future just like welfare was “reformed” but we still have welfare and a million other ineffective, obsolete and expensive government programs.  They also know that they may take a hit in the next election for their action.  They may lose some seats in congress to the Republicans, they may even lose control.  But in the long run, it will not matter.  Even if the Republicans find some guts, President Obama will veto any attempt to roll back the policies and they will get back into power eventually. 
    Based on the town hall meetings, most of the supporters of the statist agenda think this way.  They are not trying to enter into a dialogue with their constituents, they are attempting to repeat propaganda.  We are too informed for that, however.  So they ignore us, they cancel meetings or try to handpick the crowd.  We must, however, continue to be active.  It we win, we cannot let up.  We must continue to fight and when the next election rolls around, we must put those who love liberty and will fight for it in power at all levels.  If we lose, we must prepare for the consequences and work toward eventual repeal.  The only way the minority is effective is if it continues to make itself heard and plans for the long run.  We cannot continue to show up now and then to put out fires because the glorious building that was our constitutional government has been badly burned and is in danger of final collapse.  We must get the arsonists out of the building and secure it so be can begin to rebuild the edifice of liberty created by the founders.  It may seem like trying to swim upstream against the current of historical precedent, but for we and our children and for the love of liberty, we must try.

Patrick Samuels
http://www.patricksamuels.com

What is your liberty worth?

  Perhaps the better question is, “How far are you willing to go to preserve it?”  This question was brought to mind as a consequence of the most recent protest I organized outside our local congressman’s office.  Most protests, especially in our little backwater and with only twenty five people, don’t make much of an impact.  In its organization, however, I sent out an e-mail stating that I was going to hang the congressman in effigy, which I did-life size.  We had a good protest, the congressman’s press secretary fielded questions and criticisms for over a half hour and I believe we made our point.
    Two days later I get a call that informed me that my picture with the hanging congressman was being commented on in the Politico.com.  The article and about half the comments were less than complimentary.  The main point was that if my action was the face of the GOP’s criticism of Democrat Health Care, the GOP was in big trouble.  Of course, I do not represent the GOP nor am I a republican.  I am just a citizen trying to get his point across.  Quite a few thought it inappropriate and in bad taste to hang our congressman in effigy.  Personally, I think these power hungry people in our federal Government are traitors to the constitution and the founding principles of the Republic.  None of them are upholding their oath of office.  They are unprofessional-what lawyer signs a contract without reading it!?  They are foolish for thinking they can spend, borrow and print so much money without consequence.  They are enemies of liberty for thinking that government should have the power to determine the temperature of our homes or the medicines we receive.  Most of us know this is wrong and it will not end well for this country if it continues.  Barak Obama said he was going to “Transform America”.  He is trying to transform it into a Marxist state with power concentrated at the top and no aspect of our lives too small or insignificant to be beyond its control.  No thank you.
    This has not happened overnight, its taken one hundred years.  One step here, one leap there, sometimes pausing, but never retreating.  We have an opportunity now, as president Obama tries the biggest leap since the New Deal, to catch the statist monster in the air and throw it back on its heels.  The question is, are we willing to do whatever it takes?  Are we finally going to draw a line in the sand?  If we don’t now, then when?  Ten or twenty years from now when you need that new operation or expensive medicine and the health care bureaucrat turns to you and says, “You’ve had a good run, here’s your pain pill.”  It will be too late.  When ATF shows up outside your home and demands your guns, are you going to give them up or make them pry them out of your cold dead hands?  Where’s all that non-violent claptrap then, or when child protective services forces you to send your kid to a government school or deems your “hateful” form of religion nonproductive to the raising of properly adjusted children?  What percentage of your income is too much?  60%, 70%, 90%?  When do you refuse to allow your money to be confiscated and given to the non-productive and lazy?  What will you do when they come to throw you in jail for being so “stingy”, refusing to put your “skin in the game?”  When all this borrowing and spending leads to hyperinflation and wage and price controls and the scarcity that goes with it, who are you going to blame?  Are you going to be able to look in the mirror and say “I did everything I could” or will you finally understand that by letting the statist set the rules with political correctness and by refusing to consider all options for resistance, the battle and the war were already lost. 
    The government holds all the cards, or so it thinks.  They become more and more bold the more they get away with.  Every time an election rolls around and ninety-five percent of them are returned to office irregardless of their out of control behavior, they behave more like kings, and thugs.  When the opposition whines about things they may pause or simply try a new way of accomplishing their goal.  I want you to understand something very important.  The goal of the majority of people in government, particularly this current crop, is totalitarian control.  Do you get that?  They want to control everything.  Sure, you may think you have choices but they are only choices approved of by them.  The car you drive, it has to meet hundreds of government specs, few of which have to do with safety.  This is only going to get worse.  They have nationalized banks, they control behavior through taxes and regulation, they want to control the food you eat, the people you associate with (racist!), how much money you earn, the list could go on and on.  This is the very definition of totalitarianism and the antithesis of liberty.  It has all happened because we let it.  And because it has happened over such a long period of time, we are often unaware of how much we have lost.  When do we say “enough?”  And if we say it now, how far are we willing to go to show we mean it?  If a little thing like hanging the congressman in effigy bothers you, then our cause is lost.  The occasional quiet protest, the calls and e-mails, even the occasional turnover of congress will only be a pause in the march to total state control.  I, for one, do not want my children to grow up in that nation, do you?

http://www.patricksamuels.com

A week ago there was a lot of buzz about the sudden announcement that Sarah Palin would be leaving office as the governor of Alaska.  There were no specific reasons given so speculation abounded and I am not about to add to that or any musings about her political future.  The one thing that is beyond dispute as a contributing factor to her departure is the fact that ever since that army of lawyers and investigators descended on Juneau with her selection as McCain’s VP, she has had to defend herself against one groundless accusation after another.  She has racked up legal bills approaching a half a million dollars and spent much more time dealing with investigations that go nowhere than doing the work of the people of Alaska.  I find it not a little telling that while there is video tape of William Jefferson of Louisiana accepting a suitcase of cash and using taxpayer funds while diverting rescue operations during hurricane Katrina to retrieve ninety thousand dollars from his freezer, he is not only not in jail but still in office supported by his fellow democrats.  Sarah Palin, however,  is under no federal investigation and not one of the ethics probes has ever come up with anything, yet she has been hounded from office.
    This is a tactic the statist Democrats have learned well.  And this time I will include the party in this because it is the Democrat party that engages in this behavior against their enemies.  Behavior that is tolerated or even celebrated among their own is jumped on by them if engaged in by the opposition.  One word at a birthday party, one hint of impropriety and the media and the lawyers descend like a ton of bricks until rumor becomes fact or an insignificant word becomes treason and their opponents are rendered ineffective at best.  More often they are hung out to dry by their own and leave office or, like Scooter Libby, end up in jail.  Add to this the threats of activists like ACORN and it is no wonder that Republicans have lost their backbone.  Politicians in general want to remain in office and be liked by the people, their colleagues and the media.  If the opposition makes any misstep, if they push too hard on an issue, if they really rock the boat and become a credible threat to the statist agenda these kind of attacks are what await them.  It is no wonder that few of them are going to have the courage to speak and act in real opposition.
    When is is all boiled down, the fact is that the statist always uses the power of the state to intimidate, threaten and coerce people and the opposition into submission.  From John Adams and the Sedition Act to Woodrow Wilson jailing dissidents and opponents to Barak Obama threatening lawsuits against former Bush personnel, strong-arming banks to take TARP money or using ACORN to intimidate executives, it is all the same tune played over and over.  The fact is that the difference between what the statists do in the US and what Hitler and Stalin did is only one of degree.  The founders understood the danger of political power and the men (and women) who want to wield it.  Most of them want power and the only reason to have it is to use it.  That is why they took as much power from the government as possible and left it among the states and the people.  But we have given more power to government than any other in history.  And now we are talking about letting them have the literal power of life and death over us by running our health care?!  Have the “pull yourself up by your own bootstraps” “rugged individual” Americans gone nuts?!
    The British tried to impose the same kind of tyranny on the colonists and amid the protests and the legislative maneuverings, the fact is that the conflict between liberty and tyranny devolved into a deadly conflict.  That is because tyrannical governments will always try to impose their will at the point of a gun if all else fails.  Some are quicker to do so than others but government, by its nature, is force.  If we give it limited authority and resources, its ability to use that force against us is limited.  That is not the case here and now.  We can protest taxes and even take our case to the court but unless you are one of the privileged elite, you will go to jail.  When they come for your children and force them into government schools, they will use force at some point.  When they come for your guns they will be more than happy to pry them from your cold, dead hands.
    Is deadly conflict between tyranny and liberty inevitable?  Almost always.  There are very few instances in history where the people rose up against tyranny and the conflict remained bloodless.  I am in no way encouraging that escalation, let me make that clear.  But we also have to be realistic.  Government will continue to become more oppressive, take more of our money and liberty, because that is the nature of government.  If we choose to stand up to that tyranny, we must be ready for the evolution of the conflict.  Right now, those who love liberty are on the ropes, losing badly.  Government is taking great strides in expanding its power.  The old methods no longer seem to be effective.  We call our representatives, we write letters, we blog, we have even gotten out in the streets and protested.  We are still ignored.  It is time we took the conflict to the next level.
    To that end I launched Project Liberty on Independence Day.  It is based on the ACORN model of intimidation.  I believe it is time the intimidation began to flow the other way.  If ACORN can get a bus load of people to show up at the homes of AIG executives, we should be able to get a caravan of patriots to show up at the homes of our elected officials and let them know what we think and expect of them.  It is not a long term solution, it is only to stop the current bleeding.  Long term we need elected representatives that are going to dismantle the monster we have created.  But we need to stop a march into fascism that has turned into a run.  It is time we started intimidating the statists.  It is time our elected representative know that if they are going to reach into our wallets and our homes with their foolish and destructive legislation, we are going to do the same.
    In the twenty years prior to the Revolution, Samuel Adams and others formed the Sons of Liberty.  It was they who first pushed for independence, it was they who intimidated British officials and protested the loudest, it was they who were responsible for the first tea party.  It is time that a new breed of patriot arose, one who is willing to do more, to take a greater risk, to act a little more radically in defense of liberty, not only for themselves but for our children and grandchildren.  This is a turning point, it is not yet too late to turn our country back to liberty and freedom.  However, if we allow our government to continue to expand unfettered, the likelihood of the conflict becoming very nasty goes up considerably.  May our decisive actions today prevent such an escalation.

For more information on Project Liberty go to http://www.patricksamuels.com and click on the “Sons of Liberty” button. 

Patrick Samuels

Allow me to begin by saying that I am no fan of Al Franken and I’m not specifically picking on Rush Limbaugh.  If and when Al Franken takes his seat in the senate, it will be a bad day for America.  And I am using Rush Limbaugh as an example for all the radio and television talk show hosts, all the writers and bloggers out there including myself, who have ever despaired of the direction of the country, deplored the behavior of our elected politicians and thought that we had more common sense in our little finger that they had in their whole body.
    The media has an important function in our society, which is why it is referred to in the first amendment.  The ability to educate, inform and persuade is a powerful tool in the political process.  But for all the words spoken by Rush and the other talk show hosts, for all the words written in newspapers, magazines and on the Internet, the stimulus package passed for want of one vote in the senate.  Government health care, a nearly four trillion dollar budget, cap and trade may all be forced on us for the lack of one or two votes.
  For all the talking, all the educating, all the informing done by talk radio and other conservative/alternative media, the country is falling rapidly into the black hole of statism.  Why?  First, while Rush’s fifteen to twenty million listeners sounds like a lot, there are over three hundred million people in this country, over one hundred million voters.  And not all those listeners agree with Rush’s viewpoint, some are just entertained, and this goes for all of talk radio.  The point here is that the vast majority of people in the country don’t tune in to talk radio, they don’t follow the news closely, they are not politically educated or aware.  As products of a government education and fans of reality TV, they easily fall for a demagogue like Barak Obama.
    Second, it is an “us vs them” approach to politics and this is encouraged by the behavior of both sides.  On one side is the “us”, the average citizen who actually seeks to inform himself and those who seek to do the informing.  Then there is the “them”, the “political class”, the people who actually make the rules that govern our lives, rules that are increasingly intrusive and destructive.  Too often we have the mindset that we are merely subjects of the king who stand outside the palace gates shouting our pleas and hoping we are heard.  On the other side of the gate is the political class who turn a deaf ear to our pleas because they are confident in their power and position.  When the vast majority of the incumbents are elected regardless of what they do, they see no problem ignoring the interests of anyone but themselves.  The whole system turns on its head.  Instead of serving us, the politicians serve themselves.  Instead of seeing ourselves as part of the process, we are reduced to servants of the political class.  We fear them, they don’t fear us.  According to Thomas Jefferson, that is the definition of tyranny.
    This was a primary cause of the revolution.  Parliament and the king, three thousand miles away, were making the rules without any input from the colonists.  They were free to ignore them because there was nothing, short of armed insurrection, the colonists could do about it.  The colonists could not vote for any representation yet they were told they were British subjects and had to follow the dictates of such an elected body.  Today, we have the same problem.  Washington may as well be on the moon for the amount of impact we, as average citizens, have on it.
    Finally, and this is probably the most important point, talk radio, and the media in general, is reactionary by its very nature.  Commentators, by definition, are reacting to something that has already happened.  News, by definition, is a description of an event in the past.  Conservatism by its very name, is reactionary.  It seeks to conserve the status quo, conserve the liberty that remains.  If we look back on the last hundred years, or even the decades since President Reagan, any objective observer can see that as a movement, it has done a lousy job “conserving” liberty.  Government has grown and liberty has retreated under both major parties.  For all the growth of talk radio and the “alternative” media, its real impact has been negligible because it is reactionary and has no cohesive agenda.
  That is why the progressives, the statists, have been so successful.  First, they have a cohesive agenda and a long term vision.  If all else fails they can fall back on Marx as an ideological rallying point.  Everything they do is geared toward expanding the power of the state until everything is under its, and their, control.  Second, they are patient and persistent.  If something does not work, they try something else with the same goal in mind.  They will use legislation, the courts, the mob, executive order, bureaucratic fiat, whatever it takes to get their way.  Third, they manipulate language to confuse their enemies.  Look at he words liberal and conservative.  Liberal once meant what libertarian does now.  Personally, that is why I don’t use it.  I prefer statist, one who believes in the state.  Conservative now means bigot, out of touch, sexist, redneck, hyper-Christian homophobe.  President Obama is moving this along at a rapid clip.  Success no longer means money but the poverty of government service.  Wealth is evil, freedom is slavery, ignorance is bliss.  Finally, and this is by no means a comprehensive list, the statist knows how to set the agenda.  We have been dancing to the statist tune for one hundred years.  Some may have tried a few new steps but the music hasn’t changed.
    If those of us who love liberty want to save our country from the statist vision that is quickly becoming a permanent reality, we must stop being reactionary.  We cannot be like the little boy with his finger in the dike because there is an army on the other side always drilling new holes.  The dike needs to be rebuilt with an impenetrable steel and concrete structure we once knew at the constitution.  The only way to restore the constitution is to take power away from Washington, not to simply stop them from acquiring more.  Consider the original Revolution.  Samuel Adams and his friends in the Sons of Liberty didn’t just write letters to parliament and the king asking them to please not take away their God given rights.  They had an agenda, independence, that they worked towards for twenty years through networking, protests, pamphlets, “slanted” news, property destruction and intimidation of government officials; whatever they could do to move toward the goal of liberty.
    It is time we stopped reacting and started acting.  It is time those who loved liberty started setting the agenda and removing the ability of our elected officials and unelected bureaucrats to make our lives miserable.  If ACORN can rent a mob to intimidate corporate officials, it is time we showed up outside the homes of our elected officials with signs and pitchforks to get their attention.  It is time we stopped being intimidated and started doing the intimidating.  We need to develop long range plans to eliminate all non constitutional functions from government.  For example, we can start with the Department of Education.  The statist knows that as long as he can keep creating good little government robots through government education, his plans will succeed.  If we return education to the state, and ultimately, the local level, we will once again have control.  We need to defund the government.  I believe, like Thomas Jefferson, that income taxes are immoral and therefore we should work toward repeal of the sixteenth amendment.  Without the ability to take our wealth, it will be hard to redistribute it.  The seventeenth amendment should go as well to to give the states themselves a voice in government as originally intended.
    Ultimately, however, we need legislators who believe in the liberty of the people more than their own power who will introduce and pass such legislation.  Al Franken threw his hat in the ring for the statist agenda.  It is time those who talk a good game “put some skin in the game” as Joe Biden said.  It is time to put up or shut up.  Sam Adams and the Sons of Liberty were not just rabble rousers.  Many of them were elected assemblymen who shaped the course of our nation’s history.  If men like Rush Limbaugh really care about the country, prove it.  Do what needs to be done to change it.  Take the pay cut and endure the media “anal exam” and put yourself in a position to really accomplish something.  The statists have plenty of leaders, the lovers of liberty have none.  We need a plan and courageous men and women to push it forward.  Not career politicians but people who are willing to step forward as they did in the past to do a job that needs to be done.  If it doesn’t start happening now, if the agenda is not removed from the hands of the statist, the country our children inherit will be a nation no Son of Liberty would recognize.   

http://www.patricksamuels.com

The imminent departure of Justice Souter has brought all the old issues to the forefront as the sides gear up for the battle over the next judicial appointment.  The issues of the “culture war”, as most people understand it, will fill the pages of what newspapers are left, and become endless fodder for the talking heads on television.  They will discuss abortion, gay rights and marriage, school prayer, civil rights and a whole host of other issues.  For now, however, we are going to forget the fact that giving so much power to these nine people, and the judiciary in general, was not the intention of the founders of this country.  What I am going to propose to the reader is the idea that the culture war cannot be won without reestablishing the individual freedom that is part and parcel of free market capitalism.  The free market economic system, by its very nature, encourages the development of values that make societies vibrant, healthy and successful.  It is cause and effect.  In a free society where individuals are empowered and there is little government interference or control, people are responsible and innovative and local communities are strong.  They have to be because there is no outside entity to rely on.  In societies where power and wealth is concentrated at the top and the people are powerless, there is no incentive for people to be responsible or industrious because there is no reward or upward mobility.  Those at the top are manipulative and corrupt politicians who care only about the maintenance of their power.  This creates a stagnant society that produces nothing of value and soon enters the dustbin of history.
    I will offer a few cases to illustrate my point.  In the ancient world, the democracies of Greece and the republic of Rome created societies that grew into empires.  The empires and the dictatorships they degenerated into were their downfall but in their heyday the free citizens of these nations achieved great things.  The outnumbered Greeks defeated the Persians again and again.  The Roman republic rose from a small city state to an empire that surrounded the Mediterranean and beyond.  A more recent example, other than our own in America, was the rise of the British empire.  Although smaller in land area and more recent in organization than many of the nations of the continent, Britain limited its monarchy, empowered its citizens and rose to become a world power.  In opposition to nations like Spain, who achieved power and wealth through conquest and enslavement, Britain achieved her wealth and power primarily through trade, that is free market capitalism.  Growth through conquest, by its very nature, is limited, which is why Spain’s exploitation of the New World did not create staying power on the world stage.  Britain’s empire, on the other hand, was based primarily on trade, free market capitalism.  However, the traits made these nations great and powerful were abandoned and resulted in their downfall.  Power became concentrated at the top whether in the person of an emperor or king or, the case of Britain, the government as a whole.  Moral and literal corruption set in among the people and decline became inevitable.
    What does this have to do with the culture war, you may be asking?  Everything.  For a society to be successful for the long term, it must have citizens that make it so.  A great leader may make a nation powerful in the short run but for a nation to have staying power, success measured in centuries, not years or decades, that nation must have successful people.  Those kinds of people are developed in societies that value individual liberty and economic freedom and are suppressed by totalitarian societies.  This applies to all areas of the culture, not just military prowess.  Most societies throughout history, because the individuals in that society were responsible for the consequences of their actions, developed a set of mores and values, a moral code, that enabled the individual within that society to thrive within the confines of his political and economic environment.  The central position of the family, nuclear and extended, respect and honesty in dealing with others, frugality and forethought in economics, organization and charity in the local community, the need to be self educated, respect for life and religious devotion, these are all things that people one hundred and fifty years ago took for granted as the norm.
    I would argue the reason for these norms is not primarily due to religious or ideological input but that they came about as a result of trial and error through the centuries.  At a basic level, people are motivated by one thing, their own self interest.  The reason this does not create a society of narcissists is because people realize that if they are to survive and thrive, it is in their self interest to follow the norms and values previously listed.  It makes their lives better in the long run because everyone understands the consequences of violating those values.  To illustrate this, let’s look at a typical family one hundred and fifty years ago. When a child is born to a poor family, as soon as he is able he begins to work on the family farm or in the family business.  His parents are strict but fair because they know that he and his brothers and sisters are their security in the old age.  So raising those children to accept the “civil religion” is a necessity for their prosperity because it encourages hard work, frugality, honesty and responsibility.  The parents take care of their parents until they die and those parents pass down their wealth and values to their children.  The married couple knows infidelity would destroy the family they all depend on.  The children would be harmed and in the future, they could have no one to care for them.  “Neither a borrower nor a lender be” was the basis for their economic decisions because if they went under, they would lose everything they, and their parents, had worked for.  In order to be prosperous, they needed to show themselves honest and trustworthy to their neighbors and community, which was central in meeting needs that could not be met by the individual.
    Now, remove the consequences of ignoring those values.  Hundreds of years ago, it was the “ruling class”, secure in their economic circumstances, that could string along a series of mistresses, consider children a nuisance, gamble and treat all those around them with contempt.  Then came the industrial revolution and the migration into the cities, which resulted in the deterioration of these values among more of the poor and working class.  Moving to the cities changed the circumstances that created the previous values and produced a new set.  The extended family was no longer part of the equation because people left their families to go to the cities.  The anonymity of a city loosened the bonds of the community and its ability to censure behavior.  Without community censure, people could engage in all kinds of personal and economic activities that would have been frowned upon in a small community and the mobility of a rootless existence allowed people to escape some of the consequences of their behavior.  It is in cities where civil society takes a few steps backwards and crime and corruption become the rule rather than the exception.
    Move forward to the present.  Because of the mobility and anonymity of a society in which only a very small percentage of the people live in rural circumstances, the previous trends have become widespread.  What makes it exponentially worse is that we now have a government that has inserted itself into the mix and removed any economic consequences from behavior that was previously understood as negative.  In fact, they now subsidize that behavior and by doing so, encourage it.  Once upon a time, unwed, teenage pregnancy was a stigma to be avoided, and an economic disaster.  Now, the government subsidizes that behavior and, lo and behold, we have more of it.  As we get more of it, society begins to accept it and now we have a whole generation of young people who see nothing wrong with it and a government that is expected to help for the sake of the “children”.  Too lazy to work?  There is welfare.  Got in over your head with debt?  The government will rescue you too.  Tired of your spouse?  No fault divorce if for you.  Children a nuisance?  The government has day care, pre-school and K-12 education to keep them out of your hair and remove the pesky responsibility of actually raising them from you, if you can just put up with a few evenings and weekends.  Community and individual relationships deteriorate because and individual’s primary relationship, in all the areas that really matter, is with the state.  We no longer depend on each other for help, we depend on the government.  This is a disaster because our self interest is no longer directed at our neighbors.  We see no reason to be civil, honest or compassionate toward them because there is no longer the mutual expectation of assistance strong communities once fostered.  Now we are interested only in “pleasing” the state because that is where our needs for assistance are met. 
    Any government that inserts itself to such an extent and takes on this much responsibility also takes control and creates a distorted and unhealthy society.  Common sense would indicate that this is counterintuitive, so why do governments choose paths that support detrimental behavior?  Because it creates dependency and by doing so, enhances the state’s power.  Politicians in such a state are willing to sacrifice the long term health of society for the short term gains they experience.  There is one other motivation we can ascribe to politicians who proscribe destructive policies on the country they are supposed to be serving.  They are doing it with the full knowledge that what they are doing is destructive and that destruction is the objective, not an unfortunate side effect of their pursuit of power.  In the United States there is a certain segment of society that has been taught that America is the root of all evil in society, that free market capitalism is the cause of all injustice, that American military might is responsible for all the oppression in the world and therefore, America, as we know it, needs to be destroyed so something better can grow in its place.  Unfortunately, many of the people who think this way are now in charge.  It is a lethal combination.  On the one hand you have people adopting policies that will destroy what made this country great.  On the other hand, there are people that are adopting statist policies because they enhance their own power.  The policies are the same and the two groups make a majority.  It would appear that we are now on a rapidly accelerated path to a totalitarian state and it is we who have placed the bonds on ourselves.
    So what does such a society look like, what will we look like very soon?  For the masses, that would be you and I, we become like the people of the Roman Empire in its decline.  The emperors who ruled absolutely with just a sham of a republic kept the people happy with free bread and entertainment.  The people themselves, in a society in which they are basically powerless, have no incentive for being responsible, industrious or ambitious.  There are no rewards for acting in such a way for there is no possibility of moving up and improving one’s lot, nor is there a downside to acting irresponsibly because the free bread is always there.
    Even worse than this is the way one actually does achieve anything of value.  When the government controls everything significant, politically and economically, the only way to get ahead is to do so in the context of the governmental system.  Within the artificial construct of the political system the way to get ahead is through favors, backstabbing and corruption.  This has always been true and will always be true.  Power corrupts, which is why the founders of this country did their best to limit government, they wanted to limit its corruptive influence.  But with an unlimited government the corruption is unlimited because everything is within the sphere of a system that by its very nature encourages corruption.
    This then becomes the nature of a totalitarian society, and I use that term in its true sense-there is no cultural, economic or individual sphere of activity that exists outside of the government’s interest and control.  The masses of people are reduced to serfs, occupying space until the state has need of their labor or blood.  They are kept stupid and left lazy for the state takes care of all their needs and the state controlled media convinces them they have the best life they can expect, the best life the government can give them.  People are reduced to commodities to be used rather than individuals who have value in and of themselves.  Those who rise up economically or politically do so according to the corruption endemic to such a system.  Those who do achieve prominence do so not because they are the best and the brightest but because they play the political game better than anyone else.  They lie, cheat, steal and deceive better than their countrymen.  The rule of law means nothing, it is rule according to the whims of those in power and they achieve their aims through intimidation and violence. This was life in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.  It is a losing hand.  Why did Hitler lose the war when he had achieved such great conquests?  Because a statist society is limited by those at the top and the free societies of America and Britain had the depth to recover from their deficiencies at the beginning of the war and utilize their resources, material and intellectual, more efficiently.  The Soviet system collapsed under the weight of its own inefficiency after decades of state control.  Under the communists they produced nothing of value for the rest of the world in any area of endeavor.  It was the system and the kind of citizen it produced that led to their downfall.  In every other nation that has adopted the statist vision under whatever name-socialism, fascism or communism-their societies have stagnated or they are torn by unrest due to the oppression.  There has never been a statist society that was a long term success.  Its very nature leads to its destruction.
    In the age of Obama the choices are becoming more clear on the surface but in many ways, we have lost the battle for the soul of our nation.  The founders were very wise men who understood the nature of individuals and governments better than most.  The knew that within some men, the desire to control was insatiable and such men would choose to use the power of government to achieve their aims.  By specifically limiting government, the tools of the would be despot would be limited and blunt.  It was also understood that one cannot have just a “little bit” of statism/socialism just like one cannot have a little bit of cancer.  It is freedom, economic and political, that makes a strong society and statism is a cancer that eats away at that freedom.  It needs to be destroyed as soon as it becomes apparent.  The sooner it is eliminated, the easier it is and the better the prognosis of the patient.
    Today, however, we have allowed the cancer to spread unchecked, and have embraced it.  The cancer of statist control, that is totalitarianism, has wrapped its evil tentacles around every area of society.  By allowing it to do so we have shifted the battle lines from whether statism is good or not to what degree of statism is good or bad.  We now argue about how to “reform” statist programs like Social Security, Medicare and welfare.  That is not the argument we should be having.  These programs are bankrupting the country, morally and economically, and a tweak here or there will do nothing except delay the inevitable because the programs themselves, like a cancer, are bad for the country.  The cultural issues we opened with are another example.  We argue about where the state should come down on the issues of gay marriage, abortion,  gun rights, school prayer and a host of other issues.  The argument should really be about whether the state should have any say in these issues at all!  But the vast majority of people in this country have conceded that ground, they have come to accept the statist vision and all we are left with is the debate over the terms of liberty’s surrender.
    Of course, I can hear the chorus of critics now.  You hate old people, you want people to be sick, you have no compassion!  There is the buzz word for our time.  We must be “compassionate” which means we must allow the state to take our money and spend it on programs that are supposed to heal all our social ills.  How’s that working out?  Have we eliminated poverty through our government forced charity?  No.  Government welfare has created a permanent underclass in this country and destroyed the black family.  Is that compassion?  Is it compassionate to rob the productive of future generations to pay a pittance to senior citizens today?  Is it compassionate to ration health care, denying people treatment because a bureaucrat has decided that it isn’t “cost effective”?  Is it compassionate to force children to attend dangerous schools where they are taught few, if any, skills necessary to assist them in the “real world”?  Most cities are run by statists and are rife with crime and corruption.  Is it compassionate to create such an environment for people to live in?  Liberty is the most compassionate thing of all because it empowers people to be self sufficient in meeting their needs, it does not put us in the straightjacket of government acceptability.  It empowers communities to effectively meet the needs of the “poorest” among us with innovation and effectiveness.  It strengthens familles to work together to provide loving, nurturing environments for children and senior citizens.  Liberty does not rob our children and grandchildren to pay for our stupidity.  Liberty does not create dependency through lies and deceit.  Liberty brings out the best in people, it encourages real compassion.  Liberty puts the power and responsibility for your life where it belongs, with you.
    By forcing our hand, perhaps President Obama has given some degree of hope to those that love liberty.  He is forcing the American people to look at the statist vision in stark terms.  We are asking the question as never before, “Do we really want the state in charge of every aspect of our lives?”  People are looking at the spending, the waste, the lies, the corruption and the total lack of common sense that is endemic to Washington and wondering if this is really the path we want to go down.  The monumental task before the sons of liberty is to convince the people that stopping here is not the solution.  Sure, we want to fight government run health care and illegal immigration but hasn’t the last forty years taught us anything? The statist will just come back and try again, hoping new language or a new generation will accept their vision.  Statism is a cancer, probing, growing and expanding into every area it can.  If it is stopped in one place, it will find another.  Stopping the growth of a cancer is only a stopgap measure, it will grow again as soon as the pressure is off or it will grow unseen in other areas.  The cancer must be taken out, piece by piece until it is gone.  If government health care is bad, why do we put up with Medicare?  If welfare destroys families and encourage negative behavior, why should we have it at all?  Why should we allow the government to take our income throughout our lives and then give us a pittance to live on when we could do much better on our own?  Most people still believe the government doesn’t do anything well outside its constitutionally enumerated powers.  For those of us who love liberty, we must encourage that sentiment and push it to its logical conclusion.  The very survival of our nation and society is in the balance and President Obama and the statists with him are trying hard to push it over the edge, past the point of no return.  These are the times in which the true measure of a man is revealed.  Will we go quietly into the long night of statism, sacrificing what little liberty remains for the empty promises of state security?  Or will we grasp the robes of lady liberty and embrace and exercise the freedom and responsibility we were created with and entrusted with by the men who founded this nation?  The choice is ours and the whole world, literally, awaits our decision.

http://www.patricksamuels.com

The other morning I was watching a documentary on Fidel Castro made in the late sixties, less than a decade after the “revolution”.  The film crew was allowed to follow him around the countryside as he met with the Cuban people.  He rode around in his jeep wearing his trademark green uniform, he and his army escort bouncing over muddy roads.  He was doing what statist politicians have always done-listen to every problem, no matter how trivial, and promise to fix it.  He promised roads to every village and milk to every family.  He vowed to root out corruption and provide a pension for every man and woman “just for being old”.  All the people smiled and cheered, believing that he cared about them as individuals and that father Fidel would take care of their every need.  Hmmm, sounds familiar….I can hear a faint chant….”Yes we Can!”
    The most telling part of the program for me was an interview they had with a jeweler/watchmaker.  Before the revolution he had his own shop and made a good living.  He had a nice house and a good car.  After the revolution, however, he said that the first thing Fidel and his gang did was eliminate private businesses.  The man continued what he was doing but the shop was no longer his and he was now paid a wage he said was a fifth of what he made before.  I was nodding in agreement at this point.  We see it here.  President Obama is following the same playbook.  He is forcing himself and the federal government into the private sector, nationalizing industries, extending government control, firing CEOs and determining what people make, not just at the low end, but at the high end as well.  The goal is to raise the low end a little, bring the high end down a lot, until everyone makes and has the same amount of money regardless of talent, productivity or laziness.
    Continuing with the interview, the man then talked about the benefits he received from Fidel.  His children went to school, one of them even became a doctor.  He didn’t have to pay a cent.  When his wife had a baby, all the costs were covered, he paid nothing.  Then he smiled and delivered the punchline-when one considers all the stuff he gets for free, “I make more now than I did before!”  He weighed the loss of his freedom to do with the fruits of his labor what he wanted against the benefits of Fidel’s program and decided he was better off.  At least he was honest.
    That is more than I can say for what is going on with the statists in this country.  For the jeweler in Cuba, he could weigh the loss of eighty percent of his income against the benefits of “free” health care and education and decide that for him it was a net benefit.  He believed the loss of his freedom, political and economic, was worth it.  Of course, I suppose he could have just been putting on a good face about it.  After all, Fidel and his boys didn’t give him a choice.
    In this country, we are being lied to about our socialist benefits.  The jeweler in Cuba understood at some level that his “free” benefits cost him eighty percent of his income, the loss of his property rights and his political freedom.  We are being told that for “ninety-five percent” of us, the socialist benefits really are “free”.  Candidate and president Obama said ninety-five percent of the people would get a tax cut even if the majority of those ninety-five percent didn’t pay taxes in the first place.  Against that promise are the promises of Fidel, free health care and education for all and…wait, there’s more.  The government will also help pay your mortgage, buy you a car, give you a job and “if you let us act now, we’ll double the offer and it won’t cost you a penny.”
    It is a lie, of course, because even if taxes aren’t raised on the sixty percent that pay nothing, or next to nothing, the amount of spending necessary to provide all of these things is unsustainable without reaching into the pockets of more and more Americans.  The problem is that as long as there are people like the Chinese who will lend us money at low rates, we can print the rest without igniting runaway inflation and we can squeeze more out of the top five percent that pay the majority of the taxes, it will be “free” for the majority and they will encourage the statist to do more.  Even if they dimly understand the loss of freedom that government involvement entails, rationed health care for example, the majority will look on it as a net gain.  Unlike the Cuban jeweler, they will lose little or no income to receive their benefits.  In reality, for a short time, it will be a net gain.  Money they don’t have to put into health insurance is more disposable income for them.  Money they save on a subsidized mortgage is more money in their pocket.  If they don’t have to contribute to their child’s education they have money they can put into a new, eco-friendly car.  Its all free money!  No wonder it is such an easy sell.
    There is no “free lunch” however.  Sooner or later our credit will become worthless and interest rates will go sky high, if we can get anyone to lend to us at all.  Inflation will result in government payments for all the “freebies” being made with worthless dollars.  And when the government controls the majority of the economy and taxes the productive to the point they see no point in producing, they will have killed the goose that was laying the golden eggs.  When (not if) all these things happen, the true cost of all the freebies will come home to all Americans with a vengeance.  All those generous benefits will be cut drastically or eliminated.  Everyone’s production will be taxed at exorbitant rates.  Dollars will be nearly worthless.  Productive industries will have been ruined through government intervention and the economic infrastructure as well as the human capital within it will have been damaged to such an extent recovery will take a very long time.
    The question is when all this happens, when the mighty United States of America has been reduced to such an extent, when all our incomes are taxed at eighty percent or more, when we have lost our rights to private property and political freedom is just a distant memory purged from the history books, will we smile and say with our Cuban friend, “I’m better off now than I was before”?

http://www.patricksamuels.com
Author of “Memoirs of a Former American”

Recently the leaders of the Republican party have gone on a “listening tour” to try to find a way to recover from their recent losses.  They are trying to figure out what it is that will appeal to voters in the age of Obama.  Sounds like a focus group effort to me and if that is the case, its all over for the Republicans.  There is a simple reason for their recent losses.  The Democrat party is much better at selling big government and all its benefits than are the Republicans.

    Here is the problem for the Republican image.  They say they are the party of smaller government, fiscal responsibility, national defense and social conservatism.  But for six years, when they had all the power in Washington, they were fiscally irresponsible, they grew government and didn’t even make an attempt at waging war for social conservatism.  The evidence points to the fact that we don’t have a two party system anymore.  We have one party, the party of “Big, Powerful, Intrusive Government”, with two wings.  One wing has been at the game a long time, the other is a neophyte.  The Republican neophytes, however, are finding that their usefulness parallels that of a sixth toe.  The voters don’t want two parties that pursue the same agenda with different language; they want real choices.  Unfortunately, the system is rigged against “outsiders” so the choices remain what they are and a larger and larger percentage of the people feel disenfranchised as they lose their liberty.

    The Republicans have a great advantage, if they chose to utilize it.  The majority of the people in this country, for the moment, still believe in liberty.  They believe in fiscal responsibility, they are socially conservative.  They want to control our borders, they want smaller government, they want to hear English.  When such ideas have been articulated in the past, they resulted in landslide victories for Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich.  There are still people in the Republican party that believe this but they seem to be a rapidly shrinking minority.  Just look at the last presidential candidate for the proof.

    The rise of Sarah Palin and Bobby Gindal may give some conservatives a glimmer of hope but I will tell you here and now why the Republicans are going to go the way of the Whigs.  It is more than a problem of image, it is a problem of courage.  The Democrats don’t believe in the give and take of the two party system.  They believe they are the smartest people in the room and the reins of government belong in their hands and no other.  To a Democrat, the ends justify the means, the rule of law is only useful when it can be used against an opponent, it does not apply to them.  Their only principle is the acquisition of power.  In this current administration this principle is on display for everyone to see and they are not ashamed of it.  The strong arm tactics of President Obama and his cronies would have made Mussolini smile.  The naked grab for power in the private sector would have brought a chuckle to Stalin.  Encouraging death threats against corporate leaders who dare oppose his will would have brought nods of approval from Hitler.

    The crux of the matter is this.  The Republicans are not going to become the party of conservatism or, dare I say it, liberty, because that would put them fully in the cross hairs of a Democrat party whose aim is to destroy the opposition by any means possible.  It takes a person of great courage to stand up against that kind of onslaught and a career politician is not that kind of person.  Why did Sarah Palin connect with so many people?  Because she was like us.  She was forthright in her speech, she had principles and she stood up for them even when it wasn’t easy.  The American people respect that and the Democrats can’t stand it.  Palin was not the kind of person that could be bought or intimidated so she has to be destroyed.  Dick Cheney was the same way, that is why he was the most hated man on the Hill for eight years.

    To make sure that no Republican ever challenges the Democrat agenda in a meaningful way again, even if they do happen to win an election now and then, they have entertained the possibility of prosecuting former administration officials for activities that were legal at the time but now meet with disapproval by those in power, i.e. Democrats.  With the thought that a future administration is going to drag an official into court, ruining their reputation and bankrupting them in the process, is anyone going to take any risks?  In anyone going to offer an opinion that goes against the statist vision for this country?  Is anyone within the government going to stand up for the people’s freedom?  No.

    In addition to image and courage, the Republicans have a wrong headed strategy for growing the party.  The Democrats have developed a strong base of support among those who benefit from the government’s largess and contribute little or nothing to receive it.  Add to this the unions and community activists who support their Marxist vision and the possibility they will incorporate millions of illegal immigrants into their voting block and they have a secure and formidable base of support.  If the Republicans try to compete for that base, they will lose.  If they are too intimidated to espouse the principles of the people in this country that still love liberty, they will lose.  Unfortunately, it would appear that the leadership of the party is following those tends exactly and by so doing, will accompany the Whigs into the dustbin of history.

   
http://www.patricksamuels.com

Enshrined in the Constitution, in the first amendment, are the words “Congress shall make no law….abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press:”.  The founders understood that the communication of ideas, either as individuals or within organizations known as “the press”, was a fundamental right and crucial to the operation of a democracy.  They knew that if the government controlled speech and could suppress speech that was critical of it, the people would not be able to make informed decisions when they voted and power would collocate around those who controlled the speech.
  Now some may be thinking, that is what we have now.  The “mainstream media”,  consisting of the major network television broadcasts and a majority of newspapers, is in the pocket of the statists in the Democrat party and they have brainwashed the American people.  The other side argues that the “alternative media”, made up primarily of talk radio and the Internet, it unfair to its ideas and programs.  Both sides may complain that they are treated unfairly by some member of “the press” but I would argue that this is exactly what the founders intended.  The idea that “the press” as a whole is to be objective is a myth we have created for ourselves and was not in any way, shape or form that held by the people of the eighteenth century.  If you had an idea or a point of view you wanted to disseminate, you had three choices.  First, if you could get the listeners, you could make speeches.  Second, you could write a pamphlet.  This is what Thomas Paine did with “Common Sense” and in so doing, gave the final push to the Continental Congress to declare for independence.  I’m sure King George did not think it a “fair and objective” treatment of his policies.  Finally, you could start a newspaper.  Samuel Adams and his friends did this to support their revolutionary ideas, as did Thomas Jefferson when he formed his political party in opposition to John Adams.  His paper was anything but objective and everyone knew it and accepted it.
    The point is that “the press” was understood to have a point of view and its dissemination of the news was understood to support that point of view, a point of view that was political in nature.  The papers themselves advertised this fact in their names-the Democrat this or the Republican that.  There was no regulation of these papers and the market determined their success of failure.  Samuel Adams’ first paper lasted only two years but some of those early papers continue to this day.  If their ideas and viewpoint attracted people, it was a success; if they were not, it went under.  For the politically active,  getting your product noticed in the marketplace of ideas was just as difficult then as it is now.
    Over the years, the press has not changed but our perception of it has.  We expect the press to simply “give us the facts” and let us fit it into our ideological understanding.  We created the myth of media objectivity where there was none, never has been and never will be.  Much of the press, for its part, has bought into the myth as well and believes that it is objective and unbiased, lying to itself. Given this situation, we have two choices.  We can complain that the media is not what we think it should be, which is what most of those on the “right” do.  Or was can delude ourselves into believing that what we receive from the major media outlets is objective and simply swallow their “spin” as true.  This is what the majority of Americans who don’t have the will, desire or time to think critically about the issues choose to do.  Why?  Here is the real issue.  Most Americans are products of government schools whose objective, because they are government schools, is to turn out a product that will support the idea that government is good and all the things government does, or tries to do, are good.  Americans are not taught to think critically in school, we are not taught to be discerning.  Therefore, when students come out of the system, they naturally gravitate toward media that support the worldview they have been spoon-fed for over a decade of their young lives.  The more the Federal government controls the schools, the worse this tendency is going to be.  The founders knew this which is why there was no “Department of Education” for almost two hundred years.  Education was understood to be a family and community matter, not a government matter. 
    Today, there are more choices than ever before when it comes to receiving information and viewpoints and because of that fact, people who receive it are forced to learn to think critically and be discerning.  The marketplace works and we need to let it work, particularly in the areas of political ideology.  Any suggestion by any political official that we need regulation in the media should be met with strong opposition.  Failing papers should not be “bailed out”, talk radio should not be subject to any form of the “Fairness Doctrine” and the Internet should not be regulated in any way.  The marketplace should determine the success or failure of every idea.
    The reality is this.  The statist, through years of patient work and indoctrination, has bought off larger and larger segments of the population.  The current administration seems to believe that it can do pretty much anything it wants and is not constrained by the Constitution, economic reality or common sense.  About one sixth of the population of this great country put these people in office.  The great question yet to be decided it this-is this the “tyranny of the minority” or has the statist truly won the ideological battle in the marketplace of ideas?  If the latter is true, liberty is lost.  If the former is true, will the majority rise up before the statist clamps down on any dissenting ideas?  It is a race whose outcome has not yet been decided but in order for liberty to triumph, we must actually enter the contest. 

http://www.patricksamuels.com

Last week Governor Perry of Texas got himself into some hot water not only by supporting a resolution reminding Washington about the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution but by going one step farther and mentioning the possibility of secession.  It is interesting that for the past few weeks Mr. Perry has been heralded by many on the right for standing up to Washington but by mentioning secession, most of them believe he went too far and may have ended his political career.  By mentioning secession and then not backing down, he has gone from hero to fool in a moment.  But should we not consider the issue in light of what to going on in our country?  Rather than a knee jerk negative reaction doesn’t it merit serious consideration and discussion?  I believe it does.
    First, consider this fact.  Before there was a United States of America, there were colonies that became states.  Before there was a Federal Government, there were thirteen state governments that were looking for a way to cooperate.  Here is a very important fact we all need to understand, particularly in light of this issue.  The Federal Government exists to serve the states and the people, we do not exist to serve the Federal Government.  The states and the people voluntarily entered into an agreement to create a higher government power to take on specific tasks they were unable to accomplish individually, specific tasks laid out in the Constitution.  From the time the Constitution was adopted until the “Civil War”, secession was a constant threat, and not just over the issue of slavery.  It was acceptable to consider whether or not the federal government was living up to its billing and if the contract was meeting the needs of the states and the people.  Since the war between the North and the South, however, those who talk of secession have been relegated to the same place in our national consciousness as UFO abductees and the black helicopter crowd.
    The reason for this is the same reason that is bringing up the question of secession in the first place, the metamorphosis of our constitutionally limited government to a centralized state that knows no bounds to its power or sphere of activity.  Because so few now question the authority and the ability of the Federal Government to do anything, because most accept the role of the federal government to meet any need or fix any situation, the idea of secession is as absurd as a five year old running away from his parents yet not being able to cross the street.  The progressives have changed the role of the Federal Government from one of a referee between the states to a meddling mother-in-law.  Over time, we have accepted our role as children to the government’s parent and as the majority’s ability to think critically of the government has waned, secession became an ever more remote consideration.
    I would propose a new analogy, however.  Rather than parent/child, I think we have Dr. Frankenstein and his monster.  The states got together to create this ‘monster’ called the federal government and they believed that through the bonds of the Constitution and the wisdom and morality of a religious people, the monster could be controlled and made to serve their needs.  The ‘monster’, however, is snapping the last of its bonds and is demanding that its former masters now serve it and its voracious appetite.  Now in the movies, what do most people do when the monster shows up?  They run!  If there is no hope of subduing or defeating the monster, vacating the premises is a reasonable option.  If the federal government is imposing itself unconstitutionally on the states and the people and it is highly unlikely that its tendency to tyranny is going to change, secession becomes a reasonable option.
    In reality, Governor Perry has shown a lot of courage and foresight.  Courage because by simply mentioning the fact that there are states, and large ones at that, that are not going to put up with Washington’s abuse and there are no options left off the table for dealing with it.  Foresight because any thinking person can look at the direction Washington has taken over the last several years and realize it is only prudent to have a contingency plan.  Consider the fact that Washington is loading us down with debt we cannot repay, is printing trillions of dollars that can only result in hyperinflation at some point, that the Chinese are becoming a little skittish about financing our foolish expenditures and now the Department of Homeland Security is labeling anyone in the opposition possible domestic terrorists while we coddle or ignore real threats to our security.  If there is a good likelihood that the Federal Government will destroy our economy and monetary system and become even more tyrannical, it is reasonable to consider all the options available.  As an individual, we may need an “escape plan” not just from the oppression of the government but the civil unrest that will result when it can no longer meet the needs of its dependents.  Governor Perry is merely doing what he was elected to do, adopt policies and set courses of action that are best for the people of Texas.  Unlike the state of California, which like a crack addicted whore is willing to do anything for federal dollars, governor Perry understands the practical and ideological ramifications of federal aid and the strings that come with it.  If Washington is going to do things the governor of any state believes are detrimental to his constituents and there is no other remedy, at some point push will come to shove.  Either Washington will bribe or bully the state into obedience or the state will stand up and defy the will of Washington.  Up to this point it has always been the first option.  The question becomes, what happens if Governor Perry or some other governor refuses to obey the dictates of Washington?  Will it go as far a secession?  Probably not but if more states rise up and say no more, perhaps we can begin to put the genie back in the bottle.  If not, we are all going to need an escape plan.