Saturday, April 17, 2010
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.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Monday, June 01, 2009
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?
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?
Saturday, April 25, 2009
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.
__________________________________________________
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.
Friday, December 19, 2008
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.)
"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.)
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
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.
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.
Monday, November 10, 2008
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.
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.
Sunday, November 02, 2008
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.
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.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
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.
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.
Monday, July 14, 2008
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
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
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
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. :)
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. :)
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Conspiracy Theory 101.1
I’ve intended to write a post about conspiracy theories for over a year. Writing time is scarce these days, between work, EMT class, homeschooling and political activism – but working on Ron Paul’s campaign has brought this issue into focus more times than I care to acknowledge. Two months ago I finally caved in to intense peer pressure and agreed to watch a pile of DVDs that would supposedly offer irrefutable proof that our government directly perpetrated the attacks on 9/11/01. Having heard second-hand many of the arguments put forward by Mssrs. Jones, Avery, etc., I fully expected to find these “powerful presentations” less than convincing. However, I was unprepared for … well, I’m getting ahead of myself.
Before I offer my thoughts on 9/11, it might be useful to consider the concept of conspiracies in general. In general, I find that folks tend to fall into two categories: those who believe conspiracies are everywhere, and those who refuse to believe they exist at all. Both of these positions result in an unrealistic perspective on life.
In one form or another, conspiracies form a critical part of the political history of every powerful nation that has ever existed. From ancient Israel, Persia, Greece and Rome to Spain, the Netherlands, France and England, on to Russia, Germany, Japan and yes, the United States of America, every nation that has played a major role in world affairs has been subjected to the attention of those who stand to gain or lose through manipulation of those affairs. I could provide specific instances from the histories of each of these nations, where the events in question appear very different to the bird’s-eye view of historians than they would have appeared to contemporary observers. So to assume that the political landscape of the only superpower in the world today is free from the influence of secret outside forces is to believe a fairy tale.
Even within the memories of many who read this, our own country has seen numerous conspiracies come to light. Some are on a small scale; some on a large scale. Some, like the Watergate scandal, run afoul of government interests and are exposed by the justice system; others, like the murder of President Diem during the Vietnam War, involve the interests of the government and consequently are shielded from legal exposure. Some, like the 1953 overthrow of Iranian PM Mohammed Mossadegh, are resolved with time and more information; while others, like the 1995 bombing of the Murrah building in OKC, remain a mystery, with little known except that the “official” explanation is false. In short, conspiracies do play, indeed are playing, a significant role in the politics and events we experience from day to day.
The question one needs to ask, then, is this: how do we know when we are seeing the effects of such plots? Unfortunately, the abject ignorance of history that characterizes Americans today leaves many of us without the intellectual tools needed to answer that question with reasonable accuracy. Add to the mix Americans’ widespread distrust of the government and the media, and one result is that those who realize they are being lied to tend to assume that a direct, causative relationship exists between the liar and the events in question. So, for example, when the President claims that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the attacks on 9/11, those who perceive the emptiness of that claim conclude that the President must be hiding something (which he is), so he must be the guilty party (oops - non sequitur). Actually, the President’s false claims could be related to a number of factors, most likely his pathological urge to overthrow Hussein with or without a reason.
The other combination that tends to fuel conspiracy theories is when a powerful organization or individual benefits from a major event. To continue with the 9/11 illustration, the reasoning runs like this: the terror attacks created a climate of fear perfectly suited to the implementation of police state measures and the repression of individual liberty (true); the government took full advantage of this climate to implement such policies (also true); therefore the government must have arranged the attacks (again, non sequitur). While the administration certainly took advantage of the situation, it would have required only minimal understanding of American foreign policy and the principle of blowback to realize that an Islamic terrorist attack on the U.S. was bound to occur in the near future.
Coming soon: how to test a "conspiracy theory" for probability.
Before I offer my thoughts on 9/11, it might be useful to consider the concept of conspiracies in general. In general, I find that folks tend to fall into two categories: those who believe conspiracies are everywhere, and those who refuse to believe they exist at all. Both of these positions result in an unrealistic perspective on life.
In one form or another, conspiracies form a critical part of the political history of every powerful nation that has ever existed. From ancient Israel, Persia, Greece and Rome to Spain, the Netherlands, France and England, on to Russia, Germany, Japan and yes, the United States of America, every nation that has played a major role in world affairs has been subjected to the attention of those who stand to gain or lose through manipulation of those affairs. I could provide specific instances from the histories of each of these nations, where the events in question appear very different to the bird’s-eye view of historians than they would have appeared to contemporary observers. So to assume that the political landscape of the only superpower in the world today is free from the influence of secret outside forces is to believe a fairy tale.
Even within the memories of many who read this, our own country has seen numerous conspiracies come to light. Some are on a small scale; some on a large scale. Some, like the Watergate scandal, run afoul of government interests and are exposed by the justice system; others, like the murder of President Diem during the Vietnam War, involve the interests of the government and consequently are shielded from legal exposure. Some, like the 1953 overthrow of Iranian PM Mohammed Mossadegh, are resolved with time and more information; while others, like the 1995 bombing of the Murrah building in OKC, remain a mystery, with little known except that the “official” explanation is false. In short, conspiracies do play, indeed are playing, a significant role in the politics and events we experience from day to day.
The question one needs to ask, then, is this: how do we know when we are seeing the effects of such plots? Unfortunately, the abject ignorance of history that characterizes Americans today leaves many of us without the intellectual tools needed to answer that question with reasonable accuracy. Add to the mix Americans’ widespread distrust of the government and the media, and one result is that those who realize they are being lied to tend to assume that a direct, causative relationship exists between the liar and the events in question. So, for example, when the President claims that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the attacks on 9/11, those who perceive the emptiness of that claim conclude that the President must be hiding something (which he is), so he must be the guilty party (oops - non sequitur). Actually, the President’s false claims could be related to a number of factors, most likely his pathological urge to overthrow Hussein with or without a reason.
The other combination that tends to fuel conspiracy theories is when a powerful organization or individual benefits from a major event. To continue with the 9/11 illustration, the reasoning runs like this: the terror attacks created a climate of fear perfectly suited to the implementation of police state measures and the repression of individual liberty (true); the government took full advantage of this climate to implement such policies (also true); therefore the government must have arranged the attacks (again, non sequitur). While the administration certainly took advantage of the situation, it would have required only minimal understanding of American foreign policy and the principle of blowback to realize that an Islamic terrorist attack on the U.S. was bound to occur in the near future.
Coming soon: how to test a "conspiracy theory" for probability.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Hello, GOP ...
I sent this letter to a slew of editors, but no one was willing to publish it. So ... I will!
_________________________________________
In Thursday’s republican presidential debate in South Carolina, Fox News correspondent Carl Cameron questioned Dr. Ron Paul’s electability, implying that his positions were incompatible with those of the Republican Party. As a Republican voter, I agree with Ron Paul that our party has lost its way. The current GOP platform would be unrecognizable to the republicans of Reagan’s day. Even so, many of the sentiments in this pitiable mutation of conservative principles sound oddly similar to those defended by Congressman Paul. Consider the following quote: “As tagging and tracking citizens is inconsistent with American freedom, we oppose the creation of a national identification card or system.”
Really? Paul is the only GOP presidential candidate who opposes the REAL ID program; or in other words, he is the only candidate whose position on this issue is consistent with his party’s platform.
How about this astute observation regarding foreign aid: “Development aid has often served to prop up failed policies, relieving the pressure for reform and perpetuating misery.” That sounds like a quote from the Doctor’s weekly column. Why do the other republican candidates unite in deriding Ron Paul for statements like this?
Here’s an interesting quote: “As Republicans, we trust people to make decisions about how to spend, save, and invest their own money. We want individuals to own and control their income... making their own choices and directing their own future. …the problem is not that the American people are taxed too little but that the federal government spends too much.” Paul is the only candidate who has called for allowing young Americans like me to completely opt out of the Social Security System. Why are the other candidates so reluctant to agree?
The platform has this to say about education: “We recognize that under the American Constitutional system, education is a state, local, and family responsibility, not a federal obligation.” So why do the other candidates and the media laugh when Ron Paul says what every involved parent knows: that the federal Department of Education is wasteful and unconstitutional?
Earlier this week Jay Leno asked Dr. Paul why Fox News has consistently tried to marginalize and exclude him, noting that after all, he was a Republican. Paul responded, “Yes, but – they’re not!” I think he is absolutely right. If Carl Cameron would focus less on polls and more on principles, he would likely conclude that, electable or no, Ron Paul is the only real Republican candidate.
_________________________________________
In Thursday’s republican presidential debate in South Carolina, Fox News correspondent Carl Cameron questioned Dr. Ron Paul’s electability, implying that his positions were incompatible with those of the Republican Party. As a Republican voter, I agree with Ron Paul that our party has lost its way. The current GOP platform would be unrecognizable to the republicans of Reagan’s day. Even so, many of the sentiments in this pitiable mutation of conservative principles sound oddly similar to those defended by Congressman Paul. Consider the following quote: “As tagging and tracking citizens is inconsistent with American freedom, we oppose the creation of a national identification card or system.”
Really? Paul is the only GOP presidential candidate who opposes the REAL ID program; or in other words, he is the only candidate whose position on this issue is consistent with his party’s platform.
How about this astute observation regarding foreign aid: “Development aid has often served to prop up failed policies, relieving the pressure for reform and perpetuating misery.” That sounds like a quote from the Doctor’s weekly column. Why do the other republican candidates unite in deriding Ron Paul for statements like this?
Here’s an interesting quote: “As Republicans, we trust people to make decisions about how to spend, save, and invest their own money. We want individuals to own and control their income... making their own choices and directing their own future. …the problem is not that the American people are taxed too little but that the federal government spends too much.” Paul is the only candidate who has called for allowing young Americans like me to completely opt out of the Social Security System. Why are the other candidates so reluctant to agree?
The platform has this to say about education: “We recognize that under the American Constitutional system, education is a state, local, and family responsibility, not a federal obligation.” So why do the other candidates and the media laugh when Ron Paul says what every involved parent knows: that the federal Department of Education is wasteful and unconstitutional?
Earlier this week Jay Leno asked Dr. Paul why Fox News has consistently tried to marginalize and exclude him, noting that after all, he was a Republican. Paul responded, “Yes, but – they’re not!” I think he is absolutely right. If Carl Cameron would focus less on polls and more on principles, he would likely conclude that, electable or no, Ron Paul is the only real Republican candidate.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Vote for Ron Paul!
The following is a letter we are sending to a long list of friends and relatives. If we missed you, feel free to print it yourself!
September 27, 2007
Dear Friends,
To those of you who know us well, it will come as no surprise to learn that we are actively supporting the presidential campaign of Congressman Ron Paul. While we would like to think that you are all familiar with Dr. Paul and his long-standing support for limited, constitutional government, we know that, realistically, many of you probably know little or nothing about him. We would be deeply grateful for the opportunity to change that.
Dr. Paul was born and raised in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He served in the Air Force as a flight surgeon before moving his family to Texas to begin his medical practice. A specialist in obstetrics/gynecology, he has delivered over 4000 babies. He and his wife, Carol, have been married for 50 years. They have 5 children and 18 grandchildren.
Dr. Paul’s record is well known to anyone who has closely followed federal legislation for the last thirty years. As a congressman during the late ‘70s and early ‘80s, he championed limited government and was an outspoken critic of the income tax system, the Federal Reserve and our national monetary system. He left Congress voluntarily in 1984, returning to his medical practice until 1996, when he was returned by the 14th congressional district of Texas. He is currently serving his 10th term as a U.S. Congressman.
On Capitol Hill, Ron Paul’s name has been synonymous with constitutionalism. On issue after issue, his vote has been cast on the side of freedom and morality, sometimes alone. His consistency has been legendary, almost incredible, as his colleagues have slipped one by one into mainstream vote-buying practices. His reputation for standing by his principles has earned him the nickname “Dr. No.” This consistency on a wide variety of issues is evident in the following examples.
Abortion:
Dr. Paul has always been 100% pro-life and a champion of the unborn. In 1981, he attacked the notion of “abortion rights” as held by liberals and many libertarians. “Just as important as the power claimed by the State to decide what rights we have, is the power to decide which of us has rights,” he said. “Today, we are seeing a piecemeal destruction of individual freedom. And in abortion, the statists have found a most effective method of obliterating freedom: obliterating the individual. Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the "right" of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the "property rights" of slave masters in their slaves.”
On February 16, 2000, Ron Paul introduced the Partial Birth Abortion and Judicial Limitation Act. This bill, under Article 3, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, would have prohibited federal courts from overturning state laws banning the procedure. His efforts were unsuccessful. Three years later, the partial birth abortion ban that did pass elicited these insightful words from Dr. Paul:
“As an obstetrician, I know that partial birth abortion is never a necessary medical procedure. It is a gruesome, uncivilized solution to a social problem. ... Though I will vote to ban the horrible partial-birth abortion procedure, I fear that the language used in this bill does not further the pro-life cause, but rather cements fallacious principles into both our culture and legal system. … Is not the fact that life begins at conception the main tenet advanced by the pro-life community? By stating that we draw a “bright line” between abortion and infanticide, I fear that we simply reinforce the dangerous idea underlying Roe v. Wade, which is the belief that we as human beings can determine which members of the human family are “expendable,” and which are not.”
Gun Control:
Ron Paul has never voted for any bill that included a restriction on private gun ownership. While many politicians pay lip service to the 2nd Amendment, Ron Paul recognizes that it was intended to do far more than protect hunting traditions. Ten years ago he wrote: “A gun in the hand of a law-abiding citizen serves as a very real, very important deterrent to an arrogant and aggressive government.” In 1976, he spoke forcefully against the proposed Washington, D.C. gun ban. He has repeatedly introduced and sponsored legislation to repeal federal gun control laws and to require concealed carry permit reciprocity between all 50 states. Following the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, Ron Paul successfully worked to repeal federal laws that prohibited airlines from arming their pilots, but the Dept. of Transportation refused to implement the change.
National Security and Terrorism:
On February 12, 1998, Ron Paul introduced legislation to prohibit then-President Clinton from sending troops to Iraq without a congressional declaration of war. In response to the Clinton administration’s claim that an invasion was needed because Saddam was developing weapons of mass destruction, he said: “There is absolutely no moral or constitutional reason to go to war with Iraq at this time. To go to war to enforce the dictates of the United Nations, or to play the part of 'policemen of the world,' opposes the sensibilities of all who seek to follow the Constitution. I refuse to participate in action which would possibly expose even one soldier to risk when there is absolutely no immediate threat to the US.” It is interesting to note that he was joined in his opposition by many of his fellow Republicans, who later changed their positions under pressure from a Republican administration.
A year prior to 9/11, in his weekly column, he criticized American foreign policy in the Middle East, saying that commercial interests and those of the military/industrial complex were being placed before America’s national security. On Sept. 12, 2001, he reminded his colleagues in Congress: “In our grief, we must remember our responsibilities. The Congress' foremost obligation in a constitutional republic is to preserve freedom and provide for national security. Yesterday our efforts to protect our homeland came up short. Our policies that led to that shortcoming must be reevaluated and changed if found to be deficient.”
Five days later he spoke regarding the Congressional Authorization of the Use of Force: “For the critics of our policy of foreign interventionism in the affairs of others the attack on New York and Washington was not a surprise and many have warned of its inevitability.” He supported military action against the Taliban, but also called for eliminating foreign aid to nations friendly to terrorism, proposed expanding the federal definition of piracy to include acts committed in the skies, and advised the President to look beyond the military when dealing with terrorists.
Ron Paul voted against the massive expansions of the executive branch under the USA PATRIOT Act, the Military Commissions Act, the Real ID Act and other “anti-terror” laws. He opposed the creation of the Dept. of Homeland Security, noting that “the pattern is always the same: government agencies fail to do their job, yet those same failed agencies are given more money and personnel when things go wrong.” He called instead for arming airline pilots, tighter border security, and extending the statute of limitations for terrorist crimes. While his opponents have attempted to portray Dr. Paul as an anti-war candidate hoping to gain from the public’s reaction to the Iraq war, the fact is that he has consistently opposed any undeclared, aggressive war, and his objections to the Iraq war are based on clear constitutional principles. It is worth noting that he enjoys widespread support within the military, leading all Republican candidates in donations from military personnel as of July 2007.
Taxes:
Ten years ago, Congressman Ron Paul called for the abolition of the IRS in his weekly column, “Texas Straight Talk” (9/22/97). He has repeatedly introduced legislation to repeal the income tax, calling for Congress to “find a simple and fair way to collect limited federal revenues.” Only last week, he introduced the Cost of Government Awareness Act, noting that federal income tax withholding was introduced during WWII as a temporary measure and that “64 years is a sufficient lifespan” for any such measure. And while many candidates have criticized certain aspects of the income tax system, Ron Paul is the only one with the courage to point out the obvious conflict between a citizen’s right to privacy and the reporting requirements associated with any tax based on income.
On other issues worthy of note,
· Dr. Paul has steadily opposed globalization and US membership in international governmental organizations such as the UN and the WTO.
· He opposes trade deals that infringe on America’s independence, including NAFTA, CAFTA, the FTAA, and the new “Security and Prosperity Partnership,” which seeks to establish a North American Union while avoiding congressional oversight.
· He has repeatedly called for a return to a gold-backed currency and an end to the Federal Reserve Bank.
· Ron Paul is a proven supporter of home schooling and a tireless opponent of federal control of education.
· He has consistently fought efforts to regulate the internet.
· He opposes so-called campaign finance reform laws that infringe on the free speech rights of individuals.
. He has introduced legislation to repeal the federal tax code limitations on political speech in churches.
· Dr. Paul has never voted for any tax increase, unbalanced budget or congressional pay raise.
· After twenty years in Congress, he still refuses to participate in the congressional pension program, and his congressional office returns the unused portion of their annual budget to the US Treasury every year.
But while all of these issues are critical, what really sets Dr. Paul apart from every other candidate is not his conservative or libertarian positions on issues, but his grasp of the foundational principles of government. While other conservative politicians may agree with him on various practical questions, none of them recognize the limitations imposed on them by God or the Constitution in the exercise of their authority. Ron Paul is the only candidate who understands that the elected official derives his authority from the individuals he represents, and therefore he has no authority beyond what those individuals possess. He is also the only candidate whose first question regarding any piece of legislation is whether the proposed legislation is constitutional. While this has placed him at odds with the rest of the conservative community at times, his strict adherence to the Constitution stands in sharp contrast to the weak leadership of mainstream conservatives. Consider the following statements:
“Capitalism is not a system, but rather the result of free individuals taking economic actions without interference by government. A true capitalist economy is neither planned by bureaucrats nor steered by regulators. This is why it’s so important that we resist the idea that any president should plan our economy. If we accept that government “runs” the economy, we accept a fundamental tenet of socialism. We must understand that economic liberty is every bit as important as political and civil liberties. In a truly free nation, the government acts only as a referee by protecting property rights, enforcing contracts, prohibiting force and fraud, and providing national defense.” October, 2004
“Simply put, freedom is the absence of government coercion. Our Founding Fathers understood this, and created the least coercive government in the history of the world. The Constitution established a very limited, decentralized government to provide national defense and little else. States, not the federal government, were charged with protecting individuals against criminal force and fraud. For the first time, a government was created solely to protect the rights, liberties, and property of its citizens. Any government coercion beyond that necessary to secure those rights was forbidden, both through the Bill of Rights and the doctrine of strictly enumerated powers.” February, 2005
With such a record, supporting Dr. Paul’s presidential candidacy was one of the easiest decisions we have ever made. However, casting a vote for him simply isn’t enough. Frankly, we never expected to see a major party candidate on the ballot who we could support so completely. We sincerely believe that the candidacy of Dr. Paul is an answer to prayer and a final opportunity to change the direction of this nation through the political process. I say “final” because another Clinton presidency, coming on the heels of the massive expansion of power that has redefined the executive branch over the last six years, will be suicidal for America. We are already at a point where extreme measures will be required to undo the damage that our national institutions have suffered. We simply cannot afford four years of unprecedented socialist expansion of the federal government. Our economy is overtaxed, our debt-based money system is on the verge of a collapse, our military is over-extended, and our welfare system is bankrupt. Millions of Americans who have poured their earnings into the state-run pyramid scheme of Social Security are about to find that there is nothing left to pay them back, even as more and more illegal immigrants are promised returns from the same empty chest. Our national debt stands at over 9 trillion dollars, or over thirty thousand dollars for every man, woman and child in the United States. Every one of the rights recognized by our founders has fallen to the threat of terrorism, and the safety we were promised in exchange remains a distant promise. The distraction of sports and entertainment media is all that prevents a complete meltdown of our society under the tremendous burden of the welfare/warfare state, and that will only last while we can afford the hundreds of dollars required to watch grown men chase a pig bladder around a cow pasture.
We believe Ron Paul is probably the only Republican candidate who can defeat Hillary Clinton. His consistency on the Iraq war would deprive her of the greatest advantage she possesses in the public view, since he opposed the invasion on constitutional grounds while she repeatedly voted to support it. In addition, his nomination would force her to address real issues instead of relying on emotional talking points. In our view, she has no answers to the real issues Ron Paul has been speaking out on for decades, and the contrast would be most unfavorable to her. A Ron Paul nomination would inevitably result in the exposure of her insulting and condescending view of the American people.
The most common objection we hear to Ron Paul is that he doesn’t stand a chance. While we believe that integrity ought to be supported against all odds, the facts demonstrate that Paul is indeed a serious candidate. Out of 26 straw polls that included Congressman Paul’s name as of September 24, he won 10, placed second in 5 and third in 5. In five of these polls he received over 50% of the vote out of a field of nine or ten candidates, and between 20% and 50% in six others. His performance is especially significant when compared to the four alleged “front-runners.” He placed ahead of Giuliani in 23 out of 26 straw polls, ahead of McCain in 22, ahead of Romney in 15, and ahead of Thompson in 13. These numbers are hardly indicative of a long-shot candidacy. His performance in post-debate polls has been even more impressive, with unbelievable landslide wins in five of the first six debate polls taken by the major network hosts. Dr. Paul’s lower performance in random national polls is an indication of how few people even know who he is, but the debate and straw poll results, taken from audiences who are familiar with the candidates, prove that his message rings true with an astounding number of voters.
The mainstream media tends to focus on fundraising performance as the greatest indicator of a candidate’s appeal. This focus is improper for several reasons. First of all, the Obama campaign demonstrates the extent of the media’s influence on all aspects of the political process, including fundraising. Obama has received what amounts to millions of hours of free advertising, for reasons best known to the decision-makers themselves. By contrast, Ron Paul is hardly ever mentioned by mainstream media, except for a cursory reference to his “anti-war” position. Second, his constitutionalist stance and free-market economics ensure that he does not share in the generosity of the corporate and special interests who make the lion’s share of political contributions. To quote Dr. Paul’s own words: “In establishment politics, people make campaign contributions because they want something: a contract, a subsidy, a special-interest deal. But the thousands of people who contribute to this campaign want no favors from big government -- which must come at the expense of their fellow citizens, and sometimes our soldiers' lives. They want only what is their God-given, natural, and constitutional right: their freedom.”
In short, contributions to Ron Paul’s campaign come almost entirely from average Americans who have been introduced to his platform through alternative news media and who prefer physical and economic freedom to the plethora of benefits offered by the nanny state. With this in mind, the tremendous amounts of money and time being given to his campaign are simply phenomenal. He finished the last fundraising quarter ahead of alleged front-runner McCain in terms of cash on hand, and is expected to do even better this quarter. And as of this writing, Meetup.com lists 937 Ron Paul campaign groups in 759 cities across America, with a combined total of 42,831 members, and over 5,000 more Ron Paul supporters waiting for a group to start in their area!
We realize this has been a lengthy and difficult introduction to Dr. Ron Paul, but it is our prayer that you will be prompted to look more closely at this principled American and Christian. Ron Paul displays a level of integrity that is unrivaled in our national politics, and he joins to that integrity a sincere faith in God and love for his fellow man. Even those who disagree with him on many of his positions still respect his openness, honesty and consistency. With Ron Paul, what you see and hear is what you get. Take the time to look into his platform at RonPaul2008.com, and please consider supporting his candidacy in whatever way you can, including:
1 – Voting for him in the primary election. In PA, you will need to be registered Republican at least 30 days before the May election in order to vote in the Republican primary. Some states have open primaries. Find out your state’s requirements. If Ron Paul wins the Republican nomination we can look forward to the most exciting presidential election since 1860!
2 – Supporting his campaign financially. Donations to his campaign should be considered an investment in religious, economic and personal freedom for the next generation.
3 – Volunteering your time. Register as a volunteer at RonPaul2008.com to keep abreast of the campaign. Tell everyone you know what is at stake in this election. Feel free to forward all or parts of this letter to others. Joining a meetup group takes only a few moments online, and will enable you to meet other freedom-loving Americans and to contribute whatever time you feel is merited to restoring liberty in this country.
Thank you so much for taking the time necessary to hear from us. Please do not hesitate to call us with any questions or comments. We would be happy to discuss or send you more information on these or other issues relating to Dr. Paul.
Sincerely,
Patrick
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
You Drink It Raw?
Here is a letter I wrote in response to the Senate Ag Committee hearing on the question of raw milk sales. Currently, in PA, only certain permit-holding farmers are allowed to sell raw milk under stringent regulations. I would encourage any interested parties to drop Senator Brubaker a note of their own.
The Honorable Senator Mike Brubaker
Senate Box 203036 Harrisburg, PA 17120-3036
September 19, 2007
Dear Senator Brubaker:
As a constituent of yours and a citizen of this Commonwealth, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you and your fellow members of the Ag Committee for the hearing you held yesterday on the issue of raw milk sales. As you know, this issue is important to many people from all walks of life. I sincerely appreciate the invitation to communicate with you further on the subject of yesterday’s hearing.
Much of the testimony yesterday missed the point by focusing exclusively on the question of safety. I would respectfully suggest that the most important aspect of this debate is not food safety, but rather individual freedom and responsibility. While the state legislature, through the PDA and other agencies, does have a role to play in ensuring the safety of the food supply, your jurisdiction in this matter does not extend to interfering in the direct relationships of individual citizens. I recognize that this concept is directly in opposition to the beliefs and ideas that have governed our approach to public safety in PA for the last few decades, but I believe it is crucial to understanding how the question of raw milk sales fits into the larger questions of freedom vs. safety that we face today. Please allow me to explain further.
As elected officials, your authority is derived from the collective authority of the electorate. It is the fashion to conclude from this that elected officials have a duty to follow the will of the majority, but in reality, the source of government’s power places certain inherent limits on the just exercise of that power. If, as the founders believed, all men are created equal, then it follows that no man has the authority to use force against his fellow man except in the defense of his own rights. More to the point, as he is not vested with such authority himself, he cannot delegate it to another to exercise for him. This principle, stated so eloquently in the Declaration of Independence, is acknowledged in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution and in Article I, Sections 1 and 2 of the PA Constitution. It is best summed up in the words of Frederic Bastiat a century and a half ago:
“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. What, then, is law? It is the collective exercise of the individual right to self defense. … If every person has the right to defend – even by force – his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right.”(emphasis mine)
During one of the public meetings on this issue, I pointed out to Rep. Cutler and the other legislators in attendance that laws create crime. From a lawmaker’s point of view, it is naturally tempting to look for legislative solutions to the real or perceived problems that may come to your attention. However, most problems faced by our society do not rise to a level which calls for solving them at gunpoint. While some may take issue with such a blunt characterization of the matter, the outstanding arrest warrant for Mark Nolt illustrates perfectly the true nature of law. Government is force, and every conflict with government is ultimately resolved, directly or indirectly, by force.
I do not intend to imply that government is inherently bad; I do, however, believe that the difference between unjust use of force by an individual (violent crime) and unjust use of force by government (the representative of the individual) lies only in the extent of the damage caused. In other words, government abuse of power is simply violent crime on steroids - organized crime, if you will.
With this in mind, the question before you is not whether raw milk is as safe as commercially processed milk, nor is it whether five cows is a more reasonable exemption than one. The question is whether the real or perceived risks of direct farmer-to-consumer sales of raw milk are so great as to constitute a violation of the consumer’s natural rights. If raw milk is indeed a deadly poison being marketed as a food to unsuspecting customers, then you have a duty to prohibit such marketing. If, however, it is simply a matter of preference, such as ordering a rare steak or smoking a cigar, then the fact that there are risks associated with one’s decision does not authorize you to interfere in that decision.
Understanding this concept will immediately clarify the troubling questions of liability and testing standards. Since no one but the individual has the right to decide what to eat, no one but the individual is responsible for the consequences of that decision. The farmer should be held liable only for clear negligence that endangers the health of others, such as selling milk produced in evidently unsanitary conditions, but not for risks that are inherent in our existence on this planet or in the conscious decision of the consumer. And, just as an individual may act in self-defense only when he is confronted by an immediate threat, the action of the state against a negligent farmer should be a response to actual danger, not a preventative measure based on fear.
The gentleman from the State Veterinary Medical Association attempted to justify state intervention by pointing out that children likely consume more milk than adults and that they need assistance in determining what is best for them. This obviously true statement sidesteps the question of who is responsible for rendering that assistance. Some in our society are of the opinion that it takes a village, but the fact is that children are given by their Creator, not to villages, but to parents. State intervention between a parent and child is even less excusable than between adults – it is only justified in the face of serious negligence or harm to the child. If we deny the right of a parent to make basic nutritional decisions for their own child, how can we justly arrogate such a right to ourselves through our elected officials?
You asked several times whether a distinction ought to be made between private farms and corporate farms. While on the surface the answer is yes, the proper distinction lies in the actual situation. The family farm may be a member of a corporation for tax purposes, but the individual, acting as an individual, still ought to have the right to sell directly to others without interference from the state, because that activity, for all practical purposes, is unaffected by the legal status of the farm.
Lastly, I strongly urge you to keep in mind that the statistics presented by Mr. Huff of the Department of Health were underwhelming, to say the least, and I ask you to keep part V of Mr. Snyder’s testimony in mind when considering them. Also, as elected officials, you are put in a no-win situation when unelected bureaucrats ask you to determine what number of annual deaths or hospitalizations are acceptable. The only possible responses are bound to implicate you either in apparent disregard for human life or in philanthropic tyranny of the most oppressive kind. This sort of false dilemma can be avoided by keeping the proper role of government in view, and recognizing that it is neither your responsibility nor your right to make such determinations.
Thank you so much for your consideration of this issue and for taking the time to hear from me. I would be more than happy to meet with you for more discussion. May God bless you.
Sincerely,
...
Cc: Senator Waugh
Senator O’Pake
Senator Scarnati
Senator Eichelberger
Senator Folmer
Senator Madigan
Senator Punt
Senator Kitchen
Senator Logan
Senator Wozniak
The Honorable Senator Mike Brubaker
Senate Box 203036 Harrisburg, PA 17120-3036
September 19, 2007
Dear Senator Brubaker:
As a constituent of yours and a citizen of this Commonwealth, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you and your fellow members of the Ag Committee for the hearing you held yesterday on the issue of raw milk sales. As you know, this issue is important to many people from all walks of life. I sincerely appreciate the invitation to communicate with you further on the subject of yesterday’s hearing.
Much of the testimony yesterday missed the point by focusing exclusively on the question of safety. I would respectfully suggest that the most important aspect of this debate is not food safety, but rather individual freedom and responsibility. While the state legislature, through the PDA and other agencies, does have a role to play in ensuring the safety of the food supply, your jurisdiction in this matter does not extend to interfering in the direct relationships of individual citizens. I recognize that this concept is directly in opposition to the beliefs and ideas that have governed our approach to public safety in PA for the last few decades, but I believe it is crucial to understanding how the question of raw milk sales fits into the larger questions of freedom vs. safety that we face today. Please allow me to explain further.
As elected officials, your authority is derived from the collective authority of the electorate. It is the fashion to conclude from this that elected officials have a duty to follow the will of the majority, but in reality, the source of government’s power places certain inherent limits on the just exercise of that power. If, as the founders believed, all men are created equal, then it follows that no man has the authority to use force against his fellow man except in the defense of his own rights. More to the point, as he is not vested with such authority himself, he cannot delegate it to another to exercise for him. This principle, stated so eloquently in the Declaration of Independence, is acknowledged in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution and in Article I, Sections 1 and 2 of the PA Constitution. It is best summed up in the words of Frederic Bastiat a century and a half ago:
“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. What, then, is law? It is the collective exercise of the individual right to self defense. … If every person has the right to defend – even by force – his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right.”(emphasis mine)
During one of the public meetings on this issue, I pointed out to Rep. Cutler and the other legislators in attendance that laws create crime. From a lawmaker’s point of view, it is naturally tempting to look for legislative solutions to the real or perceived problems that may come to your attention. However, most problems faced by our society do not rise to a level which calls for solving them at gunpoint. While some may take issue with such a blunt characterization of the matter, the outstanding arrest warrant for Mark Nolt illustrates perfectly the true nature of law. Government is force, and every conflict with government is ultimately resolved, directly or indirectly, by force.
I do not intend to imply that government is inherently bad; I do, however, believe that the difference between unjust use of force by an individual (violent crime) and unjust use of force by government (the representative of the individual) lies only in the extent of the damage caused. In other words, government abuse of power is simply violent crime on steroids - organized crime, if you will.
With this in mind, the question before you is not whether raw milk is as safe as commercially processed milk, nor is it whether five cows is a more reasonable exemption than one. The question is whether the real or perceived risks of direct farmer-to-consumer sales of raw milk are so great as to constitute a violation of the consumer’s natural rights. If raw milk is indeed a deadly poison being marketed as a food to unsuspecting customers, then you have a duty to prohibit such marketing. If, however, it is simply a matter of preference, such as ordering a rare steak or smoking a cigar, then the fact that there are risks associated with one’s decision does not authorize you to interfere in that decision.
Understanding this concept will immediately clarify the troubling questions of liability and testing standards. Since no one but the individual has the right to decide what to eat, no one but the individual is responsible for the consequences of that decision. The farmer should be held liable only for clear negligence that endangers the health of others, such as selling milk produced in evidently unsanitary conditions, but not for risks that are inherent in our existence on this planet or in the conscious decision of the consumer. And, just as an individual may act in self-defense only when he is confronted by an immediate threat, the action of the state against a negligent farmer should be a response to actual danger, not a preventative measure based on fear.
The gentleman from the State Veterinary Medical Association attempted to justify state intervention by pointing out that children likely consume more milk than adults and that they need assistance in determining what is best for them. This obviously true statement sidesteps the question of who is responsible for rendering that assistance. Some in our society are of the opinion that it takes a village, but the fact is that children are given by their Creator, not to villages, but to parents. State intervention between a parent and child is even less excusable than between adults – it is only justified in the face of serious negligence or harm to the child. If we deny the right of a parent to make basic nutritional decisions for their own child, how can we justly arrogate such a right to ourselves through our elected officials?
You asked several times whether a distinction ought to be made between private farms and corporate farms. While on the surface the answer is yes, the proper distinction lies in the actual situation. The family farm may be a member of a corporation for tax purposes, but the individual, acting as an individual, still ought to have the right to sell directly to others without interference from the state, because that activity, for all practical purposes, is unaffected by the legal status of the farm.
Lastly, I strongly urge you to keep in mind that the statistics presented by Mr. Huff of the Department of Health were underwhelming, to say the least, and I ask you to keep part V of Mr. Snyder’s testimony in mind when considering them. Also, as elected officials, you are put in a no-win situation when unelected bureaucrats ask you to determine what number of annual deaths or hospitalizations are acceptable. The only possible responses are bound to implicate you either in apparent disregard for human life or in philanthropic tyranny of the most oppressive kind. This sort of false dilemma can be avoided by keeping the proper role of government in view, and recognizing that it is neither your responsibility nor your right to make such determinations.
Thank you so much for your consideration of this issue and for taking the time to hear from me. I would be more than happy to meet with you for more discussion. May God bless you.
Sincerely,
...
Cc: Senator Waugh
Senator O’Pake
Senator Scarnati
Senator Eichelberger
Senator Folmer
Senator Madigan
Senator Punt
Senator Kitchen
Senator Logan
Senator Wozniak
Monday, July 16, 2007
Saturday, June 09, 2007
Politics or Principles?
As a serious history student, I frequently find myself drawing comparisons between current and historical events, people and societal trends. The conclusions warranted by this method are often offensive to those who suffer from the delusion that “things are different today.” But as our national politics slip beyond their previously explored frontiers of degeneracy, I find myself thinking again on the vast difference between a statesman and a politician.
Contrary to the opinions of much of the religious right, the distinction does not lie in the volume of one’s profession of faith. As a matter of fact, true statesmen have been found among the ranks of nearly every denomination of the Christian Church, among numerous false religions, and even professing atheists. Nor does the distinction lie in political creed – throughout history, true (though often mistaken) statesmen have defended forms of government ranging from absolute monarchy to utopian communism.
The difference is simple: a statesman is one who loves his country more than himself or his political affiliations. His goal is the good of his country, and his political positions and actions, however mistaken or uninformed they may be, are taken for that purpose. In a nutshell, his loyalty is to his country.
A politician, on the other hand, to the extent that he possesses that virtue at all, is loyal either to his party or to himself (generally some combination of the two). His positions and actions are taken with an eye to the advancement of his party and/or his own ambitions. He may now and then pause to consider their effects on the nation as a whole, but his first priority is to consolidate his own position against the efforts of the opposition.
The current antics of our elected officials on Capitol Hill and in the White House are a supremely disgusting illustration of the latter. Our representatives in congress are wasting their time debating and voting on a bill to increase funding for embryonic stem cell research even though they know it will be vetoed. They justify this exercise in futility by citing a need to put the President on record as opposing “the will of the people,” even though his position on this issue is already clear. Their real purpose, however, is to bolster the Democratic Party’s position in the next election. And taxpayers’ hard-earned money is being used to fund this charade.
The federal district attorney firings and the accompanying furor provide another example of shameless political gaming by all sides. It is obvious that the Justice Department made appointments based on political loyalties, though this practice is not new. It is also plain that they used the pretext of the war on terror to avoid the oversight, and presumably the criticism, of congress when making replacements. On the other hand, the self-righteous clamor of the opposing party seems carefully oriented toward the approaching elections, and their ethically laced demands for the Attorney General’s resignation are hollow at best. They know that replacing Gonzales would require confirmation hearings, and that those hearings would be an ideal venue for lowering this administration still further in the public esteem. Which is precisely why they want Gonzales to resign, and more to the point, is precisely why he won’t resign.
If there are any national issues that ought to be addressed without regard to party politics, the war in Iraq deserves to be at the top of the list. Yet no other issue is so politically charged at present, and American soldiers are currently being treated as pawns by the ass and the elephant alike. The invasion and occupation received bipartisan support until the dreaded threat of low approval ratings began to rear its head. The White House, being controlled by politicians (not statesmen) who are painfully aware that pulling out of Iraq would be a disaster, has no choice but to “stay the course” until either conditions improve or a Democratic president arrives to take the blame for the consequences. Meanwhile, the Democratic hopefuls, knowing what awaits them if they step into the Oval office before the inevitable pullout, present a comical picture as they try everything short of funding cuts to convince the President that the troops should come home now.
The most ironic aspect of this circus is that the obvious constitutional option to end the war is to cut the funding, and that is precisely the option Congress is afraid of. To force the return of American troops over the President’s veto would place the blame for the ensuing disintegration of Iraq firmly on the heads of the Democratic leadership. But a pullout ordered by a Democratic president would yield similar results. Their only hope is to convince the current administration to accept responsibility for the failure of both parties, something the administration isn’t about to do. So the troops will stay where they should never have gone, while our leaders peer over their spectacles at the latest polling data and casualty reports as they desperately search for a way to leave Iraq without leaving D.C.
Contrast their behavior with that of Congressman Ron Paul, and one immediately recognizes the vast difference. Unlike the party faithful, Congressman Paul strenuously opposed the unconstitutional nature of the invasion. He spoke and wrote extensively on the dangers of empire building and the falsity of the various justifications for war. In doing so, he brought on himself the disdain of his colleagues and was icily ignored by the mainstream media. Now that he is a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, he continues to speak the truth on those issues that are most likely to prevent him from reaching the Oval office. Political pundits question whether he is “presidential material,” but the real problem is their inability to comprehend genuine statesmanship.
Contrary to the opinions of much of the religious right, the distinction does not lie in the volume of one’s profession of faith. As a matter of fact, true statesmen have been found among the ranks of nearly every denomination of the Christian Church, among numerous false religions, and even professing atheists. Nor does the distinction lie in political creed – throughout history, true (though often mistaken) statesmen have defended forms of government ranging from absolute monarchy to utopian communism.
The difference is simple: a statesman is one who loves his country more than himself or his political affiliations. His goal is the good of his country, and his political positions and actions, however mistaken or uninformed they may be, are taken for that purpose. In a nutshell, his loyalty is to his country.
A politician, on the other hand, to the extent that he possesses that virtue at all, is loyal either to his party or to himself (generally some combination of the two). His positions and actions are taken with an eye to the advancement of his party and/or his own ambitions. He may now and then pause to consider their effects on the nation as a whole, but his first priority is to consolidate his own position against the efforts of the opposition.
The current antics of our elected officials on Capitol Hill and in the White House are a supremely disgusting illustration of the latter. Our representatives in congress are wasting their time debating and voting on a bill to increase funding for embryonic stem cell research even though they know it will be vetoed. They justify this exercise in futility by citing a need to put the President on record as opposing “the will of the people,” even though his position on this issue is already clear. Their real purpose, however, is to bolster the Democratic Party’s position in the next election. And taxpayers’ hard-earned money is being used to fund this charade.
The federal district attorney firings and the accompanying furor provide another example of shameless political gaming by all sides. It is obvious that the Justice Department made appointments based on political loyalties, though this practice is not new. It is also plain that they used the pretext of the war on terror to avoid the oversight, and presumably the criticism, of congress when making replacements. On the other hand, the self-righteous clamor of the opposing party seems carefully oriented toward the approaching elections, and their ethically laced demands for the Attorney General’s resignation are hollow at best. They know that replacing Gonzales would require confirmation hearings, and that those hearings would be an ideal venue for lowering this administration still further in the public esteem. Which is precisely why they want Gonzales to resign, and more to the point, is precisely why he won’t resign.
If there are any national issues that ought to be addressed without regard to party politics, the war in Iraq deserves to be at the top of the list. Yet no other issue is so politically charged at present, and American soldiers are currently being treated as pawns by the ass and the elephant alike. The invasion and occupation received bipartisan support until the dreaded threat of low approval ratings began to rear its head. The White House, being controlled by politicians (not statesmen) who are painfully aware that pulling out of Iraq would be a disaster, has no choice but to “stay the course” until either conditions improve or a Democratic president arrives to take the blame for the consequences. Meanwhile, the Democratic hopefuls, knowing what awaits them if they step into the Oval office before the inevitable pullout, present a comical picture as they try everything short of funding cuts to convince the President that the troops should come home now.
The most ironic aspect of this circus is that the obvious constitutional option to end the war is to cut the funding, and that is precisely the option Congress is afraid of. To force the return of American troops over the President’s veto would place the blame for the ensuing disintegration of Iraq firmly on the heads of the Democratic leadership. But a pullout ordered by a Democratic president would yield similar results. Their only hope is to convince the current administration to accept responsibility for the failure of both parties, something the administration isn’t about to do. So the troops will stay where they should never have gone, while our leaders peer over their spectacles at the latest polling data and casualty reports as they desperately search for a way to leave Iraq without leaving D.C.
Contrast their behavior with that of Congressman Ron Paul, and one immediately recognizes the vast difference. Unlike the party faithful, Congressman Paul strenuously opposed the unconstitutional nature of the invasion. He spoke and wrote extensively on the dangers of empire building and the falsity of the various justifications for war. In doing so, he brought on himself the disdain of his colleagues and was icily ignored by the mainstream media. Now that he is a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, he continues to speak the truth on those issues that are most likely to prevent him from reaching the Oval office. Political pundits question whether he is “presidential material,” but the real problem is their inability to comprehend genuine statesmanship.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)