The State is No Substitute for You

This is for those who insist that Pope Benedict XVI does not understand the dangers of the welfare state. Writing in his encyclical "Deus Caritas Est," which to the Latin-challenged means "God is Love," the Pope writes:

“The State which would provide everything, absorbing everything into itself, would ultimately become a mere bureaucracy incapable of guaranteeing the very thing which the suffering person — every person — needs: namely, loving personal concern. We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything, but a State which, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces and combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need . . . . In the end, the claim that just social structures would make works of charity superfluous masks a materialist conception of man: the mistaken notion that man can live ‘by bread alone’ (Mt 4:4; cf. Dt 8:3) — a conviction that demeans man and ultimately disregards all that is specifically human”

The emphasis is mine, because that is the crux of many arguments between conservatives and progressives over the relationship between men and government. Progressives believe that rights devolve out of social arrangements -- the State -- and are constantly in flux with the needs of the whole. Classic conservatives -- perhaps I should refer to them as libertarian -- believe that all rights come from God, are given to each of us as individuals as a birthright, and that each of us has the responsibility -- call it free will -- to exercise those rights.

And while we may lend or even cede some of these precious rights voluntarily through freely chosen decisions, none of our individual rights and responsibilities can be taken from us by force without violating the arrangement we have with God.

But, you may counter, a majority of people on this planet do not have this understanding, and certainly they do not enjoy the individual freedoms of Americans. How can you reconcile your beliefs with this reality?

And I will answer, just because the history of mankind is awash with the abrogation of God-given rights does not justify any of it. Evil allowed to flourish, even for the most benign or beneficial of reasons, is still evil and perhaps is even a greater evil because it presumes to call itself "good." God will deal with all of this in His own good time.

We, on the other hand, have been given a set of tremendous blessings and responsibilities by an enlightened and inspired group of founding fathers who recognized God's hand in the creation of these United States. We must relearn the wisdom of the founding and meet the challenge of defending individual liberties for all Americans from those who would strip them from us and our posterity.

For if freedom dies in America, it may be a long time before it blooms again anywhere else.

What Was the FBI Up To?

Why would the FBI be training -- and more importantly employing -- a man to write stuff as a blogger designed to get people riled up?

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) - A New Jersey blogger facing charges in two states for allegedly making threats against lawmakers and judges was trained by the FBI on how to be deliberately provocative, his attorney said Tuesday.

Hal Turner worked for the FBI from 2002 to 2007 as an "agent provocateur" and was taught by the agency "what he could say that wouldn't be crossing the line," defense attorney Michael Orozco said.

"His job was basically to publish information which would cause other parties to act in a manner which would lead to their arrest," Orozco said.

Prosecutors have acknowledged that Turner was an informant who spied on radical right-wing organizations, but the defense has said Turner was not working for the FBI when he allegedly made threats against Connecticut legislators and wrote that three federal judges in Illinois deserved to die.

"But if you compare anything that he did say when he was operating, there was no difference. No difference whatsoever," Orozco said.

Special Agent Ross Rice, a spokesman for the FBI in Chicago, said he would not comment on or even confirm Turner's relationship with the FBI.

If it is true that the FBI trained and used this man, then the wrong people are being brought up on charges. I can't think of too many things much worse than agents of the federal government conducting disinformation operations using the cover of the First Amendment to flush out "right wing extremists." Or "left wing extremists," for that matter.

How do you know the flushing operation didn't push them into extreme positions? It's sounds an awful lot like entrapment.

Increasingly it seems we have a federal government that no longer remembers the limitations placed upon it by the U.S. Constitution.

For the Press & the Politicians, It's Denial Tuesday

They just don't get it.

They mis-characterized the Tea Parties and made obscene jokes about the participants.

They cluck their tongues over the "rude behavior" of attendees at various town halls across the country, when politicians are questioned for their support of various bills and heckled when they try to dismiss the questions.

Why, these rabble must be right wing extremists!

They just don't get it.

Some guy posts a Youtube video of Barack Obama, circa 2003 and 2007, explaining why he favors a "single payer" health care system, but asking for patience from his supporters because it might take several years to phase out private health insurance programs. The video is about as clear cut as it gets. So the White House sends Linda Douglass, former ABC reporter, to accuse the web site of deception, of selectively editing clips to "make it sound like" Obama is in favor of solely government-run system.

Who is being deceptive here?

In the text of the House version of the health care reform bill, there are numerous regulations that will herd the American people into the "public option" and away from private health care plans. We will detail those in a future post because it is information you need to know. The "voluntary" nature of our existing system will morph into a "mandatory" -- you will do this or else -- system.

Who is being deceptive here?

If you believe that the president does not know the particulars of the health care reform legislation working its way through Congress, you are a fool. Everything is being coordinated, although not necessarily from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. There are many other groups that have been working on "health care reform" that have been awaiting the day when it was possible to pass it.

That time may be now. I say "may be" because the American people are waking up. Polls are showing that a clear, overwhelming majority of Americans do not want socialized medicine. They do not wish to give up their independent choices of doctors and treatment possibilities. One poll showed that Americans who have become familiar with the provisions of the "health care reform" legislation are 77 percent against it.

A question you must ask yourself: If the polls are accurate, is it possible that the Town Hall phenomenon is an accurate reflection of voter sentiment, and not merely publicity stunts by radical right wing groups?

And since when is it radical to support the United States Constitution? It is the foundational document that sets the boundaries of what the government of the Republic, and the various States, can do. It limits the powers of the government and separates the functions so that there is no absolutely power. It reserves the real power to the people, as individuals endowed by Nature's God with unalienable rights.

Progressives would say that this is an old-fashioned concept that cannot work in today's world.

I must disrespectfully disagree. The concept of limited government and separation of powers, and of individual rights of life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness, is never old-fashioned. It was ahead of its time in 1776 and 1791, unveiled to a world that did not know the concept. It remains ahead of its time today, as the world still does not understand the concept.

Sadly many Americans are not familiar with it either. They have not read the Constitution, or understood its genius if they have read it. Many teachers do not understand it, or worse, do not support it, and thus undermine it.

They just don't get it.

Historically speaking, the concept of limited government, separation of powers, and individual rights is a radical idea. A radical idea that has worked spectacularly well. It is the reason we can talk of American exceptionalism. Not that the American people are superior to any other people on the planet, but the system which our founders gave us gives us freedom of opportunity to excel, and it is this that is exceptional. It has allowed the United States to become that shining city on a hill which inspires others to greatness, and to hope.

Kill the Constitution, as this administration and Congress are attempting in piecemeal but dramatic fashion, and you kill American exceptionalism. You put an end to individual innovation and replace it with bureaucratic sponsorship. You kill private charity, which has benefited the world, and replace it with a top-down system of bureaucratic allocation of resources.

Today the poorest Americans live far better than the world's poor. Contrary to liberal pedagogery, they are not trapped in their poverty, unless they choose to be. Upward mobility has been a hallmark of our country. Kill the Constitutional safeguards that keep individuals -- and our economy -- free, and you will see that mobility reversed.

One of our commenters on Monday suggested that I -- and by extension, you -- do not understand socialism. He suggests that we merely parrot the conservative talk radio commentators. I disagree. We understand socialism only too well, and we lament its growing influence on our government institutions and its undermining of our constitutional liberties. As for talk radio, thank God the First Amendment is still operative. The success of conservative talk radio comes because many of the better hosts are saying what we already believe and help others come to understand those beliefs. If progressive talk radio resonated with the public, it would be popular. It doesn't, because it is an advocacy for principles that are anathema to individual freedom.

We get it.

Socialism is where the government, business and industry, work together to provide services and goods for the people. Some private ownership is permitted, but controlled. In Marxist terms it is considered an intermediate step on the way toward communism, where The People own in common all means of production and nothing is claimed by individuals.

Socialism doesn't work. We've over a century of various socialist and communist experiments, in varying degrees. From the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Nazi Germany and fascist Italy; to Fidel's Cuba, Chavez' Venezuela, all are places where poverty and human misery have increased.

These are places where fences were built to keep people in. Why do you suppose?

These are places where people dreamed of coming to America. Why do you suppose?

The smart man or woman learns from history and tries not to repeat those lessons that failed.

Why would we want socialized anything?

So do not be surprised when Americans who cherish their individuality and freedom of movement, their right to worship as they please (or not at all), and their ability to own property and defend themselves against unlawful aggressors, turn out to ask tough questions of congresspersons and government officials. Do not be surprised when these same people, when they are dismissed as stupid or uninformed children, shout their disapproval of said leaders.

We are not sheeple, and we will not go quietly into the dark night of collectivism.

What Are You Celebrating This 4th of July?

Job losses were worse than feared, according to the official government report out today. This news occasioned a 223-point sell-off on the Dow, the worst one day drop since April, and comes on top of a Consumer Confidence Report that shows Americans starting to give up on President Obama's promised recovery.

Another survey I read Wednesday talked of how millionaire investors are also losing confidence in the Obama recovery, such as it ain't, and are looking for safer harbors for their investment bucks.

To anyone who questions why the economic news is so glum, it is necessary to say this: What did you expect? Nearly a half million more people are out of work, and the House of Representatives has just passed legislation that is feared by a majority of the American people. Even its fans admit that Cap'n Tax will raise the cost of everything (and the value of nothing) even as Congress wheeled and dealed and gave away the one thing they said they needed: actual tax revenue. The end result is the worst of both worlds. Higher prices and more deficit spending.

On the eve of the Fourth of July weekend, you really have to ask yourself: "What is it we are celebrating on this 233rd anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence?"

History has shown us that command economies do not work, and yet we have handed over the power to create one to a group of Progressives who control both houses of Congress and the White House. This is what they are doing, as rapidly as they can hustle or buy the votes.

An individual is not truly free unless he or she is able to improve their lives through their own productive toil. The acquisition of property was considered an essential element to our basic unalienable rights by the Founders. As John Adams, our second president, once said:

"The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence."

In the past six months we have witnessed the takeover of the world's largest insurer, controlling interest in several of our largest banks, and two of the three great American auto companies by the federal government. Under the leadership of progressives, Uncle Sam leveraged its way into control of these industries first by offering economic security through "bailouts" and then by demanding "a seat at the table" because of the public's "investment." Except that the public, which is you and me, didn't want to own banks, insurance firms or automobile manufacturers. And we have no say-so on the new rules and regulations that are being imposed upon these companies. We have watched with incredulous minds and gaping mouths as secured corporate bondholders have been deprived of their property without due process of law while our Supreme Court refused to intervene.

Now President Obama and the Progressives want the federal government to take over the entire American health care industry under the banner of "reform." This represents somewhere between one-fifth and one-seventh of the economy. In percentage terms that's somewhere between 14% to 20%. Their promotional efforts are heavy on emotionalism and light on specifics. In other words it's classic propaganda: get a movement going without revealing too many details of what's really going to happen.

Health care and "Cap and Trade" are part and parcel of the Progressive end game. If they get Energy and Health Care, with near total control of banking and finance, and a heavy industry like automobiles, the federal government will have nearly half of our economy in its grasp.

This will be ruinous. It will stifle innovation and competition, especially for small businesses and individuals. You simply cannot compete with a huge national government that has political protection for its "business" decisions. Other businesses will fail and, if they are deemed "necessary" by our government overseers, they will be acquired or controlled so that there is a semblance of an economy functioning. But the individual people would lose out.

In theory, We the People could elect a new Congress in 2010 or 2012, and install a president who is not a Progressive, and get the government's tentacles out of the economy.

In practicality, this would be very difficult, and painful. That is why I call this push for Health Care Reform and "Cap and Trade" the End Game.

I'm not trying to put a damper on your Fourth of July. Go ahead and have your little soiree, but remember that the freedom you yet enjoy comes to you as the bequest of your American ancestors. It must be rediscovered and protected by each new generation or else it erodes away at the hands of the Looters and the Takers. Freedom is not only defended by those in the military, although they put their lives on the line constantly for us. It is also defended by those willing to engage in the public debate, who value freedom more than their lives and their fortunes and who are willing to stake their sacred honor on passing the torch of liberty to the next generation.

The Fourth of July should mean more than a cookout, a fireworks display, or a weekend at the lake.

Especially this year.

Free Cars for the Poor?

If you're going to be on welfare, might as well do it in Massachusetts.

Free cars for poor fuel road rage

Gov. Deval Patrick's free wheels for welfare recipients program is revving up despite the stalled economy, as the keys to donated cars loaded with state-funded insurance, repairs and even AAA membership are handed out to get them to work.

But the program - fueled by a funding boost despite the state’s fiscal crash - allows those who end up back on welfare to keep the cars anyway.

“It’s mind-boggling. You’ve got people out there saying, ‘I just lost my job. Hey, can I get a free car, too?’ ” said House Minority Leader Brad Jones (R-North Reading).

It costs the State of Massachusetts about $6,000 per recipient for the first year of the program. Gov. Patrick is one of President Obama's best buddies, even to the point of "lending" him speech talking points in recent years. There's also talk that Patrick, who is losing popularity rapidly with even the liberal leaning electorate of that state, might be receptive to a federal position.

The free car program has been a trial program -- only about 65 cars a year to welfare recipients who prove, at least briefly, that they have a job and children. But apparently many people are losing patience with this approach.

I think this is a good time to discuss principles. How much assistance should government give to people before it becomes self-defeating?

Our Founding Fathers had a fairly coherent set of rules. First and foremost, there should be a hierarchy of fixed responsibility to those who are in dire financial straits. Quoting from "The 5,000 Year Leap," by W. Cleon Skousen (1981, 2006, National Center for Constitutional Studies):

"The first and foremost level of responsibility is with the individual himself; the second level is the family; then the church; next the community; finally the county, and, in a disaster or emergency, the state. Under no circumstances is the federal government to become involved in public welfare. The Founders felt it would corrupt the government and also the poor. No Constitutional authority exists for the federal government to participate in charity or welfare." [Emphasis DTO]

Has Massachusetts (and other states, including Oklahoma) jumped the gun by circumventing the responsibility of extended family, churches, communities and counties? I'll bet the answer is yes.

Do you suppose the federal government is working behind the scenes to funnel money to the state of Massachusetts for various and sundry benefits? You can bet your ass.

Is this corrupting government and lending the situation to hard feelings? How could it not be?

There is a place for public compassion but we've gone so far in that direction that we've choked out private, personal compassion, almost to the point where most people don't feel very compassionate. That's not good.

It's going to get worse if the president has his way on eliminating charitable deductions in our tax code. (By the way, you will be told that this is only for the "rich" people making more than $250,000. This is more mendacity. It is difficult for most working people to give enough to ever take full credit on their taxes for their charity, but I digress.) If charitable giving loses its favored status, it will hurt charities and churches, those institutions that are supposed to be higher up the responsibility level for assisting the poor. Thus it will empower Uncle Sugar to take a greater role.

The Founders would not have allowed this.

Neither should you.