The Bigger Leviathan Gets The More Economic Misery It Spreads

Todays "Church Doctrine" from the Mike Church Show on SiriusXM:

Just when you think things cannot get any worse along comes Zerohedge with a slew of newly depressing economic statistics. None of these stats should come as a surprise but they are enlightening and show a very powerful, undeniable trend: as big government has expanded, personal wealth and income has contracted, here are a few examples. Median income for male workers is now at levels not seen since 1968. Real household median income is now $49,445 which is below the same levels reported in 1996.

The poverty rate in people claiming to live in America’s suburbs is 11.8%, the highest level since 1967. There are dozens more statistics I could list here but I think you get the point. Our freight train of economic might has been reduced to a Thomas the Tank Engine pulling a boxcar full of Boxcar Willies. How did this happen? The answer would take longer than the time we have here but the basics can be explained fairly quickly: The dollars Americans earned since 1971 have not kept up with Leviathan and the Federal Reserve’s perpetual inflation. This happens while capital is sucked out of the marketplace by expanding government appetite for debt. Productivity has improved but that only leads to job displacement which has little chance of of keeping up with businesses headed for the regulatory safety of foreign countries.

Combine all this with Obama’s determination to be the lender, designer and then bankruptcy officer of first choice for American mass manufacturing and we now have a depression on our hands. Americans who are turning to Washington for help are helplessly bound to bringing about more destruction. The only solution is liberty: economic, regulatory and free market liberty combined with the government re-assuming it’s only true power in economics, stabilizing the money supply, fostering ACTUAL free trade and returning us to hard money.

Of course this puts politicians out of the power broker business and big bankers on notice that their cartel-money- monopoly is over while they reach for their Monopoly game “Go Directly To Jail” cards.

Listen to Audio Here

Obama Administration to End Discrimination Against Non-Scientists

By Roger F. Gay

Following an initiative to protect non-English speaking English teachers, the Obama administration has announced a program to eliminate discrimination against non-scientists in academia.

The large scale initiative is the result of a decades-long pilot program that tested the effect of replacing competent scientists, who had been studying weather, with “politically and financially driven plug-ins” in a pseudo-scientific realm dubbed “climate science.” The Democratic Party talking points characterize it as “one of the greatest successes ever in the field of large-scale social engineering.”

The program, backed by the United Nations and operated in all “civilized nations”, resulted in a near complete replacement of real scientists with politically dependent toadies in the entire field. By crafting funding arrangements on a carefully defined political agenda, less competent, less honest “researchers” were able to prosper, in many cases much more than their competent counterparts.

The long-term study led to even greater success. “Community leaders,” such as academic journal editors, head administrators of scientific organizations, and influential political advisers were drawn from the the new “in crowd” rather than from seriously contributing scientists. As spokesmen for “what scientists think” their influence on the public was dramatic. At one time during the experiment, a majority of the population of the West (the entire Western civilization) believed that human activity was driving a catastrophic change in climate.

Discrimination had been effectively wiped out as the public accepted the word of the appointed scientists over that of scientists who would have had higher status in an independent performance driven system. In fact, recent surveys still show that a substantial number of people identify politically defined commentary on the matter as "real science." There is even a "science guy" on one television network acting as an evangelist for the cause.

“It's proof that we can do anything if we set our minds and lots of public money to the task,” stated one spokesman. “When we realize that we're not bound by rules, we can truly change the world. The whole individualistic idea of competence as an excuse to create hierarchical social structures is crumbling and the economic side-effects will go with it. Science is a big deal, often associated with individual characteristics like intellect. But we've shown that people assigned to the scientific establishment do not in fact need to be scientists at all in the conventional sense. We just need to say that they are.”

The plan is to broaden the effort beyond “climate science” to include all physical sciences. “One of the most important parts of the infrastructure that defines the modern world will undergo dramatic change, no longer limited by what was once presumed to be common sense ideals. Within 50 years, we will no longer be leaving anything to chance. Everything will be designed into a single unified architecture.”

The spokesman said that a number of significant experiments had been carried out outside of academics, particularly in economics and commercial activities. “Here, we have proven that we can destroy and create industry at will and it's not as difficult as people, especially non-progressive right-wingers usually believe. Once we all agreed that there is no God, it was a simple matter to begin assuming powers that previous convention said were not ours to have. We may assume that we represent what is perfect – nothing else is a competitor.”

Other plans suggest broadening the academic program, but the spokesman hesitated when asked about including social sciences. “They're more than half there on their own,” he said. “They were involved in this movement before we were with activities that often ended in public relations disasters. If we include them too early in our activities, they might feel a desire to get involved in the planning – thinking for themselves and wanting us to go along with them. We thank them for their efforts but the professionals will take over from here.”
.

The Man Behind the Curtain

by Brent Lawler


In last night's speech in front of a joint session of Congress, Obama Focused on a "Jobs bill" that he said must be passed. His catch phrase of the night was "pass this jobs bill" But this was less about the American jobs act, as it was about poll numbers. This was obviously the kickoff of his 2012 campaign. However, there was an underlying theme that may have gone unnoticed. Something that is good news for those of us who want a return to a constitutionally limited government.Apparently the resurgence of interest in the constitution and limited government has become such a large movement that the President felt the need to try to quell the sentiment. Here's proof:



"In fact, this larger notion that the only thing we can do to restore prosperity is just dismantle government, refund everyone’s money, let everyone write their own rules, and tell everyone they’re on their own – that’s not who we are. That’s not the story of America."



I've got news for you Mr. President. Yes....that IS who we are, and yes....that IS the story of America. As a matter of fact that is exactly the story of America and who we are. And that is your biggest problem.

More and more of us are remembering the ideals of our founders, and don't like the fact that government at the Federal level assumes so much "responsibility" in our lives. We are awakening to the lessons of our history. Lessons which have proven that self government, free markets, and private industry, not government, are what made us great. We are waking up to the fact that as our government assumes more undelegated powers and thrusts itself into the market and our lives as a supposed savior - our prosperity, consequently, has been in steady decline. This is no coincidence, but the root cause.

Obama wants us to believe that without the benevolent, and gracious acts of our Federal Government, (over stepping their bounds) we would be lost, and living in poverty, without any modern conveniences. To this end he asks:


"Ask yourselves – where would we be right now if the people who sat here before us decided not to build our highways and our bridges; our dams and our airports? What would this country be like if we had chosen not to spend money on public high schools, or research universities, or community colleges?"


A fair question, and one everyone should ask. But when actually examined, the answer does not support the Presidents implication. It actually proves the opposite.

Obama implies that without the Congress acting, none of these thing could have been accomplished. That we are too stupid, lazy, and incompetent to have achieved these things without their involvement. Nothing could be further from the truth. The thoughtful answer to his question shows us how much better off would we be without Congress involving itself in these things at all? We can never know just how much better for sure. We can be sure however, that not only would all these things have been established, but in private hands, they would have been made better, stronger, more effective, and more efficient. They would have to be. The market would demand it. The owners, and investors in these business ventures, in order to compete, would be forced to provide the highest level of satisfaction to consumers if they mean to survive and profit. There would be unmatched incentive to innovate, streamline, and improve. Without improvement, they would fall to the wayside to make room for those who do. Where is that competition in government? There is none. They can't lose, they make the rules, and set the standards. Essentially, they have no "skin in the game". So why should there be a concerted effort to innovate, streamline, or improve? When no one else is allowed to compete there is no need to be the best. They just need to be.

The most disturbing item of the night was when Obama made perfectly clear that the Federal Government did not need to be restricted to the actual limitations intended by the founders, and embodied in our Constitution. He Asks:


"What kind of country would this be if this Chamber had voted down Social Security or Medicare just because it violated some rigid idea about what government could or could not do? How many Americans would have suffered as a result?"


How dare we question the authority that they have assumed under the guise of charity. We are but mere subjects under our federal overlords. As such, could never understand the importance of these unconstitutional programs. We are heartless, backwards, immoral fools for thinking that we can take care of ourselves and our communities better than our federal masters can. Don't you see? We need them. We would all be living in deplorable conditions, with no food, shelter, or medical treatment without their grand gestures of redistribution. Those immoral, idiotic founders were wrong. They just didn't understand the nature of government, and bureaucracy.

Give me a break. This is what we are supposed to believe? How did previous generations ever exist without these things? I would ask how much LESS would Americans have suffered as a result?

The good news in all of this is the fact that the ideals of the founders are making a comeback. So much so, that our President, who represents the antithesis of those ideals, feels so threatened by the movement that he saw fit to address it. To try to convince us that we don't have to worry about those pesky founding principles that made us great. Keep looking at government to solve your problems. Keep the status quo. Because, without us intervening, those founding principles would have led you all to poverty.

Its too late. We have seen the man behind the curtain. He's the Federal Government.............and he's no wizard.

Obama May Be Best Choice for Conservatives

By Roger F. Gay

Shocking headline, I know. But I'm not just seeking attention.

Over the past few decades, we have been unable to slow the march of the Political Class toward absolute control. Big Media's insistence on classing Republican presidential candidates as “first tier” down to bottom guarantees that the race for the nomination will come down to the worst few. Even in such hopeless times, there is a classic American maneuver aimed at slowing the acceleration toward our ultimate demise.

It's based on the old “divide and conquer” strategy. We've often put one party in power in the White House and another in power in Congress and even divided power between the two Houses. Then our hope, at least for buying a bit more time, lies in discouraging too much friendly bi-partisan cooperation. It hasn't worked as well as it should lately. In the intoxicating Washington environment, RINOs and Dems fall quickly in love – both wanting to “get something done” and “compromising” their way right back onto the fast track to doom. Then came the Tea Party.

Let's just take another quick look at Big Media's “top-tier” candidates today.

We have Mitt Romney, who embraced HillaryCare after lengthy open analysis and debate led to an incontrovertible conclusion that it's a genuinely stupid idea. He's a guy who never met a federal dollar he didn't like to spend or a Constitutional liberty he didn't want to crush. He spent considerable time as Governor twisting arms to accelerate the cost and power of government. Constantly portraying himself as whatever kind of guy the audience is looking for makes him a highly competitive candidate among the other bunch of liars on the stage. I'll put that in my bottom tier, thank you; no matter how many times he mentions Ronald Reagan.

Rick Perry exploded into the national scene and has quickly managed to make global warming hysteria popular again. That's right. Statistics are up on public belief in catastrophic man-made global warming. Perry is the stereotype the left has been looking for – the poster child for doubting evolution and the left's big “climate science” scam for the same reasons; a representative of the “religious right” who doesn't believe in climate change because it's not in the Bible. If he wins the White House in 2012, Al Gore might have a shot in 2016 along with an entire army of Big Green Nazis to fill the seats in Congress.

A win by either of Big Media's Republican favorites would be catastrophic. Romney would continue down the far left fast-track while pretending to be a “fiscal conservative,” just as he did as governor of Massachusetts. It worked then and would likely have a chilling effect on protests against out-of-control government. Perry would wave his arms like an old-time revivalist and ask us to believe in – God knows what and only God knows why – heading only God knows where while handing big wins to the left in their propaganda wars. We've come too far to want to take ten steps back for any reason.

Naaaah, it's got me thinking. Let's just not do that.

Put more serious Tea Partiers in Congress. Bring Obama to a halt and spend a couple of years impeaching him. Then start in on Joe Biden if he's still there. That'll slow things down. Perhaps we'll even manage to make the point that members of the Political Class, even if elected president, are not above the law.


.

Who is really the extremist?

I am tired of people accusing me of being radical, extremist, or part of the blame America crowd because I think the Constitution should be enforced as it was intended, or that our fight against islamic terrorism doesn't need to involve preemptive strikes, nation-building, or endless war to be victorious.

The Constitution, as an idea, is widely accepted by the American people. However, when confronted with the actual application of it's intentions, or adhering to it's intended construct, is dismissed as extreme. Apparently the founders are now extremists. Their idea of individual liberty is just crazy. Their idea that the general government have only the few powers expressly delegated to it is ludicrous. The idea that your State is sovereign, and should be able to govern itself as it's people see fit is extreme. Their belief that the government which governs least is one which governs best is radical. Saying that that the government is out of control and assuming powers it does not legally have is seditious. I thought that we believed in liberty for all. That we ascribed to the live, and let live motto. Not anymore. One set of views are now to be enforced at the Federal level, whether you and your State like it or not. Forget our differences in beliefs, forget government closest to the people, forget the common cause of liberty, and defense. We now must have common beliefs on everything, in all corners of the Union.

I used to believe the idea that the Federal government was meant to be the most powerful government in the land. That when social and constitutional issues arise, it is to be the Federal government who has the final word and legislative authority on such matters. Of course I believed that.....I went to a government run school after all. What else would they teach? The truth? That the States created the Federal government to be limited in its scope and authority? That the States would never have ratified the constitution if they didn't believe that they would retain their sovereignty, and keep all powers not delegated specifically to the new general government? That would not be beneficial to the government. So they don't teach that. They do teach how great our Union is,(or at least they did when I went to school) and how it was our freedom that government was instituted to protect. That freedom has always been our governments main object.

It wasn't until my Adulthood that I began to study our history on my own. I discovered something that I didn't expect. That this Union was founded on a greater idea than I had been exposed to. Not just that all men were created equal and endowed by their creator, with unalienable rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But that our founders settled on a system of de-centralization (Federalism, and republicanism) to prevent the government (who by nature, and throughout history have destroyed liberty) from being powerful enough, and big enough to take away the liberty that it was created to protect. To divide power into the smallest possible parts. This would ensure that the government with the most influence in our day to day business remained closest to, and would be made up of people in your own community. Government closest to the people has to answer directly to the people, and is easier influenced by them. With this system people would have a true influence on their government. Of the people, by the people and for the people. They understood that governments in ivory towers far away could never truly understand, nor represent the sentiments of an entire nation of people. Especially one as big as ours. So they limited the Federal government to a few specific powers that were best handled by our Union as a whole, (defense, and foreign relations mostly) and left the rest where they belong- at the State and local levels.

Is it an extremist position to think that people should be free to to govern themselves locally, and decide for themselves how to live their lives as long as it doesn't infringe on the basic rights of others? Or is it extremist to think that your beliefs should be forced on every one else through the force of a powerful central government? The majority have chosen the latter, while paying lip service to the former. Who is really the extremist?



"What is ominous is the ease with which some people go from saying that they don't like something to saying that the government should forbid it. When you go down that road, don't expect freedom to survive very long."
- Thomas Sowell


Then there is the matter of fighting the terrorist threat. When it comes to "the War on Terror", you had better be in line with the narrative, or your with the enemy, or, God forbid, a liberal! Understand before I go on, that our governments motives in this struggle are inconsequential to the points I will try to make here. Whatever you believe they are.

I once thought along the same lines as the "you are either with us, or against us" platitude. I was once what many would call a neo-con. That it is our responsibility to "make the world safe for democracy." To transform the middle east into a bastion of freedom, and that with a little push, the middle eastern world would fight to be free and democratic. "The domino effect" so to speak. Leaving in it's wake, a place unfriendly to terrorism. A place that held dear the philosophy of Jefferson, and Washington. That with this policy, victory would be ours. Terrorism would be abolished.

I still wish I believed that were true. It was much easier believing that. But it's not.

I used to think it was preposterous to say that our involvement in the affairs of the middle-east was a possible motive for the sick, malicious actions of the terrorists from the region. That there was no way that our presence in those nations could cause such atrocities. How could anyone view our actions as imperialistic? How could our involvement in these countries be seen as an infringement on their sovereignty? I mean, we were only there to help, right? To fight terrorism. We aren't there to stay.

That line of thinking, for me, has been over-ruled by reason, history, human nature, and just plain old facts. But does that mean I blame America first, or wish to see our Union destroyed or diminished? Absolutely not. I want to win the fight against terrorism. I want us to remain strong militarily, and economically. I just want to see us keep in line with our founding principles to attain those goals. It is more than possible to do so. As a matter of fact, it will be impossible if we don't.

While I would never say that terrorists are justified in killing innocent people, or that using violence to advance their beliefs on others is right. It would be intellectually dishonest of me to say it was alright for us to do the same. We either believe in liberty or we don't. There are obvious differences in the way each side of this struggle conduct themselves. If I had to pick one manner of conduct over the other, it would be ours. By a long shot. But I don't have to. Whats wrong is wrong. Let me elaborate.

The United States, ideologically speaking, has the moral high ground. That is, if we still hold the founding principles at heart. The Muslim terrorists (not all muslims) have a tyrannical interest for the world at heart. Having said that, lets turn the tables around for arguments sake.

Imagine, if you will, that a foreign nation such as Saudi Arabia was the worlds super-power. Part of their foreign policy was to spread Saudi style Monarchy throughout the world. That they believed that their way of life, and their form of government was the most just, and reasonable one, and it would be best for everyone if all the world would adopt it. That it was their moral duty to influence other nations by example and intervention. As such they set up political alliances with our government to influence policy. Soon they were influencing production and exportation of our natural resources. Then, over time, they establish military installments within our borders. Whatever their motives, good or bad, Would this anger you? For a patriot such as myself, I would be livid. I would feel like our sovereignty was threatened. I would feel like they should mind their own business, and get the hell out of my country! I am sure that over time this would create factions within our population, and maybe within our own government who would want to fight, violently if necessary, to drive out the Saudis.

When and if one of those factions obtained sufficient financing, from whatever sources, to engage in violent attacks on Saudi troops or property, would then the Saudi government have justification to use their military might to topple our government and install one friendly to them? If this was done would it not make you consider joining one of those factions. Wouldn't this fuel your anger and strengthen your resolve to destroy their influence?

I am in no way trying to justify the actions of terrorists. I understand that their ideology, based on their religion is a huge factor in their self-justification, and motivation. What they do is wrong, and should not be tolerated. But where were the frequent attacks on us before we involved ourselves in the affairs of their nations? Could this not have been, coupled with their ideology, the justification they needed to push them over the edge? The point I am trying to make is this: to say that our presence and actions in the countries of the middle-east does not at all motivate terrorist actions is dishonest and naive. Just as naive as saying our governments motives are always about our liberty. Our tendency to spread our ideals by more than just principled example, well intentioned or not, has a profound impact that is unavoidably going to produce resentment and anger. They don't see the world the way you and I do. They don't place such high value on life like we do. We cannot be successful in influencing their beliefs by force or political intervention. Only by principled example can the hearts and minds of others be influenced. Only by principled example, and maybe not even then. But it is the only way to not create or further resentment and anger towards us. Lets stop compounding the problem, and actually solve it.

Is it an extremist position or is it America bashing to believe that we have the greatest philosophical ideas for liberty on Earth, That we should defend ourselves when attacked, but should only lead by example, not by intervention into the internal affairs of others, or by force? Or is it extreme to believe that we must intervene in the political affairs of other nations, and topple governments in order to be successful at fighting terrorism, compounding the problem, and extending the war? Who is really the extremist?


"There are some who've forgotten why we have a military. It's not to promote war; it's to be prepared for peace.'
- Ronald Reagan

When does the War on Terror end? How do we know when we have won? Who surrenders? What treaty will be signed to end it? And by Whom? Is there a limit to the number of countries that we must change before we can claim victory? I ask these questions not because I want us to lose this battle, but because I don't know the answers, and I don't see how this can ever end without the eventual destruction of our economy, and our liberty. If you don't understand that conclusion, learn the history of endless multi-front war and economic collapse.

Brent Lawler

Efforts to block message “IPCC is finished” are fruitless

PRESS RELEASE from Stockholm Initiative for a Rational Climate Policy
London, September 5, 2011

(Related to the recent climate change seminar in which it was declared the "IPCC is finished." Link below. The seminar was "censured" (cancelled) under pressure from IPCC bureaucrats and Greenpeace and subsequently held at an alternative location.)

Efforts to block message “IPCC is finished” are fruitless as climate expert Dr. Fred Singer’s roadshow continues uninterrupted.

Last week’s incident of censorship in Brussels is testimony to the power of the message delivered by climate research veteran Dr. Fred Singer. Presently on a seminar/lecture roadshow through Europe initiated at the Majorana Conference in Erice, Sicily, two weeks ago, Dr. Singer lectures today at 5 PM at IEA (Institute of Economic Affairs) in London, before rounding off his European tour in Paris in a week from now.

Contrary to popular belief, on which current and planned climate policies are based, Dr. Singer’s conclusion is that natural causes are very likely the dominant cause of the climate change that took place in the twentieth and at the start of the twenty-first centuries. Costly measures to curb greenhouse gas emissions are meaningless since the evidence shows that they are not playing a substantial role.

Dr. Singer is the founder of NIPCC (the Non Governmental International Panel on Climate Change), a private alternative to the UN body IPCC. He is an atmosphere physicist, emeritus professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia and founded the National Weather Bureau's Satellite Service Center in 1962.

The controversy built into Dr. Singer’s message is demonstrated by last week’s censoring of his lecture on the disparity between climate models and observation, at a seminar planned to take place at the University Foundation, Brussels under the auspices of SEII (La Société Européenne des Ingénieurs et des Industriels). Through intervention by the vice chairman of the IPCC, Greenpeace activist Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, in letters to the University Foundation and to SEII, the seminar was cancelled by the organizers only to resurface on a private initiative in an expanded format.

The fact that Dr. Singer’s conclusions are controversial, not coinciding with the views of the IPCC, means that they challenge the political structures that are built on the existence of an antroprogenic climate threat. The action of Mr. van Ypersele further undermines the credibility of the IPCC, already shattered by a continuous chain of scandals, and underlines the final conclusion of Dr. Singer’s lecture: “IPCC is finished”.

A video of the banned seminar is found at http://bambuser.com/channel/stockholminitiative/broadcast/1939418 and a summary of Dr. Singer’s presentation is attached.

For more information, please contact:

STOCKHOLM INITIATIVE
Göran Ahlgren, secretary general, Kungsgatan 82, 112 27 Stockholm, Sweden, goran.ahlgren@stockholminitiative.com, www.stockholminitiative.com
The Stockholm Initiative is a politically and economically independent non-profit organization dedicated to promoting rational climate-, energy-, and environmental policies.

Let's all Embrace the Muslims …

By Roger F. Gay

… fellow people of the Book. Let me give you fair warning. It's the government's fault. That's what we have to think of when religious freedom and freedom generally is at stake. If you're going to presume anything, then presume this: It's the government's fault when there's a problem. And they're not trying to fix it, especially when they say they are.

I read a short commentary at Godfather Politics entitled; New York Times: America Should Embrace Sharia Law. I googled and noticed a large number of republications. Popular comment. I didn't feel like logging in to the New York Times site to read the article under scrutiny. That would seem about as foolish as tuning in to MSNBC. The commentary assured me that some wrongful opinion was been published there. That would not be particularly surprising.

The issue is that there are efforts underway in some states that are said to be aimed at outlawing certain aspects of Sharia law. Personally, I can do without Sharia law. I'm not Sharian. But that's not the point.

The NYT article (excerpt in the commentary) opines that the crusade against Shariah undermines American democracy, ignores our country’s successful history of religious tolerance and assimilation, and creates a dangerous divide between America and its fastest-growing religious minority. The commentary, quite logically, retorts: Letting Muslims and people of other cults practice voluntary ecclesiastical law within their communities is one thing. Muslims wants Shariah law to be the law of the land. State governments are getting smart and shoring up their laws to prevent the courts from forcing Sharia law on American citizens.

Fair enough. But the NYT article gives examples and more. Some of these efforts would curtail Muslims from settling disputes over dietary laws and marriage through religious arbitration, while others would go even further in stigmatizing Islamic life: a bill recently passed by the Tennessee General Assembly equates Shariah with a set of rules that promote “the destruction of the national existence of the United States.”

Does that mean they're members of the Tea Party? (Which has been the subject of very similar accusations.) I'm not saying it's a bad thing. Those of us with Libertarian (classic liberal / American political conservative) leanings are quite convinced of the need to curtail government intrusion; which some politicians might clumsily label a “national existence.”

I must admit a bias here stemming from actual knowledge. Family law, one of the things specifically at issue, was illegally federalized, absorbed into the “national existence”, two decades ago. Marriage is no longer a “sacred private institution” as it once was under Constitutional rule. Since the change, and because of it, most of your individual rights and freedoms have quickly disappeared as far as federal courts are concerned. Nancy Pelosi was aware of this change when she asserted that the Constitution (its modern interpretation by judicial misbehavior) gives Congress unlimited power to regulate whatever it wants to regulate in any way that it wants to regulate. This includes the power to force people to do things in their private lives, against their will, that make no sense.

Dietary issues? Consider Michelle Obama's obsession with telling us all what to eat and the left's incessant battle against McDonald’s (icon of capitalism). Why aren't we holding joint political rallies with Muslims? It doesn't matter if we want to eat different food. What matters is that we all want the freedom to choose.

I've been through too many rounds in my life where public discussion of an “issue” leads the masses to feel that those other people don't deserve the same rights that we do. Something must be done to curtail their freedom. Whenever I dig deeper, it turns out to be a con. It happens over and over and over again. We are constantly divided, especially on the very point we most need to be unified: our liberty.

The con is so simple to understand that it can be difficult to remain aware of how effective it is. It's also very easy to pull off. The others, especially those we don't really know or understand, are the bad guys. We all lose in the end, except for those pesky dishonest members of the Political Class. They're laughing all the way to the bank. “There's Joe Sixpack out there,” they chuckle, clambering for freedom and begging us to take it away as fast as we can.”

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Quote of the Day.

The illusion of freedom [in America] will continue as long as it’s profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater.

- Frank Zappa

Republican Candidates Fail to Sparkle, Why and Who Wins?

By Roger F. Gay

The old wisdom is that it's impossible for a president to get reelected in a poor economy. Strapped with historically poor performance and approval ratings, an obviously failed set of old-fashioned and rather childish far-left objectives, just as obvious superficiality and self-centeredness, a list of criminally indictable scandals, a hatred of Constitutional rule and a racist streak too broad to hide, you'd think Barack Obama, who's also had nothing to show to his base supporters but his butt-crack, would be on the verge of announcing he won't run again for the good of his party, or his family, or something.

But this is 2011. If you're too young to have noticed already, Barack Obama is the perfect politician, for somebody. We don't all agree on who that somebody is, but an obvious bit of the puzzle is that, whoever they are, they're focused on stealing as much as they can and generally think less of everyone else than Alabama road-kill. The only health of the nation that interests them is measured by their own personal short-term gains.

In my view, the difficulty in exposing them is just that there are too many of them to count and they're everywhere. Conspiracy theorists don't seem to know what to say when the protagonists can't be narrowed down to at least one special category and easily labeled. The conspirators have taken capital buildings as their club-houses and being either a greedy sociopath or one of their lying loyal lackies is required to join the club.

Does that sound like a whopper of a conspiracy theory? Well, we used to understand. Back before Western religion was banned, people generally understood the effects of temptation on the weak. And there's simply no shortage of weak. That's a small edge of religious wisdom, but as proper religion so often does, it provides a huge insight into the human condition. It's no wonder that proper civilization wouldn't have emerged and undoubtedly won't last without it. Those who would replace it with science know nothing about science, or about religion, or about either; and they tend to get confused when trying to distinguish between weakness and strength.

Competition then? Surely a traditional conservative view would save the country; that good, old-fashioned competition is all we need. It works to the good in commerce, why not politics? Well, where is it? Whenever a Republican candidate gets ever so slightly ahead of Barack Obama in the polls, it's short-lived. Most recently, Rick Perry has been a few points up. Just a few mind you. Nothing that reflects the overwhelming disadvantages of the current White House occupant (when he's not vacationing). Front-runner Perry is the new guy in the race. The vetting has begun and unsurprisingly, it's beginning to look like he's just another member of the club.

If you still feel the need to focus narrowly and identify a culprit; let's pick an important one. There is a group (an activity actually) so important that they're explicitly protected by the Bill of Rights. The very first amendment to the Constitution reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

As you sit, hour after hour over the next several months, covered in cold sweat, eyeballs glued to the tube (even if it's flat), keeping track of every minute of the coming horse-race, remember this. If either side had a good candidate, there would be no reason for such apprehension. As a result, advertising revenue from political “coverage” would drop like a rock. Yep. They're in the club too.
.

I Blame the People, Not the Government.

As Americans debate amongst themselves the problems we face today, most people, no matter what their political preference, refer to the biggest problem as being the kind of people we have in government. That they are not the sort of people that belong in government. That they just don't care about anything but re-election, money, power, or themselves, and this is the root of our problems. "We need term limits", "we need to replace 'em all." etc. etc......Well,.....how do you think they got that way?

As for me, I blame the people.

We allow, and promote their behavior through our own actions, lack of principles, lack of self education, and lack of involvement.

We are not a moral, virtuous, or educated people ourselves are we? Just look around you. Do the people today live within their means, and only buy what they can afford, or must we have the latest, greatest, biggest, and best thing- and pay for it later? Do we actually believe in "liberty for all" or do we simply pay lip service to the idea, while hoping to see our beliefs, or ideas imposed on others through the force of law? Do we think theft is wrong or do we think that it's OK as long as we steal, via government, from those who have, and give it to those who don't. Do we refuse to participate in that theft, or do we make excuses for why it's OK when we participate? Do we conduct ourselves in a respectful manner, or do we act disrespectful, better, or smarter than others, without consideration for the other persons situation or experience? Do we speak gently, with careful words, or are we foul mouthed, rude, abrasive, and proud? Do we endeavour to educate ourselves, or would we rather catch the next episode of Jersey shore, the big game, or whatever other mindless activity that sounds like more fun and keeps us too busy to pay attention? Need I go on? How then, can we expect our leaders to be moral or virtuous in their positions? After all, aren't our representatives in Government elected from our own populous?

If we want truly want to make this Union better, and see a return to good government we must first look in the mirror. Why would those in government change for the better, unless they knew that the people they represent would accept nothing less? How can we elect virtuous people to government without a virtuous population from which to choose them from?

The founders understood this.

John Adams said in 1818:

"The Revolution was effected before the War commenced. The Revolution
was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious
sentiments of their duties and obligations ...
This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and
affections of the people, was the real American Revolution."

Samuel Adams said this about the matter:

"No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and Virtue is preserved. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders."

And this:

"A general dissolution of the principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy.... While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but once they lose their virtue, they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.... If virtue and knowledge are diffused among the people, they will never be enslaved. This will be their great security."

George Washington had this to say:

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest prop of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them."

Patrick Henry:

"...Virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor, my friend, and this alone that renders us invincible. These are the tactics we should study. If we lose these, we are conquered, fallen indeed...so long as our manners and principles remain sound, there is no danger."

George mason:

"No free government, or the blessings of liberty,
can be preserved to any people,
but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation,
temperance, frugality and virtue, and
by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles."

The list goes on, and on.

A true revolution for liberty, and a government that protects it, must begin in the hearts and minds of the people. Without a virtuous, moral, and educated people we cannot keep liberty, justice, or good government. We have over time, lost an adherence to these principles. This has truly been our downfall more than anything else.

Our revolution could never have happened had it not been for a people who were, in number, more virtuous than not. This is how we were able to retain our liberties, and keep the government in check for so long after that revolution. As the people have moved away from those principles, not coincidentally, we have lost many of those liberties to a growing, almost unchecked government.

The fight for liberty cannot be won through the election process……it must be the main object in the hearts and minds of the people. Liberty cannot be in our hearts and minds without morality. Nor morality without Virtue. and none of these without the religious principles from where they come.

"Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles." -George Washington.

In conclusion, Unless we have a moral people we will continue to have an immoral government. As we look ahead in our quest for liberty, we must first remember to change our own lives and behaviors for the better, if we ever expect to change the government. There is no other avenue to accomplish this. The Government is truly a reflection of ourselves. In light of this.....I would say......we get the government we deserve.....and always will.



Brent Lawler Sept. 3, 2011