Why I Am Not A "Truther"

Three years ago I started to delve into the so-called "9-11 truth movement" and the subject of conspiracy theories in general on this blog. I never followed through, partly due to a lack of time, but also because I decided there was little to gain and much to lose by the attempt. Several recent developments have reopened the topic, however, and a series of discussions over the Memorial Day weekend convinced me, with some trepidation, to run the risk of putting a few more observations in writing. With trepidation, because I will almost certainly offend some who I respect by denying the credibility of claims they find convincing, and others by noticing claims they find utterly ridiculous.

In that earlier post, I noted that it often seems as though there are only two camps when it comes to political conspiracy theories. One chooses to accept the "official" government explanation in every instance; the other sees masterful deception, sinister motives, and almost divine omnipotence behind every news-worthy event. Considered calmly and in the light of history, both these extremes are nonsensical. Governments are made up of men; generally speaking, unscrupulous and dishonest men, but men none the less.

To consider the first: the idea that official pronouncements on any topic should carry much weight is silly on its face. The dishonesty of politicians and the incompetence of career bureaucrats are both matters of common knowledge. Particularly in regard to foreign policy, official statements are usually meaningless and frequently intended to deceive. Diplomacy has been defined, with good reason, as the art of lying for one's government. The entire history of international relations, from ancient Israel to the present, is a history of deception on a grand scale. In my view, far from lending extra weight to any version of events, the fact that a story is the official line goes in the scales against it.

The other extreme, however, is equally silly. It is beyond reason to assume that every major event is part of a vast human plan. Human plans don't generally work out as they are supposed to, and the bigger and more complex they are, the less likely they are to succeed. Moreover, there is a vast difference between recognizing dishonesty in the official story line and uncovering the real truth of the matter. Decades or even centuries later, with the benefit of hindsight, it often remains impossible to know with certainty the truth about many major events. I am continually frustrated when "truthers" present the most mind-boggling explanations for the events of 9-11, and when asked to state the evidence, immediately begin to cite problems or inconsistencies in the 9-11 Commission report, evidence of official cover-ups, or examples of how the powers that be have benefited from those events as "evidence" for their wild hypothesis. Often they seem sincerely unable to comprehend why such "evidence" does nothing to prove their own explanation.

The fact is that while there are many holes in the official account of what happened on Sept. 11, 2001, most of the various alternatives floating around under the umbrella of the "truth movement" have no credible evidence at all to support them. They seem generally to be developed without any substantive investigation of the actual facts while suspiciously well adapted to make exciting documentary material. Most treat the airplanes as a distraction and claim that the twin towers were brought down by internally placed explosives. Some claim that no airliners were involved at all. Either way, these "alternatives" assume intricate conspiracies of incredible magnitude, requiring the knowledge and complicity of hundreds or thousands of eye-witnesses, emergency responders, construction workers, police and military personnel, airline employees, news media, demolition and recovery workers, stock brokers, high-ranking government officials, petty bureaucrats, and Islamic terrorist organizations. Such conspiracies are the stuff of science fiction, not reality.

I would venture the opinion that the real 9-11 conspiracy is much less exciting. I suspect that it involves an obscenely long wish list of expanded powers sitting in a file cabinet at the Justice Department, under the absurdly patronizing title of The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act. I suspect that it stayed in that file cabinet because, while both Republican and Democrat administrations would have dearly loved such an expansion of executive power, both also knew that, in ordinary times, bringing it forward would inspire jealousy in the evil hearts of opposition legislators. So there it languished, waiting for an appropriate time of crisis and the brief moment of bipartisanship that a good crisis always brings. As I noted in the earlier post, such a crisis was bound to occur sooner or later, given the volatile combination of military occupations, tyrannical regimes propped up with American foreign aid, and the constant, petty, manipulative meddling that former CIA analyst Michael Scheuer calls "imperial hubris" - again on the part of both Republican and Democrat administrations.

No doubt Sept. 11, 2001 will go down in history as a Reichstag moment, and rightly so. But to conclude from this that it must have been an "inside job" is unwarranted and unnecessary. The Thompson killings in 1846, the sinking of the Lusitania, the bombing of Pearl Harbor, and the Gulf of Tonkin incident were all similarly anticipated, provoked, and used to manipulate the American public into support for otherwise unpopular wars. The official story behind each of these events is full of holes. None of them, however, was an "inside job." In each case, the enemy was baited into an act of war that justified a military response, and the problems with the official account stems from the difficulty of leaving the bait out of the story.

(For those who take issue with the idea that the U.S. provoked the 9-11 attacks, I again quote the former head of the CIA's Bin Laden unit, Michael Scheuer: "Bin Laden has been precise in telling Americans the reason he is waging war on us. None of the reasons have anything to do with our freedom, liberty and democracy, but have everything to do with U.S. policies and actions in the Muslim world.")

While the standard template for discussing the 9-11 attacks (a benevolent and peaceful America blindsided by a "sucker punch ... from somewhere in the back") is somewhere between a bad joke and a pack of lies, there is overwhelming evidence available regarding the actual events themselves. Even the collapse of WTC 7 is easily explained without resorting to alternative theories, if one takes the time to examine the structural issues and the eyewitness testimony relating to it.

What bothers me about all of this is not that conspiracy theorists don't trust their government, but that they don't invest the time and effort to scrutinize each others' claims. Most conspiracy theories have a grain of truth somewhere, buried in mountains of conjecture and fiction. Rumors of secret experiments with cloud seeding and weather manipulation magically grow into fantastic stories of "chemtrails" and population reduction efforts. Radio telescopes and ionospheric research become mind-control projects that can also cause massive earthquakes. Secret and exclusive clubs where powerful elites and their mistresses drink, party and discuss how to dig deeper into our pockets morphe into pagan temples where birds, rodents and worse are sacrificed to Satan himself. These claims serve only one purpose: to discredit those who buy into them. Unfortunately, many conspiracy afficionados seem to think it is everyone else's responsibility to disprove their ideas, and are content to dismiss any skeptic with the question, "Have you researched it yourself?"

In the mean time, policies and actions that truly threaten everything we hold dear are pushed forward right under our noses. While President Obama's birthplace was the subject of useless but frantic scrutiny, litigation, and alternative media attention, his political and economic policies have done incalculable damage to our nation and our freedoms. Just as the 9-11 "truth" movement was unfairly but effectively used to discredit Ron Paul in 2008, so the "birther" issue has more recently been used to discredit Tea Party activists, even those who paid no attention to it. The 2012 election will be either a tremendous opportunity or another blow to individual liberty. We would all do well to select carefully the issues to which we will devote our time and efforts.

Liam Goligher Installation Service

I know this is a departure from the usual subject matter here, but this was such an incredible worship service I've got to share it. Tenth is our church, and a wonderful church it is. Dr. Liam Goligher was installed as the new senior minister last week, and this is the video stream of the service. The entire two hours are well worth watching.

Worship/Installation Service - 5/22/2011 Evening Service: "Why the City Needs the Gospel" from Tenth Presbyterian Church on Vimeo.

For those who share my own love for Scottish music, you must catch the postlude at the end. We were sitting in the balcony, and actually stood in the doorway of the choir loft while the band, orchestra, bagpipes and organ played "Highland Cathedral" in honor of Dr. Goligher's Glasgow roots.

Hammers And Nails: Getting Things Done

With Republicans taking control of the House for the next two years, a tired old template for debate inside the beltway has been rediscovered: it's now time to put aside the rhetoric and partisanship and focus on getting things done for the American people. New polls assure lawmakers that a majority of Americans want compromise for the sake of "progress" (a helpfully vague ideal that is almost never given a definite meaning). This concept is nothing new: principled legislators like Ron "Dr. No" Paul or Pennsylvania's Sam Rohrer are often criticized for their failure to "get things done" - usually defined as authoring legislation which will ultimately become law. As with most political debate, the underlying question (what are legislators for?) is never asked unless in a rhetorical sense; the assumption is nearly always that the legislator's first responsibility is to come up with additional laws.

There's an old proverb that applies here: to a man with nothing but a hammer everything looks like a nail. Lawmakers are always happy to indulge, even when the public really doesn't want them to. As early as 1834, a profligate Congress drew this rebuke from William Leggett in the New York Evening Post:

"One of the great practical evils of our system arises from a superabundance of legislation. ... Putting the acts of Congress and those of the State legislature together, they amount to some thousands annually. Is it possible that the good people of the United States require to be hampered and pestered by such a multiplicity of fetters as this: or that they cannot be kept in order without being manacled every year by new laws and regulations? Every superfluous law is a wanton and unnecessary innovation of the [people's] freedom of action... [yet our] legislative bodies have been regularly and systematically employed in frittering away, under a thousand pretenses, the whole fabric of the reserved rights of the people."

Good thing our great-grandparents put a stop to that. Imagine what our country would look like if Congress and the Pennsylvania General Assembly still enacted "some thousands of new laws annually."

Oh wait - they still do that.

The most overlooked consequence of nearly all legislation today is, embarrassingly, its primary purpose. Generally speaking, a new law means a new crime. It is precisely for this reason that unnecessary laws are so destructive to freedom and economic growth. Whether a law's purpose is to ban a substance, levy a tax, create a license, or impose a reporting requirement, it has invented a new crime where none existed before. This is not to say that laws are bad, only that unnecessary laws are bad.

I'd like to suggest that legislators aren't elected to make laws. Their responsibility is to see that only good and necessary laws are made. If no new laws are needed, then their responsibility is to prevent bad laws from being made (obstructionism, if you please). If bad laws have already been made, then their responsibility is to undo them.

Is there any doubt that this last is the situation we find ourselves in today? Almost everyone, regardless of their political opinions, thinks that we have bad laws on the books. But when the political class is confronted with the problems caused by their collective OCD, they don't undo anything, they just do more of it. It's time for that to change. The American voters took the legislative hammer away from a significant number of politicians on November 2nd; now we need to keep the pressure on those replacing them to start pulling nails instead of driving more. And instead of cringing in fear when others label us "the party of no," why don't we remind them that a "no" to the Nanny State is a "yes" to freedom, not just for Republicans, but for all Americans?

From Mao To Hitler; The Full Political Spectrum?

Yes, I'm still alive.

I was asked to speak about Patrick Henry at the 19th annual Bill of Rights Commemorative Banquet earlier this week, in recognition of the 275th anniversary of his birth next year. The following is the last half of my remarks, which address the subject of empire-building, something that has generated a good bit of reaction here in the past. The first half covered the history and context of Henry's public life up to the Revolutionary War. I begin below with the debate over the Constitution.

___________________________________________

We don’t have time to dwell on Henry’s time in the Governor’s Mansion and the Assembly during and after the war – I want to jump ahead thirteen years to June, 1788. The Constitutional Convention had been held in Philadelphia the year before, for the purpose of amending the Articles of Confederation. They had concluded that the Articles were past amending and instead produced an entirely new constitution, which was sent to the states to be ratified or rejected.

Henry thought it should be rejected.

He had many objections, but they all boiled down to centralization of power. Henry was convinced that America could not remain free with the triple powers of trade regulation, taxation and defense all consolidated under the federal government. He believed that the framers of the constitution had lost sight of essential liberties in their desire to see America become great.

Now, history has proven many of Henry’s objections to have been groundless, and, with the benefit of hindsight, I do not agree with him that the Federal Constitution was a dangerous step toward tyranny. But the truth is, if Henry had not objected to the constitution as it stood we would, most likely, have no Bill of Rights today. What is more, while Henry (I believe) underestimated the value of the various checks and balances that were built into the federal Constitution, on this point at least his words seem eerily prophetic when read today. He returned again and again throughout twenty-three days of debate in the Virginia Convention to this question of empire vs. liberty.

“I own, sir,” he said, “I am not free from suspicion. I am apt to entertain doubts… You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your government. … Sir, suspicion is a virtue, as long as its object is the preservation of the public good. … Guard with jealous attention the public liberty! Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel!”

“The American spirit,” he went on, “has fled from hence: it has gone to regions where it has never been expected; it has gone to the people of France, in search of a splendid government—a strong, energetic government. Shall we imitate the example of those nations who have gone from a simple to a splendid government? Are those nations more worthy of our imitation? What can make an adequate satisfaction to them for the loss they have suffered in attaining such a government—for the loss of their liberty? If we admit this consolidated government, it will be because we like a great, splendid one. Some way or other we must be a great and mighty empire; we must have an army, and a navy, and a number of things. When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different: liberty, sir, was then the primary object.

“We are descended from a people whose government was founded on liberty: our forefathers of Great Britain made liberty the foundation of every thing. That country is become a great, mighty, and splendid nation; not because their government is strong and energetic, but, sir, because liberty is its direct end and foundation. We drew the spirit of liberty from our British ancestors: by that spirit we have triumphed over every difficulty. …

"But, sir, we are not feared by foreigners; we do not make nations tremble. Would this constitute happiness, or secure liberty? I trust, sir, our political hemisphere will ever direct their operations to the security of those objects. …. No matter whether the people be great, splendid, and powerful, if they enjoy freedom. The Turkish Grand Signior, alongside of our President, would put us to disgrace; but we should be abundantly consoled for this disgrace, when our citizens have been put in contrast with the Turkish slave. The most valuable end of government is the liberty of the inhabitants. No possible advantages can compensate for the loss of this privilege.”

Henry’s opposition to the constitution barely failed to prevent its ratification; but his influence was enough to ensure that a list of amendments was sent to the first Congress from the Virginia Ratifying Convention. He also successfully nominated two opponents of the Constitution to the first United States Senate. Their election convinced James Madison, one of the leading Federalists, that concessions would have to be made if the new government was to succeed, and he agreed to support the proposed amendments in Congress. He did so ably and successfully, thereby earning the popular title “Father of the Bill of Rights,” which rightly belongs to Henry, if to anyone.

That brings us around to the reason we are celebrating here tonight. But I can’t bring myself to leave it there without asking the million dollar question: have the past two hundred and nineteen years validated Henry’s fear that Americans would lose sight of liberty in the pursuit of national greatness?

The value of history is only what we learn from it. Perhaps every one of us here tonight would agree that we have indeed lost much of the freedom our forefathers enjoyed. Probably not so many would agree with Patrick Henry that our liberty has fallen a victim to our pursuit of greatness and empire. But I do. In fact, I believe that, not a belligerent minority, not even fifty percent, but the vast majority of Americans are complicit – unintentionally, perhaps – but complicit none the less, in the loss of that freedom; or perhaps I should say complicit in the growth and centralization of government power, which is the same thing.

It has been common, especially leading up to last month’s election, to hear “liberals” blamed for the growth of government; and not without cause. People who describe themselves as “liberals” tend to be open about their view that government is good, and they readily acknowledge that they support more of it. People who describe themselves as “conservative,” on the other hand, tend to have at least a vague idea that big government, on the whole, is a bad thing for society. Unfortunately, this idea is usually not clear enough to serve any purpose. While there are probably countless reasons for this lack of clarity, the one that seems most obvious to me is the box in which we are all expected to think. You know, tyranny imposed through a democratic process is often the worst possible kind of tyranny, because it requires control over the mind of the electorate. And I’m not talking about some high-tech, top-secret government mind control program. The most effective way to control the outcome of a debate is to control the framework of the debate, and the great American experiment has shown, among other things, that such control is both achievable and effective. So in the spirit of Patrick Henry, let’s think for a minute about the box.

And please understand, if I am particularly hard on conservatives, it’s because I am a conservative Republican talking to a room mostly full of conservative Republicans. Fair enough?

What do the words “conservative” and “liberal” mean? Why is conservative politics a good thing and conservative Islam a bad thing? Why is economic liberalism an essential ingredient of a free society while political liberalism is a threat to a free society? Properly defined, political conservatism really just means a philosophical support for tradition or the established order of things – you could almost define it as a strict adherence to what is. Political liberalism is a philosophy of progress or change – not to put too fine a point on it, an affinity for what isn’t.

What I’m driving at is that the terms “conservative” and “liberal” only have real meaning when they refer to a standard. When we lose sight of that standard we get confused and end up rooting for Team A or Team B without asking why the goals are on the same side of the field. If the standard is that liberty with which all men are endowed by their Creator, I’m conservative. If the standard is the Constitution I’m conservative. If it’s anything else I’m not playing. But if we can agree that the Constitution is indeed the standard, then much of the popular conservative agenda today doesn’t look conservative anymore.

I can hear somebody say “Enough with the dictionary. When we say liberal or conservative we know what we mean!” Really? Do we really? Ask a certain popular radio host to define conservative and he’ll probably say something about lower taxes and not talking to rogue dictators without preconditions. To confuse matters even further, we have come to use “right” and “left” interchangeably with conservative and liberal. You talk about a box! We think in terms of a political spectrum that runs from Mao to Hitler.

As if there is a difference.

That strikes me as being like a medical practice that offers a full range of family health services, from euthanasia to assisted suicide.

Seriously, how did we accept this fraud? Between Mao and Hitler, where do you want to be? You say, “Well, I guess in the middle. Get as far from either end as I can.” That’s exactly what you’re supposed to say, because the center is engineered to be where your elitist leaders want you. And if you dare move away from the center they can call you names. “Socialist,” or “Fascist,” depending on which way you go.

Our political dialogue is like the emperor’s new clothes; we’re supposed to be so intimidated by the experts that we never call the game what it is. This kind of thinking is how we end up with ObamaCare being socialized medicine while RomneyCare is innovation and leadership. It is why the same party that brought us the TSA, MediCare Part D, the TARP bailout, the National Animal ID System, No Child Left Behind, the McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Act, the National ID Card, legalized torture, massive increases in the national debt, the greatest consolidation of power in the Executive Branch since FDR, the two longest wars our nation has ever fought, and the only mass confiscation of firearms from law-abiding citizens in recent American history – it is why this party can still sell itself as the party of small government and effectively convince Americans that they will roll back the size, scope and cost of the federal government if they get the chance.

I don’t mean to engage in needless Republican-bashing; it’s just that I’m convinced we Republican voters are being used. If the political spectrum made sense, and the far left believed in total government control, one would expect the far right to believe in no government at all; anarchy, in other words. But somehow, the statists have sold us this fraudulent idea where both ends want big government in some area, with the result that no matter who’s in and who’s out after a given election, there is always a big government agenda to move forward. Think about this: both the “right” and the “left” also claim that they want to rein in government - in certain areas. But what happens when they take control? Did the Republican Party take advantage of their six years of control in Washington to reduce the debt, or to stop abortion, or to cut entitlement programs, or to roll back federal control of anything? No, but they sure managed to consolidate power in the Executive branch, trash our Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights, dramatically expand law enforcement and the military, and reward a bunch of cronies in the financial sector. When the Democrats took over, did they reduce corporate welfare, or cut pork-barrel spending, or bring our troops home from a single one of our 800 overseas citadels, or end the travesty of justice that we call trial by military commission? No, but they sure managed to take over our health care system. They sure managed to tighten their chokehold on small businesses, further trash our Fourth Amendment rights, and reward a bunch of cronies in the financial sector.

Forget rolling back the size of government – if we don’t recognize the game that is being played we will keep demanding bigger government. Because the expansion of government today isn’t only an item on the liberal agenda; it seems to me to be divided pretty evenly between both “sides.” The feel-good, bleeding heart big government may be for “liberals,” but conservatives are all about the empire thing. We blame liberals for promoting dependency on government when it comes to economic security, but “conservatives” just as avidly promote dependency on government for physical security. I know this isn’t going to win me any new friends, but this issue has to be addressed; it is a ball and chain on the movement to restore liberty in America.

Our assumed role of superpower and our obsession with security has put us exactly where Henry predicted, and with exactly the consequences that he expected. How can you have a restrained government at home and an adventurous government overseas? How can you spread freedom by force? You cannot empower your leaders to aggressively use force abroad without losing your soul and your liberty to the monster you have created. “Government,” said George Washington, “is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” And history has shown again and again that the government that acquires a taste for mastery abroad will never be content to serve at home.

The only way I see to break out of the box is to reject the fraudulent “right-left” political spectrum, reject the notion that either party is the answer – and I’m not talking about a third party; I am a Republican – but we need to start judging every single government action by one standard: freedom, based on the fact that all men are created equal. For too long we have been told, “Yes, government is out of control, but terrorists are trying to kill us, so just give up a little more freedom here. Sure, government is out of control, but there are thousands of illegal immigrants entering the country every day, so we need a little more power over here. Yes, it’s a crime to saddle our children and grandchildren with this kind of debt, but we’ve got to maintain a strong national defense, so don’t ask us to bring troops home from any of the 130 countries we keep them in.”

Where does it end? No matter what the problem is, it is time for Americans to demand only solutions that make government smaller, less intrusive, and less costly; or, to put it another way, solutions that result in more freedom for us as individuals. Such solutions do exist, but they will never be willingly implemented by this power-drunk government. The American people will have to reassert their control over their public servants, but we cannot do that until we first control our own thinking; until, like Patrick Henry, we are willing to make liberty the standard, to think outside the box, to ask the uncomfortable question. I believe that the question for us today remains what it was in 1775; it is, as Henry said, “a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject, ought to be the freedom of debate.”

Thank you very much.

Hypocrisy In PA GOP Primary

The following is an excellent response to Corbett's latest smear attack against Sam Rohrer, originally posted at winthewestforsam.com :

After viewing a copy of the latest mailing sent out comparing Tom Corbett and Sam Rohrer, I must say that I am more embarassed than ever to be a member of the Republican Party in this state. You claim that this flier’s purpose is to “set the record straight” about the two candidates, when you have actually done the exact opposite, and in doing so done a great disservice to every member of the Republican Party in Pennsylvania. Let’s take a truthful approach to “setting the record straight”, shall we? We’ll start with the statements made about Sam Rohrer:

“Voted for the midnight pay raise”: How appropriate that you bring this vote up, as it was actually the REPUBLICAN PARTY that backed Representative Rohrer into a corner, saying if he didn’t vote for the pay raise that his legislation for property tax elimination would never see the House floor for a vote. So in voting for the pay raise, he actually did exactly what you wanted him to do. And now you dare feign repulsiveness at that same vote. In fact, your real problem with the pay raise and Sam Rohrer is that he came out the very next day publicly against it and helped spearhead the effort to have it repealed, and hasn’t accepted a dime of the pay increase. But you failed to mention that part in your mailer, didn’t you?

“Voted to raise his taxpayer-funded pension by 50%”: Again, Representative Rohrer voted for this based on information he was given that the state could afford the increase in the benefits. And one can only assume that this information was given to him by his own party, otherwise I don’t believe that he would have accepted it.

“In 18 years as a legislator, Rohrer has received over a million dollars in salary and benefits, yet has never written a single bill passed into law.”: This is probably one of my favorite “criticisms” of Sam Rohrer that you make on this flier, and demonstrates just how far out of touch with reality the Republican Party in this state is. I’m not sure if you realize this, but a state representative isn’t elected by his district to go to Harrisburg and write and get passed as much legislation as possible to earn his pay. He is sent to Harrisburg by his district to REPRESENT the interests of his constituents, and if need be PROTECT those same interests. That’s why they’re called “representatives”. Using the proper definition of his job title, Representative Rohrer has done an admirable job in his tenure in the House, putting his constituents before party politics. Otherwise they would not have elected him for 9 terms. It’s not your place to determine if he earned his salary or did his job, the voters decided that. Your obvious ignorance about this point is statement enough that the Republican Party leadership in this state has lost grasp of the concept of “Constitutionally-limited government”, a term Mr. Corbett has tried to use as much as possible during this campaign after Representative Rohrer has made it a centerpiece of his campaign.

“Has billed taxpayers over $100,000 for his car, including gas and maintenance”: Wow. That seems like an excessive amount of money when put that way. But, when broken down over 18 years, that comes to a little over $5555 a year, a modest amount of money given how much he used it to travel back and forth to the capitol for his job. Tom Corbett drives one of the state-owned “fleet” that he has so ardently promised to prune. How much has his vehicle cost the taxpayers on a yearly basis? Funny, I don’t see that figure on your mailer….

As far as your points about Tom Corbett on your flier, they’re not much of a “comparison”. His quoted experience going after money from various criminal enterprises isn’t any sort of honest assesment of his qualifications to be governor, it means he’s a good prosecutor. Show me any experience Mr. Corbett has in an executive capacity that demonstrates his ability to govern our state: a business he’s owned and operated, for example. And please, don’t use his tenure as Attorney General as an example, because given the multitudes of improprieties that have occurred in that office while he’s been in charge I think speak volumes of his inability to monitor those he is responsible for and run the department he’s in charge of in
any sort of fiscally responsible way.

The rest of your talking points about Tom Corbett are nothing more than promises he has made during this campaign. He has no track record of conservative values at all. In fact, he has no legislative history at all to look at to see whether he’s conservative or not. What he DOES have that we can look at is the history of the cases he’s pursued for prosecution, including many examples of seeking to deny citizens their gun ownership rights. Not very conservative, Mr. Corbett.

The point of this letter is this: the members of the Republican Party in this state
are sick and tired of the party elite “coronating” our candidates for us, deciding for us who is worth representing the party in elections and providing them with all of the party’s financial backing. It is our RIGHT to decide for ourselves who is worthy to represent us, not yours. Your job is in an organizational capacity only, taking the information from the lower levels of precinct committeemen all the way up to the state level in order to determine whom the people want for potential candidates, coordinating funds and dispensing them to candidates as needed, and letting us have fair and open primaries so that every qualified candidate gets an equal chance to get his message out to every member of the party so that “We The People” can make OUR decision who represents us, NOT YOU.

You’re seeing a groundswell happen this year that you don’t understand and cannot measure. You don’t understand why your choice for Governor isn’t already the defacto winner of the primary. You’re obviously nervous about Sam Rohrer, otherwise why bother with the smear campaign of a fellow Republican so close to the election? Which, by the way, is a repugnant act to treat a member of your own party with such disdain. And don’t think it will go unnoticed.

Well let me fill you in on what’s going on. We the people of the Republican Party in Pennsylvania are putting you, the party machine, on notice: your time has come. The machinery is about to be dismantled. And we’re taking our party back. Precinct by precinct, county by county, your reign over us will fall. And this party will once again function the way the Founding Fathers intended our government to work, as a REPRESENTATIVE Republic.

So consider this your wake-up call: start representing us and our interests again, or find yourselves another line of work.

Sincerely,

David A. Groot

Republican

Venango County

This Was A Battle?

This recently leaked video provides the context for an excellent piece of advice from one of America's finest: Don't bring your kids to a battle. It also explains just what qualifies for "a battle" to video-game addicts turned loose on the real world, with formidable weapons and technology and the arrogance of the world's only superpower behind them. Don't let kids watch the video, either.

I don't for a minute believe that the actions of this crew are representative of most American soldiers. Nor do I believe, on the other hand, that this was a unique, isolated incident. Here are two examples from my own personal experience:

A friend of mine currently serving as an infantryman in Iraq told me personally that one of his superiors, during a routine patrol in southern Baghdad, fired a missile at random into a civilian dwelling to demonstrate the weapon to a new member of the unit, then justified his actions to his furious fellow-soldiers by reminding them that the US would compensate the homeowner (assuming he survived to file a claim) for the damage.

A former Blackwater medic who was teaching a tactical EMS class I took last year told us: "Blackwater isn't running around over there killing innocent Iraqis, mainly because there are no innocent Iraqis." I know, this wasn't an American soldier, but the attitude is common to many in uniform as well as out.

What I do believe is that some American soldiers are simply violent individuals who enjoy the opportunity to kill and destroy (case #1 above); that some are decent Americans who lose their moral compass in the violence and confusion of alternately fighting and supporting various elements of an insurgency created by their own leaders (case #2 above); and that the large majority are just too cowardly to expose the actions of the first two groups.

By the way, my apologies to the anonymous posters who occasionally post relevant comments here: I've been so inundated with spam comments that I've had to limit comments to registered users.

Who Is Sam Rohrer?

Bureaucracy At Its Best

Every man and woman in this country needs to hear this little exchange. It speaks for itself.




Unbelievable.

Oh, and when Alan Grayson refers to "what is now a two trillion dollar portfolio" - how much is that?

Two billion General Grants ($1,000 apiece); or twenty billion Ben Franklins ($100 apiece).

What could you do with it?

Well - you could spend $1,000 every second for 64 years.

Or, you could make a stack of one-thousand-dollar bills 142 miles high - enough to threaten the International Space Station.

You could lay those Grants end to end around the earth's equator - eight times. If you used Franklins you could do it eighty times.

If you actually used dollar bills you could make a continuous ribbon 189,393,939.4 miles long. A fighter jet flying at the speed of sound would take over twenty-nine years to unroll it.

This didn't come from a chain email, friends. I did the math myself and if anyone doesn't believe it I'll post all the calculations.

When did America go insane?

My Comments At Valley Forge

The following is roughly the text of my comments at the Valley Forge Tea Party this morning. I was asked to speak on the theme: A Constitution In Crisis.

__________________________________________________

The flyer that was circulated prior to this event makes the observation that the Constitution is being violated by the very public officials who are sworn to uphold it. It goes on to pose three questions: 1st, what are some of these abuses or violations? 2nd, how should we, as citizens, respond if we are “persecuted” for following the Constitution? And 3rd, how can we restore the Constitution to its proper place as law of the land?

I don’t believe the answers are hard to come by, but acting on those answers will be difficult. First, though, there is another question to answer; why should we care? The world has changed radically in the two-and-a-quarter centuries since the Constitution was designed. Everything is different now – or so we’re told. Why should our public servants in the 21st century be limited by a musty old document written with a quill pen? Why should we expect a two-hundred-and-twenty year old law to have any meaningful application to the political questions of our day?

There’s no doubt many, if not most, Americans really do question the importance of the Constitution. The reason, I believe, is that we’ve become too busy, too complacent – dare I say too apathetic – to be bothered with the abstract concepts of government and economics. We don’t want to think about it. We would rather handle our votes and our influence as citizens the same way we handle our tax returns. We want an expert to tell us what to do, or in this case how to think. This laziness is the reason Americans have been so easily sold on the concept of “problem-solving, issues-driven” politics. That wonderful sounding phrase is a euphemism for unlimited, centralized legislative authority – the antithesis of our Constitutional form of government.

But really, what’s wrong with that? Why should we care? Isn’t solving problems a legitimate purpose of legislation?

The answer, fellow Americans, is no. Under this benign, seemingly reasonable proposition lie assumptions that are deadly to our American values of liberty, justice and equality. If the purpose of the law is simply to solve problems, then who is to decide what problems need to be solved? The foundational assumption at the center of “issues-driven, problem-solving” politics is that you, as an individual, are neither competent to nor capable of solving your own problems or working with those around you to solve problems which affect us all; and that the lawmaker, merely by virtue of his position, is somehow miraculously endowed with all the wisdom, incentive and ability that the rest of you lack. That assumption, my friends, is nonsense; it is also incompatible with freedom.

The only legitimate purpose of the law is to establish justice. Frederic Bastiat, the great 19th century economist, puts it thus:

“Life, liberty and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place… [Law] is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense… It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over all.”

But why can’t the law establish justice and solve other problems at the same time? Quite simply, because law is not charity or philanthropy, it is brute force; it does not counsel or advise, it coerces. To extend this force beyond the limits of justice is to commit injustice; to destroy the legitimate goal of law in the pursuit of an illegitimate goal. Moreover, contrary to the “problem-solver’s” assumptions, the lawmaker (a) is as selfish as the rest of us, (b) has his own problems and (c) doesn’t have the foggiest idea about yours or mine. Consequently, when the law is allowed to go beyond the limits of justice, the temptation is generally irresistible to solve problems in a way that will benefit the lawmaker, not society. Every government that has ever existed on the face of the earth has shown this tendency.

OK, enough theory. What does the Constitution have to do with all this? Well, the Constitution is unique in the sense that, unlike statutory law, it doesn’t limit the actions of private citizens. It puts you, as an American citizen, under no legal obligation. The legal force of the Constitution is directed toward government, not you. The purpose of the Constitution was to say what your federal government may, and may not, do. It was intended as a limiting framework for the operation of the United States government. It does this in three ways.

First, the Constitution says what the federal government may do. The founders’ clearly stated intent was that if the constitution didn’t specifically delegate a power to the federal government, then the federal government did not have that power. Secondly, the Constitution prohibits or further restricts the exercise of some powers that might otherwise be implied. And thirdly, it divides these powers in such a way as to minimize the incentive for their abuse by any one branch of government.

The Constitution matters, ladies and gentlemen, because unlimited government always destroys individual freedom, and government is not easily limited. Remember, law is force. It can only be kept within proper limits by an opposing force. The founders understood this. We’re gathered at Valley Forge - why is Valley Forge significant? Because our forefathers fought a long, bloody and destructive war to restore the law to its proper functions. They didn’t want us to go through that horror again. So they sought to establish a form of government that would pit the force of government against itself through a system of checks and balances; one that would use the tendency of each branch of government to consolidate its own power to prevent the abuse of that power.

And it has worked. There is a reason America has been the most prosperous, and one of the longest lived, popular governments in the history of the world. Its failure to work today is not due to being outdated – human nature hasn’t changed – but rather to the fact that Americans don’t understand how their government is supposed to work – or how any good government should work, for that matter.

So now, to answer the three questions we started with:1st - What are some examples of the Constitution being violated today?

Kim asked me last week about the AIG bonus tax bill that passed the house. Was that unconstitutional? I think so. It didn’t merely go beyond constitutional limits; it would have violated at least two clear prohibitory clauses of Article 1, sec. 9. As a punitive tax targeting specific individuals, it was the equivalent of a bill of attainder, and as a retroactive tax on compensation already paid and received, it was an ex post facto law. Any lawmaker who cared knew that. Those who would plead ignorance didn’t care.

Another example would be the McCain/Feingold so-called “campaign finance reform laws.” The only constitutional authority the federal government has over the electoral process applies to the times, places and manner of holding elections. They have no delegated authority to regulate fundraising or political advertising. Moreover, the 1st Amendment specifically prohibits such interference where private citizens are concerned.

McCain/Feingold is an interesting example because many legislators who voted for it admitted that they thought it was unconstitutional – and voted for it anyway. President Bush admitted that it was probably unconstitutional – and signed it anyway! Their justification was that constitutionality is a question for the Supreme Court. Actually, it’s a question for all of us, particularly those of us who take an oath to uphold and defend it. This is a quote from Justice Kennedy, in an unrelated case: “The usual presumption is that Members of Congress, in accord with their oath of office, considered the constitutional issue and determined the … statute to be a lawful one; and the Judiciary, in light of that determination, proceeds to its own independent judgment on the constitutional question when required to do so in a proper case.” In other words, the Court assumes that if Congress passes a law, they believe it to be constitutional. To legislate with abandon and leave questions of constitutionality to the Court is a violation of the lawmaker’s oath of office.

The Federal Reserve System is unconstitutional, and so is the issuance of legal tender paper money. That may seem like a bold statement, but the intent of the founders on this point is not a subject of doubt.

Other specific examples could include the National Animal Identification System; the myriad of federal laws restricting the free exercise of religion; federal regulations that prevent airlines from arming their pilots; bail-outs of irresponsible firms from hedge funds to auto-makers. To be honest, I’d be hard-pressed to name any bill that has passed Congress in the last several years that hasn’t been unconstitutional in some way. We aren’t just seeing violations of the Constitution on the level of individual laws; entire aspects of society that are entirely outside of the federal government’s jurisdiction are now regulated minutely by federal law. Things like healthcare, job creation, and agriculture – the proper role of government, both morally and constitutionally speaking, is simply to protect the free enterprise system as it applies to those areas of the economy. It has no constitutional authority to regulate the actions of private individuals in those areas unless they are directly engaging in interstate commerce.

2nd - How do we respond when citizens are “persecuted” for following the Constitution? Remember, the Constitution obligates your public servants, not you. Our responsibility as private citizens isn’t so much to follow the Constitution ourselves, rather to see to it that they do. This brings us to the last question:

3rd - How can we restore the Constitution to its proper place as law of the land?

First, we need to know the constitution. Start by reading it. The entire document was hand-written on two sheets of parchment – it isn’t long. Learning the Constitution is an absolutely essential first step, and it will make you better qualified to run this country than most of your leaders, because they haven’t read it.

Secondly, pay attention to what your leaders are doing. Do NOT, do not assume that the leaders of your party care about your values – they do not. Put pressure on them. Let them know that you stand opposed to all expansions of government, regardless of whether they tend toward the “right” or the “left” of our meaningless political spectrum. Remember those checks and balances? They only work if voters are paying attention. They aren’t working now because while you’re celebrating the Phillies’ World Series title all the branches of government are cooperating to steal you blind.

My brother and I met with Delaware County Sheriff Joe McGinn a few weeks ago. We confronted him about an apparently illegal arrest and search his deputies had been involved in. To his credit, he had a reasonable explanation for the incident. But he seemed puzzled by our concern when I told him we didn’t know the suspect who had been arrested. He told us that in his entire law enforcement career, it was the first time he had been challenged by a citizen who wasn’t personally connected to the case in question.

Shame on us. Joe McGinn is a good guy. I really believe that. But how can we expect him to stand up to the pressure from within government if we as voters don’t provide the counter-pressure which is our responsibility? Why should he limit his authority according to the constitution when he doesn’t expect it to make the slightest impact on his reelection? We need to pay attention and hold elected officials accountable.

And finally, each one of us needs to exercise self government. Society needs government. Unrestrained human nature isn’t pretty. If we as individuals desire to be free, to remain free, we must govern ourselves; because if we don’t, the vacuum will be filled by others, and the end result will be a totalitarian government. God knows there are enough of those in this world.

Quotes From Bill Of Rights Day

"What we do not know, we do not appreciate. What we do not appreciate, we do not defend. And what we do not defend, we lose." (PA State Representative Sam Rohrer, on his colleagues' appalling lack of interest in even reading the Constitution.)

"There is some good news: we are not in session, so for the moment you are safe!" (PA State Senator Mike Folmer, when asked to give a brief update on current issues in the Senate.)

Thanks, Xman!

I'd like to express my sincere appreciation to "xpressive1515" for a beautiful illustration of the problems I've been addressing in my last two posts. When I said that many Americans, conservatives and liberals alike, are incapable of critical thinking, and that most conservatives are "inexcusably myopic" in their views on the sanctity of life, I didn't expect to have my statements underscored by such a pointed object lesson.

This individual disliked my assessment of the moral questions raised by the killing of non-combatants in war. They began charitably enough, noting that I am a product of the "extremely liberal" northeast. Unfortunately, I can claim no such excuse for the unconventional opinions expressed here. I am actually the product, by the grace of God, of a west coast navy pilot with excellent critical thinking skills and a southern preacher's daughter with a passion for history. They conspired to instill in us a love of learning, and encouraged us to study God's word and grapple with the difficult questions raised by our studies rather than simply trying to clone themselves. My grandfather was the only member of his gun crew to survive Okinawa. I have ancestors who fought in WWI, both sides of the War Between the States, the War of 1812, the Revolutionary War, and the French and Indian War. I am married to the granddaughter of, not one, but two navy captains. I live in an extremely conservative area, one of the heaviest Republican concentrations in the country. I am actually a Republican myself. In short, the explanation offered for my inability to reconcile the concept of justice with the killing of civilians is insufficient. I must accept full responsibility for my opinions.

The aforementioned charity, besides being misplaced, was remarkably short-lived. This individual began by taking issue with the concept of "innocent civilians," stating a biblical principle dealing with man's relationship to God and arrogating that principle to the question of man to man relationships. They further developed this fallacy by stating that "justice sometimes requires the killing of one's enemies to right wrongs" and invoking the bombing of Hiroshima, Hanoi and Iraqi and Afghan villages as examples. No attempt was made to demonstrate the assertion, so naturally, I asked what connection, if any, existed. Specifically, I inquired as to "the connection between justice as you understand it and the preventable deaths of non-combatants who have no control over the political, strategic or tactical actions of their nation's military?"

At this point, our xpressive friend had four options: (1) - attempt to demonstrate the justice of the actions in question; (2) - revise the history of the actions themselves (a common technique known as lying); (3) - try to redefine the concept of justice to reconcile the two; or (4) - ignore the question altogether. Quite honestly, I expected the first - or at the very least I hoped for it.

Instead, our friend offered an eight point rebuttal that consisted of transparent fallacies and other minor irrelevancies, none of which brought any new or old information to bear on the question. As an explanation or defense of the author's opinion it is unworthy of attention, but taken as an example of a decrepit state of mind that is all too common, it may be worth a cursory examination.

Passing over the first item for lack of words with which to answer it, we come to a sarcastic expression of regret that our military was not informed of the injustice of wiping out two entire Japanese cities to avoid the necessity of an invasion. Actually there were Americans who spoke out against our adoption of the Nazi method of air warfare at the time. The military leaders who made that decision justified it on strategic grounds, for the obvious reason that it could be justified on no other. I personally reject the notion that the only options were a wholesale slaughter of civilians or a long and bloody invasion. The bomb could have been used against the Japanese fleet or against land based military assets. Negotiations could have been opened with the Japanese with a real likelihood of success, considering the fact that their backs were to the wall. Since neither of these alternative steps were taken, we will never know whether our choices were really as limited as indicated. Regardless, bombing non-combatants to bring one's enemies to the table is morally indistinguishable from killing a murderer's family members to help bring him to justice.

The third item misquotes my assertion that Vietnam posed no credible threat to Americans, presumably because our friend was unable to dispute the actual statement. It is much easier to make one's opponent say what one wishes he had said and then attack the straw man than to go to the trouble of inventing historical details out of thin air. Items four and six allege similarities between my position and those of Carter and Obama, more evidence that the author didn't bother to read my previous posts to understand the perspective that so grated on his nerves.

Item five bothered me, I confess. The invocation of "the spirit of '76" brings the methodical revision of our history into sharp focus. The spirit of '76 was a passion for freedom and a grim determination to protect one's liberties, family, neighbors and homeland at all costs. Professional soldiers invading a foreign nation unprovoked have nothing in common with those farmers and tradesmen who stood together on their own soil to defend their homes and repel an invader.

And then, the coup de grace! I am a suspected North Korean who may have received assistance with voting from ACORN. How will I ever hold up my head again in cyberspace after that brilliant rebuttal?

Actually, the mere fact that xpressive1515 hit "submit" on that comment should be enough to shame him or her into hiding for a while. While I don't expect that to occur, I hope this display of foolishness will serve to prompt more thoughtful consideration of the fundamental question here by those who possess the requisite cognitive skills. I have many good friends who disagree with me, and all of them could have done a better job of defending their position. But none of them are able to address the real reason that conservatism is dying. Until Americans begin to associate conservatives with intellectual honesty and consistency again, they will not recognize true conservative thought as superior to liberal emotionalism, because what passes for conservative thought today is mostly parrotted, euphemistic party-speak.

Civilian Casualties

In my last post I accused John McCain of having "almost certainly killed more unborn children than his opponent." I qualified that statement as follows: "I am not referring to so-called “collateral damage,” but to the calculated, indiscriminate bombing of residential areas for the dubious purpose of breaking the will of an enemy nation. The failure of conservatives to be honest about the nature of such tactics damages our pro-life stance as deeply as bailouts damage our claim to fiscal responsibility."

Needless to say, this accusation didn't sit well with many readers. I anticipated some reaction, hence my reference to conservatives being "inexcusably myopic" on the issue of the sanctity of innocent human life. But in general, the criticism was thoughtful enough to prompt me to reconsider whether my statement was defensible, or at least to explain it further.

I based the accusation on the fact that John McCain was shot down over Hanoi (hardly a military target) during his 23rd mission as part of Operation Rolling Thunder. Estimates I've seen of civilian deaths from Operation Rolling Thunder range from 52,000 to over 150,000. Granted, I don't know what specific targets McCain bombed. In his own memoir, however, he states that he was shot down over "the heart of Hanoi" as he completed his bombing run. Perhaps there was some legitimate military target in "the heart of Hanoi" - but I doubt it.

I responded to one friend as follows: "My own dad bristled at that paragraph, and asserted that I didn't understand the nature of the war or the real targets of the bombing. Since I wasn't even alive at the time, I'm not inclined to argue the point. The fact is, however, that our modern military paradigm is more like that of Napoleon Bonaparte than the Just War doctrine Christians historically held to. Our massive nuclear arsenal is largely targeted at cities, not military targets (or so we're led to believe). If I charged John McCain personally with wrongs that are the fault of our larger foreign policy, it is because he has largely supported that foreign policy, and aspires to be the next "decider" without addressing the immorality of the direction it has taken us. I apologize to anyone, veteran or otherwise, who was offended by the accusation leveled at McCain, but I stand by my belief that one cannot be an advocate of preemptive, aggressive war, or any war merely for the protection of so-called "economic interests" and make a legitimate claim to being pro-life."

Even nominally christian nations like France, Germany and England historically recognized that purposely attacking unarmed civilians was dishonorable and unjustifiable. We look back with horror on military crimes like the Glencoe massacre or the sacking of the Palatinate. Future generations will judge us no differently.

In Defense Of The Write In Vote

As a Christian, libertarian constitutionalist, I find myself in an interesting position this election season. Faced with two Presidential candidates who seem to be running on nearly the same platform, a write-in vote seems to be the only sensible option. However, everyone I talk to wants to convince me that to write in a presidential candidate is to abandon my civic duty and hand America over to “them.” Opinions differ as to who “they” are, but generally “they” are whomever one wishes to blame for the undeniable problems facing us all as Americans. After discussing this perception with nearly every person I encountered this week, the urge to defend myself has become irresistible.

In historical terms, perhaps the most significant aspect of this election will be the unprecedented willingness of the American people to accept whatever is set before them as genuine, no matter how demonstrably false it may be. From the remarkable conversion of a former governor of Massachusetts (remarkable at least for its timing, if nothing else) to the inspiring lies of “a Chicago thug”, Americans have shown a gullibility that is unrivaled in western history. Half a century of dumbed-down education, coupled with purposeful indoctrination and mind-numbing entertainment, has left many Americans, liberals and conservatives alike, unable to think critically about even the most transparent fabrications and blatant contradictions.

Friday morning, while quietly working at a barn near Coatesville, I encountered a raving individual who warned of the attacks America will suffer when we are deprived of George Bush’s guiding hand. When I reminded her that the deadliest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor occurred on Bush’s watch, she launched into a tirade on the ruin Obama would bring to this country, ending with a vow never to wear an Islamic head-scarf. I quietly assured her that it was unlikely she would be forced to wear a veil under an Obama administration, and that I had no intention of voting for Mr. Obama, to which she replied, “Yea right. You’re such a liberal, of course you’ll vote for Obama – don’t give me that!” I had to laugh, because it was the first time in my life that I’ve been called a liberal. But the worldview she demonstrated is no laughing matter. She did not know me, and nothing about my comment bore any relationship to the size or scope of government; in other words, what I said was neither liberal nor conservative, it was a simple statement of fact. But she had evidently been programmed to make judgments about what liberals and conservatives believe without having the slightest clue what the terms mean.

Three hours later, in another barn, the client’s husband walked in with a large zoning regulations book under his arm. I was wearing a Ron Paul shirt, as usual; he had a McCain sign in his front yard. In answer to my greeting, he asked if I was ready for “share-the-wealth” Obama, adding that Obama would probably take ninety-five percent of everyone’s land and give it to squatters, because “property rights don’t matter” to him. He then turned to his wife to show her the zoning regulation their neighbor was in violation of. Apparently they live in a “Rural Conservation District” where no new buildings are permitted, with the exception of farm-related structures under twenty-five feet in height. His scoff-law neighbor was constructing a barn that exceeded the height limitations, and he was on his way to file a complaint. He apparently never considered whether a significant moral distinction could be made between taking one’s property outright on one hand, and simply denying them the use of it on the other.

As an active Ron Paul supporter I’ve had the opportunity to work with people of vastly different political persuasions over the past year. Dr. Paul’s simple message of smaller, less intrusive government across the board appeals to Americans from all backgrounds, and for many reasons. I know social conservatives who supported him because he was the only candidate to do more than talk about ending the abortion holocaust. I know fiscal conservatives who supported him because he was the only candidate to address the federal government’s real spending problems (guns and butter) instead of simply spouting one-liners about the bridge to nowhere. I know anarchists who supported him because he wanted to end the massive, corrupt money-laundering institution known as the DEA. I know liberals who supported him because he was willing to face the reality of a nine trillion dollar national debt and call the real culprits out. Ron Paul made a tremendous effort to educate his supporters on the essential principles of individual liberty and free-market capitalism. I believe he achieved a great deal in that regard. However, now that the primary is over, there are still a few confused folks among us. One fellow Paulite recently informed me that I must vote for Obama, because a third party vote is really a vote for McCain and an endorsement of the last eight years of aggressive war and massive deficit spending. Another urged me to vote for McCain, because a third party vote is really a vote for Obama and a Marxist America.

I have news for both of them: elections aren’t lotteries and the object is not to pick a winner. Democratic elections only work when the voters choose candidates that represent their views. Always voting for the lesser of two evils is essentially the same as always playing defense – there’s only one possible outcome. The choices get worse every time.

I believe a good government is one that (a) protects the citizens from outside threats, (b) punishes violations of individual rights and mutual contracts and (c) otherwise leaves people alone to do as they choose. On Friday last week, Rush Limbaugh gave a similar definition for conservatism. Essentially he stated that true conservatives want a small state that defends the citizens and nothing more. Rush, if that is a conservative I’ll start calling myself a conservative again – but what in the name of sanity does that definition have in common with the Republican Party’s recent record, or the current GOP platform and ticket?

My wife and I discussed this subject with a couple from church last week. They defended Bush and other election-year conservatives because “they’re under so much pressure, you know. The media is so liberal, the schools are so liberal, the career bureaucrats in Washington are so corrupt – they’d really like to do more for us but their hands are tied.” Nonsense. Pressure comes with the job. If you can’t handle it resign so we can elect someone who can. Liberal media coverage occurs because there are dedicated big-government liberals in the media. If conservatives would expend one fourth of the hot air they waste complaining about liberal bias on a cogent argument for less government, addressed to the American people instead of to the choir, things might change for the better. We just had six years of a Republican administration with a GOP-controlled Congress and a 7-2 Republican appointed Supreme Court. They could have abolished the DoE; instead they increased its budget by over fifty percent. They could have fired half of the bureaucrats in Washington; instead they hired thousands more. Their hands were tied by greed and cowardice (mostly greed), not by liberals.

I’d like to vote for a candidate who will put pressure on the statists for a change. Bush promised to do just that, but instead he has collaborated with them on every domestic policy issue except gun control. Even there he’s done absolutely nothing but maintain the Clinton status quo. We don’t need a president who will “reach out” to big government statists. We need a president who will use his office to further true conservative principles: one who will fire bureaucrats, disband unconstitutional agencies, secure our own borders for a change, and be honest with the American people about the seventy trillion dollars in promised entitlements they aren’t going to get.

We had such a candidate in the primary election. His emphatic rejection by the Republican Party is sufficient proof that they have no inclination to give more than lip service to true conservative principles. But just to underscore that point, they chose instead a candidate who has never even pretended to be conservative until this election. That the man who brought us the infamous McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Act should be allowed to call himself a conservative now speaks volumes about his party’s lack of sincerity.

Over the last two weeks I’ve received no less than a dozen mailings from the Republican Party. Only two of them even refer to McCain. The other ten assure me that Barack Obama is not who I think he is. (I still think he is who I think he is … but that’s neither here nor there.) Of the two that refer to McCain, one spoke of his military service and his time as a POW. The other, which I received yesterday, features a full color photo of McCain and Hillary Clinton, side by side, beaming at each other. On the back is a ringing (hollow, that is) endorsement of Ms. Clinton by Senator Joe Biden, and inside is the following message from McCain:

“Senator Hillary Clinton blazed a trail for future generations of women. She fought for working families, and she heard your voices… Most importantly, Senator Clinton knows how to reach across the aisle to solve problems. Both she and John McCain have shown the American people results, not pretty words… I share Senator Clinton’s goal of promoting women to more important roles throughout our government. By the end of my first term, I promise you will see a dramatic increase in the presence of women in every part of the government.”

Now friends, if John McCain wants my vote this isn’t exactly the way to go about securing it. I don’t like the idea of a friend of Ms. Clinton in the Oval Office, or any other office, for that matter. The notion that Ms. Clinton has done any favors for working Americans is an insult to Americanism. The idea that she and John McCain want to solve my problems isn’t encouraging, and the thought of a dramatic increase in anything related to government doesn’t appeal to me either.

Most McCain supporters I talk to are really anti-Obama activists who feel that they must support his opponent to prevent his election. They fall generally into two camps: some fear Obama’s Islamic connections and others fear his Marxist rhetoric. Neither group recognizes that they are pawns in a game of international chess. We have been slowly implementing Marxism in this country for seventy years, regardless of which party controls Congress or the White House. In 1936 Albert Nock made this observation regarding the Republican response to Roosevelt’s election:

“In the nature of things the exercise of personal government, the control of a huge and growing bureaucracy, and the management of an enormous mass of subsidized voting-power, are as agreeable to one stripe of politician as they are to another. Presumably they interest a Republican or a Progressive as much as they do a Democrat, Communist, Farmer-Labourite, Socialist, or whatever a politician may, for electioneering purposes, see fit to call himself. This … is now being further demonstrated by the derisible haste that the leaders of the official opposition are making towards what they call "reorganization" of their party. One may well be inattentive to their words; their actions, however, mean simply that the recent accretions of State power are here to stay, and that they are aware of it; and that, such being the case, they are preparing to dispose themselves most advantageously in a contest for their control and management. This is all that "reorganization" of the Republican party means, and all it is meant to mean; and this is in itself quite enough to show that any expectation of an essential change of regime through a change of party-administration is illusory. On the contrary, it is clear that whatever party-competition we shall see hereafter will be on the same terms as heretofore. It will be a competition for control and management, and it would naturally issue in still closer centralization, still further extension of the bureaucratic principle, and still larger concessions to subsidized voting-power.”

Ladies and Gentlemen, not much has changed. And in spite of the rhetoric, neither Obama/Biden nor McCain/Palin represent the possibility of change. Certainly Obama is a socialist. But the reason neither McCain nor Palin have had the courage to say so is because they are too. Listening to Governor Palin may be refreshing in many ways, but she is the chief executive of the most socialist state in the union. And John McCain, in addition to supporting numerous socialist government programs (including the recent financial bailout/earmark bill) has advocated socialism in speeches and debates even during this campaign.

The final argument usually advanced is Obama’s cold-blooded disregard for human life, as evidenced by his positions on abortion. This happens to be one area where conservatives are inexcusably myopic, and consequently the area where I am most likely to make them very angry. I concede that Obama’s disregard for human life is greater than many animals. I cannot imagine how anyone could support a candidate who holds to such a despicable ideology. But innocent human life is threatened in many places besides the abortion clinic. Uncomfortable as the thought may be, John McCain has almost certainly killed more unborn children than his opponent. The circumstances are mitigating, it is true. But I have never understood how conservatives can wax eloquent about the unborn while stoically defending the intentional slaughter of civilians during wartime. I am not referring to so-called “collateral damage,” but to the calculated, indiscriminate bombing of residential areas for the dubious purpose of breaking the will of an enemy nation. The failure of conservatives to be honest about the nature of such tactics damages our pro-life stance as deeply as bailouts damage our claim to fiscal responsibility.

If you are still reading this post I’m honored, to say the least. I understand to some extent why most of you will choose to vote for John McCain, but I firmly believe that God will turn this election where He chooses. My responsibility is to vote in a way that honors Him. Based on that conviction, I will be writing in Ron Paul. If Obama wins, we will have what we deserve, and conservatives will be forced to deal with the massive executive branch they have built falling into the hands of an unprincipled liberal. If McCain wins, we will still have what we deserve, and conservatives will have the opportunity to see their own candidate sell them out repeatedly. Perhaps they will be treated to more Clinton-style scandal, a la Republican this time. Either way, I’ll be able to sleep at night, something that all this writing is currently preventing.

Duh.

Ladies and Gentlemen - from National Public Radio - the mindless quote of the month!

In a story on the "positive" effects of the economic stimulus checks we've been receiving, the reporter had this word of caution: "But some economists are concerned that the infusion of cash will only be temporary."

Mmhmm. They just might have a point.

Public education at work again, friends.

Answering John Murphy

A little background - John Murphy is an independent candidate for Congress running against Joe Pitts here in PA. He sought the support of our Ron Paul group, based on his opposition to the Iraq war, his support for "civil liberties" and his hope to do something about the national debt. He seemed very confused at the groups lack of enthusiasm, and has been urging us ad nauseum to quit holding to "19th century ideology" and vote for him because he has an MBA, likes to "solve problems" and is running an "issues-driven" campaign. He sent the following list of questions (in blue, below) to several of us, presumably hoping to change our minds. The black text is my response.

John,

I don’t have much time but I’ll do my best.

Who or what precisely do you see as the enemy -- internal -- of the United States or, as some of the folks put it, "the Republic"?

Any influential entity who rejects our founders’ understanding of individual rights, and/or who works to undermine the constitutional framework of our government, is the enemy. There have always been politicians who fit that description, but we are now at a crisis point where a large minority, if not a majority, of participating citizens have been thoroughly indoctrinated with collectivist/statist propaganda. That is where groups like ours come in. We are here to educate, inform, and encourage others to start washing their own brains.

Why is small government better than medium or large government?

Because humans are basically self-centered and seek to meet their own needs/wants/desires with the least possible effort. In a true free market (where government punishes violations of individual rights and mutual contracts, defends the citizens against outside threats and otherwise leaves them alone) this tendency of human nature improves efficiency and productivity. But when government moves beyond those boundaries, opportunities are created for those who exercise the legislative powers to satisfy their own needs through the political means rather than the economic means; or in other words, to exploit the physical or mental labor of others rather than using their own labor productively. The Law by Frederic Bastiat (Nicole recommended it already) is the best treatise ever written on this subject – and it isn’t long. If you promise to read it, email me your address and I’ll mail you a copy tomorrow. Really.

Why shouldn't we be more concerned about the relationship of corporate America with our government rather than the relationship of individual Americans with our government?

Corporations are not inherently dangerous – in a true free market such as we defined above they are no threat at all to a nation. The danger comes when government forms an improper relationship with any economic force, whether individual or corporate, and begins to legislate, adjudicate or enforce in a manner that favors that individual or corporation over others. The reason we see corporatism as a larger threat is because corporations, by their nature, generally have much greater incentives to offer politicians in exchange for favorable interference in the market.

If there were only three possible values that we could hold: freedom, equality and justice and we were forced to eliminate two of them what would be your rationale for getting rid of those two?

You pose a false dilemma. True freedom, equality and justice are inseparable. Freedom is the absence of coercive force in the life, actions and decisions of an individual. Creative equality is the basis for asserting that freedom, and justice protects the first two by punishing violations of them. These values appear to be in conflict only when they are improperly defined (e.g. financial or conditional equality substituted for legal equality).

Do you make a distinction between personal freedom and civil liberty? If so how do you distinguish between the two?

Not dogmatically - I think they are closely related. The term “civil” liberty may be inaccurate because it usually implies that liberty is the gift of government rather than inherent in the individual. But if by civil liberty you mean a society where individual liberty is respected and protected by government, then I would say civil liberty is the legal aspect of personal freedom.

Given that our Constitution was written by the landed aristocracy as a means of protecting their property from those Americans who were less unfortunate. ("The people who own the country ought to govern it" said founding father John Jay while Alexander Hamilton said that a permanent check over the populace should be exercised by "the rich and the well-born".) Isn't it time that we had a new constitution whereby we got rid of tyrannical elements like the Senate and the electoral College? (Four senators from North Dakota and South Dakota representing approximately 500,000 Americans can outvote two Senators from California representing 36 million Americans.)

Hamilton did not represent the majority of the founders by any stretch of the imagination. Neither the Senate nor the Electoral College were “tyrannical features” as they were originally designed. Senators weren’t supposed to be representing the people. The purpose of the Senate was to be the voice of the States in the limited federal government, and the House of Representatives was to be the voice of the people. The 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified April 8, 1913, defeated that purpose and helped lay the groundwork for the silent coup d’etat begun the same year. The Electoral College has been rendered worse than useless by the modern party system, but originally it was a brilliant effort to guard against the sort of demagoguery that had destroyed earlier democracies like Athens. I can’t take time here to go into that in detail.

If Thomas Jefferson hadn't been as incompetent a president as he was a governor he would have scrapped the 1789 Constitution and called for another Constitutional convention whereby anti-democratic elements would be eliminated. What do you think of a statement like that?

Partially true but irrelevant.

From my point of view I see the infringement of special interests -- the US corporations and outside organizations like the Israeli lobby (AIPAC) -- as the greatest threat to our republic because roughly 57,000 Americans along with AIPAC are responsible for 95% of the campaign finances of both major political parties (AIPAC alone provides 60% of the funding of the Democrat party and 25% of the funding of the Republican Party this will keep us in near constant war in the Middle East). Consequently both old parties aim to serve the interests only of those people who finance their campaigns. What do you think about that statement?

True – but the root problem isn’t the fact that campaigns are funded by the wealthy; rather it is the fact that we the people have allowed our public servants to work for those financiers instead of us. If government were restricted to its constitutional limits there would be very little incentive for corporate and special interest donors to contribute to political campaigns.

As a political scientist I can tell you that studies performed by researchers specializing in voting behavior indicate that fewer than 25% of voters are “rational voters”. Most "rational citizens" are so "rational" that they have determined that voting is futile and stay home. The people who are motivated enough to constitute the majority of the people that show up to vote are so motivated precisely because they are irrational and/or single-issue voters (love Jesus, hate gays, love Israel, love guns, hate foreigners -- whatever it is that floats their boats). What do you think about that conclusion?

We know it to be true – not because we’re political scientists but because we’ve been talking to those voters. I would respectfully suggest that question #4 indicates the problem of irrationality may be closer to home than you realize. Be that as it may, I agree with your conclusion.

Because we disagree on some issues like health care and education does that mean we cannot work together to solve mutual problems?

Not at all. But we’ve got to agree on the problem to be solved. The message we’ve all been trying to send you is that we have come together precisely because we are sick and tired of “issues-driven, problem-solving” politics. We are looking for statesmen who understand the core principles of freedom, because we are convinced that government will never solve our problems. Too many honest but naive politicians have been sent to Washington with a mandate to get the government off of our backs, only to be swept up in the tide of philanthropic tyranny and add their personal issues to the already out-of-control list of “problems” to be “solved” through more government interference. Enough is enough. We’d like to solve our own problems for a change, starting with the problem of big government. It appears that you are looking to become part of that problem, which is why I can’t support you.

Regards,
Patrick G. Kocher

You Can Fool All The People Some Of The Time...

Last week my wife and I had the pleasure of joining over 400 others outside the PA Supreme Court in Harrisburg to show support for Diane Goslin, CPM. Diane has assisted women in delivering babies for 25 years in south-central PA. She had the dubious distinction of being selected by the Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs as a test case for their ongoing push to control every aspect of childbirth and women's health in PA. Since Americans long ago ceded control over "medicine" to the State, it needed only the redefinition of pregnancy as a disease and childbirth as a medical procedure to assert control over midwives and the mothers they serve.

But my reason for writing about the trip has nothing to do with midwifery. As we were leaving the Capitol, we were treated to a highly entertaining spectacle that was too good not to share. In front of a row of fountains a gentleman who appeared to be taking lessons in motivational speech stood at a podium with the distinguished banner of the PAGOP. Behind him about 15 assemblymen and senators stood in a semi-circle, mechanically clapping their hands and smiling artificially at a large array of TV cameras. Between the actors and the cameras stood about 50 chairs, of which 47 were unoccupied. The remaining three held news reporters, busily scratching on note pads whenever a particularly quotable breath of hot air chanced to escape the overwrought dignitary.

I couldn't resist stopping to listen - indeed it took some little self-control not to volunteer my own thoughts to such a receptive audience. It seemed that these gentlemen had been tasked with the responsibility of formulating an official response to the current hemorrhage of voters from the Republican Party. The solutions they had devised were now being communicated to the eager grassroots volunteers represented by the 47 empty chairs. They appeared to be immune to the shame and consternation one would expect from less brazen actors on finding themselves in an empty auditorium. One after another, they were introduced, stepped forward, cordially shook the moderator's hand, and expressed in their own simple way how excited they were to be Republicans in this election season.

I forgot to mention that behind the cameras, a group of overstuffed aides with flourescent light exposure syndrome stood waiting for the bosses to finish their charade. Each of them appeared to be memorizing the herringbone pattern of the suit in front of him, though some of them were probably just sleeping on their feet. As I watched and wondered, a pushy camera-woman prodded them to life and requested that they take up new positions in front of the camera, saying by way of explanation: "I need it to look like there's people here!"

I regret to say that I failed to conceal the combination of merriment and disdain evoked by this spectacle, and although the speaker pretended not to notice me, our initial eye contact seemed a little disconcerting to him.

Everyone needs a good laugh now and then.

P.S. I mentioned the above incident to my Dad, with the rhetorical question: "Who do they think they're kidding?" His response: "Everyone."

Maybe it isn't so funny after all.

Join the Club!

This feels good!

Am I nuts? Perhaps. But there’s nothing like a little skirmishing to whet one’s appetite for the big fight. And I have to admit, I found listening to Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh today rather satisfying. (That doesn’t regularly occur.) Please don’t misunderstand; I recognize the tragedy unfolding as the GOP commits suicide. But in the process, “we” have been vindicated.

For many years, constitutionalists like me have been described by a broad range of more or less vile adjectives. The ultimate crime “we” are accused of is reckless abandonment of the Republican Party. “We” have been charged (accurately) with slighting conventional wisdom, which demands of all conservatives an unflinching loyalty to the elephant lest we be kicked to death by the ass. In the past year, as “we” have formed under the banner of the first constitutionalist presidential candidate many of us have ever seen, these complaints have merged into one incessant whine, “You’re helping to elect Hillary!!!!!!!” Imagine! To abandon the Republican pachyderm in his hour of greatest need - when he has become so accustomed to being led about by public opinion polls that he no longer knows how to lead himself; when, having abandoned every principle he once represented, and wasted his strength in attempting circus tricks for the entertainment of the world, he cowers in fear of a well-deserved beating from his braying opponent - how could “we” be so thoughtless? Aren’t “we” team players?

The answer, of course, is no. We’ve never been team players. In fact, we don’t even get the point of the game. We don’t comprehend the vast gulf that allegedly lies between HillaryCare and MittCare. We don’t see the moral distinction between liberals stealing from us to feed and/or bomb third world countries and neo-cons stealing from our children for the same purpose. We fail to appreciate the generosity of leaders who reduce their annual frontal attack on our wealth by 2% while they inflate the money supply by 10%. We still believe our Constitution is the greatest form of government ever, and we don’t see why a few camel jockeys should scare us into abandoning freedoms that were bought and paid for with the best blood of millions of Americans. We are sick and tired of fiscal policies that make as much economic sense as shooting a cow for her milk, and we don’t really care whether the milk is wanted to perpetuate the welfare state or the warfare state.

In our defense, we haven’t actually abandoned the GOP; we’ve simply stuck to our principles and supported the one candidate who has spent his political career behaving like a Republican. But when the camp followers, office seekers and other assorted herd animals ask what we will do should November present us with a choice between Senator Mitt Huckabee and Ms. Clinton, the words “write-in” have always evoked a torrent of reproachful exclamations. Until this week.

In a few short days, I’ve watched “loyal” Huckabee supporters jump ship and endorse either McCain or Romney. I’ve heard talk show hosts frantically endorsing anyone but McCain. I’ve heard prestigious social conservatives like Dr. Dobson announce their intent to write in (gasp!) a candidate should McCain be the GOP nominee. But the final nail in the coffin was Ann Coulter’s brazen threat to endorse Ms. Clinton over the Senator from Arizona.

I can respect Dr. Dobson’s position (though I fail to note any meaningful difference between McCain and the candidates he would support) and I appreciate his unintentional vindication of my own convictions. I have difficulty respecting the ex-Hucklings, but their actions were predictable considering their prior condemnation of Congressman Paul’s supporters. But Ann Coulter’s words are a chilling proof of the absolute emptiness of the shell that was once the conservative movement.

We have said for years that the lesser of two evils was still evil; that merely slowing the growth of government was not enough; that buying into the old “two steps forward, one step back” approach to government expansion was unworthy of a free people. We’ve doggedly pointed out the failures of conservative leaders to anticipate the end result of repeated compromise. And we have consistently refused to cast a vote for a known crook, regardless of party affiliation. For our pains we have been derided and marginalized to the point of denial by the mainstream of the GOP. Now, at last, a conservative icon has provided us with a caricature of the danger we’ve been warning everyone about.

So to Ann Coulter and anyone who may sympathize with her, I have this to say: if your moral compass permits you to compare two socialist, big-government, anti-family candidates and endorse one because “she is more conservative than he is,” go right ahead; but forgive those of us who mentally place you in the Benedict Arnold category. You have lost all claim to our respect. When conservatives are willing to openly embrace either John McCain or Hillary Clinton over Congressman Ron Paul just so they can vote for a winner, conservatism has indeed lost all meaning. We may as well bury it and go back to being Americans.

And to Dr. Dobson: welcome. :)