Author Archives: William Way Jr.

Maximum Occupancy

The trial of Kermit Gosnell brings into focus the motivating premise of Barack Obama.  No, I am not speaking of Barack Obama having a desire to kill the unborn.

I am speaking of Barack Obama’s desire to kill off people in general because of his narrow view of the world, and his shallow place in it.

Barack Obama views himself as an intellectual elite.  He thinks that because he has degrees he is therefore wise.  That is not the case, and people should stop suggesting.  Barack Obama is touted as being a good public speaker.  He is not.  He is a popular comedian.  Let me explain, and then get back to the main issue.

Barack bounced around from school to school his entire life.  he was not seeking a better education, but rather an easier education.  Because of his upbringing, which he could control for the most part, Barack learned to seek the easy route.  His desire was not intellect and experience.  It was rather “getting by”.  That is what he fears people would discover if his educational records were released.  He is on the “little below average side” of the intellect scale.

A person that is below average in school, such a Barack Obama, always lean to the weaker skills.  Rather than using reason they use their abundance of words.  If any Barack Obama is abundant in expressing his value to society, when in fact he offers shamefully little toward moving society forward.  A gifted public speaker motivates people to expand their intellect and capacity.  They blend style and content to get people to expand their own horizons.  On the other hand comedians do just the opposite.  They address the absurdities of society and encourage listeners to dwell on those absurdities.

Barack Obama is excellent at pointing out absurdities.  The more his intellect is challenge the more forceful he becomes at pointing out absurdities.  I use as an example his derisive comment to Mitt Romney during one of the later presidential debates.  He offered up a smart-aleck comment about the weapons the navy uses.  Why?  Because he simply didn’t have the intellectual prowess to manage the fact, but only the appearance.

Virtually everything about him reeks of shallowness, based not on a capability to reason, but upon intellectual debris tossed aside by truly learned men.

Now, let’s get to the heart of this article.

During Barack Obama’s buffet of educational options he grasp onto the low-hanging fruit of population control.

Numerous studies have been done that suggest that mankind has dramatically exceeded its maximum occupancy level for the planet earth. (http://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/3_times_sustainable).

As a result of Barack’s reading one or two of these articles he jumped to the confusion that the world needed his shallow intellect to solve the problem.  With a mind of limited capacity to learn or willingness to learn Barack Obama went in chase of a supportable theory of human annihilation.

Having the limited skill of understanding comedy Barack recognized he could not openly advocate human destruction.  he needed to find an alternate joke to tell the American people.  Thus, he came to his premise that eliminate life he saw as disgusting was best portrayed in the comedy of secondary rights.

Secondary rights are those rights which people claim an entitlement to so that they can overrun the rest of society’s primary rights.  Specific to this article is the fallacious secondary right that a woman has the right of choice because it is her body.  Pro-abortion rights are in fact secondary rights.  Secondary rights are an effort to equate irresponsibility with civil rights.  In short they say “My right to make poor decisions supersede your primary right to life”.

Hence, Barack Obama and his comedic followers embrace the slaughter of humanity as a right.  They are wrong!

The “Obamanation” idea that mankind has become saturated and must be culled is not a popular argument…yet.  Hence, his argument became one about rights, when it really is about class destruction.

Here is what Barack Obama is doing with his hidden agenda of culling the herd of humanity;

  1. Support abortion
  2. Support genocide of the elderly weak.
  3. Eradicate religions that encourage population growth…without a strict law entitling slaughter of non-adherents.
  4. Encourage policies that focus attention away from the preservation of humanity and toward preservation of the eco-system.
  5. Embrace weak science and alarmism, as an alternative to intellect.  and, lastly and more damning
  6. Disregard the value of life in the face of political expedience (Benghazi; need I say more).

The current president of the United States of America does and will advocate for the culling of the human element.  In all of his comedy and policy advocacy it is more than apparent to those willing to be educated as well as entertained.

We often repeat the story of Nero fiddling while Rome burned.  Those leaders with a nihilist view of humanity are quite comfortable fiddling (and playing golf).  However, they, in the end, actually contribute nothing to mankind.  Why do they contribute nothing?  Because solidly, they do not believe mankind is worth anything.

Barack Obama tripped over the idea that the world had reached maximum occupancy.  He then concluded, at the inhalant end of marijuana joint, annihilation of the human race was inevitable.  From there straight forward selfishness was not a major leap at all.

Mankind deserves much better.  Mankind has the capability to adapt and preserve itself.  The most prudent step we can take is to recognize that on various occasions we are over-populated with people like Barack Obama.

 

 

Internet Taxation

Relaxed Wisdom

Relaxed Wisdom

Today 21 Republican Senators vote to tax Americans even more, while five Democrats voted against higher taxes.

Shame on those republicans, and applause for those five Democrats.

Those Republicans that are worthy of scorn are listed below. When they begin bragging about how wonderful they are and attempt to distract you with lies, don’t buy into their deceit. They will sell you a lot of snake oil, but in the end they will strike with venom again and again.

Sessions (R-AL)

Shelby (R-AL)
Boozman (R-AR)
McCain (R-AZ)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Isakson (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Collins (R-ME)
Blunt (R-MO)
Cochran (R-MS)
Wicker (R-MS)
Burr (R-NC)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Fischer (R-NE)
Johanns (R-NE)
Portman (R-OH)
Graham (R-SC)
Thune (R-SD)
Alexander (R-TN)
Corker (R-TN)
Enzi (R-WY)

The five Democrats with a proper vote are

 

Baucus (D-MT)
Tester (D-MT)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Merkley (D-OR)
Wyden (D-OR)

America is taxed enough.  Anyone with any common sense knows the federal government is one of the most wasteful organizations in the world.  Taxes should be cut until the government learns how to manage its business in a responsible manner.

I hope everyone that believes in the dignity of this nation will call their senators as many time as possible demanding better of them.

With Thanks to Francis Pharcellous Church

“DEAR MR WAY: I am 74 years old.
“Some of my White House friends say there is no Liberty.
“Papa says, ‘If you see it in THE CONSERVATIVE DAILY NEWS it’s so.’
“Please tell me the truth; is there a LIBERTY?
“HARRY REID.
“UNITED STATES SENATE.”

Relaxed Wisdom

Relaxed Wisdom

HARRY, your White House friends are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. They do not believe except in what they can control. They think that nothing can be which is not controllable by their little minds. All minds, Harry, whether they be men’s or children’s, are little. In this great universe of ours man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect, as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole truth and knowledge of liberty.

Yes, HARRY, there is Liberty. It exists as certainly as faith, reason, wisdom and devotion to honor exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! how dreary would be the world if there were no Liberty. It would be as dreary as if there were only Harry Reid. There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The eternal light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished.

Not believe in Liberty! You might as well not believe in life! You might get your papa to hire learned men to explain, but even if they did not produce it so you that could touch it, see it, smell it, hear it, or taste it, what would that prove? Nobody sees Liberty, but that is no sign that there is no Liberty. The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men, and most especially those of power can see. Did you ever see faith reason, wisdom, or devotion to honor? Of course not, but that’s no proof that they are not there, other than the results they produce. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and unseeable in the world, Because of Liberty.

You may trample upon the Liberty of men.  You may bind every last man upon the earth in unbreakable chains.  You may make illegal all things even the act of breathing, but there is a veil covering the unseen eternal nature of Liberty which not the strongest man, nor even the united strength of all the strongest men, congresses, and presidencies that ever lived, can tear from the heart of every man. Only faith, fancy, poetry, love, romance, can push aside that curtain and view and picture the supernal beauty and glory which Liberty supplies.

Is Liberty real? Ah, HARRY, in all this world there is nothing else so real and abiding.

No Liberty! Thank God! It lives, and It lives forever. A thousand years from now, Harry, nay, ten times ten thousand years from now, Liberty will continue to make glad the heart of mankind.

Are None of Them of Value

It is really quite amazing what we witness in the United States of America today.

On May 25, 1787 the Constitutional Convention opened.  One hundred sixteen days later, on September 17, 1787 they concluded their official work.  All but one of the thirteen states (excluding Rhode Island) participated in the convention.  Those twelve States gave unanimous order the Constitution should be submitted for ratification.

Among the forty-two specific delegates that participated in the convention thirty-eight voted in favor.  The principle concern of the remaining four was that proposed constitution did not contain a bill of rights articulating the rights of the people and the states over the authority of the national central government.

Yet, even in the Federalist victory for the Constitution they gave promise that such a bill of rights would be championed by the Congress as amendments to the Constitution.

Two hundred seventy-eight days later the Constitution was ratified.  Then on March 4, 1789 Congress convened in New York City for the first time. Just ninety-seven days later, even before the Supreme Court was officially established, James Madison, true to the promise given, introduced The Bill of Rights to Congress to be acted upon.

It is really quite amazing what we witness in the United States of America today.

The rights articulated in those first ten amendments to the Constitution, under the honor of those men given authority and trust of the people, are tossed aside by our current crop of congressional members.

The first amendment set the people apart from the dictates of the federal government over the free exercise of consciences.  Yet, the rights of religion, speech, assembly, and opposition to government tyranny are assailed routinely by operatives of that government.

The second amendment guaranteed the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms distinctly for the purpose of preserving the strength of states against the dominance of the national government.  Yet, on every hand federally elected officials seek to superimpose their desires over the rights of the people.

The third and fourth amendments assure protection of the people against the quartering of soldiers in their homes, and against unreasonable search and seizure.  Yet, police forces with arms and fire power of a standing army may now routinely enter homes at gunpoint.  The president advocates for the power to impose upon every American via the modern technology of drone warfare.  Departments of the government may intrude private home and confiscate children.  Is it truly beyond imagination that such people will not soon advocate for armed incursion of the military into private homes?

The Fifth Amendment protects every citizen against double jeopardy and against the taking of private property.  Yet, we see routinely how the government hounds citizens.  Numerous examples exist of government trying a person for a specific crime, and upon failure to establish guilt go about finding an alternate charge to try them…only demand a retaliatory sentencing for guilt.  In my own city a man is hounded endlessly by a federal agency.  His goods and property have been confiscated without trial.  In like manner his extended family’s good have also been stolen by the government…again without trial or conviction.

The sixth and seventh amendments were meant to protect the citizenry against an executive government exercising undue length of trials and avoidance of the judicial government to punish a presumed perpetrator.  Yet, the revenue arms of the federal government taunt citizens literally for over a decade for crimes which they cannot generate evidence for against a citizen.  Further, because of the arrogance of the courts the eighth amendment, protecting the people against a zealous government intent on setting an appearance of justice, impose indiscriminant sentences.

Corresponding with the first eight amendments the ninth reiterates for emphasis that it is the rights of the government that are restricted, not the rights of the people.  Yet, routinely, elected federal officials purport to have authority over the rights people in all matters.

Finally, in the tenth amendment, simply to slam the point home with an exclamation mark the federal government is told in no uncertain terms that ALL the power given to the federal has been stated, and if it has not been stated it does not exist with them.  Yet, the federal government wields a whip of revenue over the heads of the various states coercing compliance.

It is really quite amazing what we witness in the United States of America today.  We have been turned upside-down and inside-out like a carnival contortionist.

If Madison, Adams, Jefferson, Washington and the delegates to the Constitutional Convention were alive today they would be standing in awe at the failure that modern America has made of the nation they created at such great a cost.

 

 

 

Can we cut the Sensationalizing…PLEASE?

The fundamental premise of most federally elected officials is that tightening their grip around the throats of the people will improve society.

I would encourage each of them to spend some time with a dog.  The harder one pulls on the leash of a dog the more it strains to be free.  Ultimately the dog pulls itself loose from the collar and runs wild, or it shies away in fear at every encounter.

Dogs are not much different from people, really.  Every living creature desires life and liberty.  It is the nature of living beings.

Yet, for thousands of years men of authority have failed to learn that one simple lesson that the powers of their office are inseparably connected to persuasion, not to compulsion.  “One more regulation” seems to be the eternal mantra of those that would be masters.  “If at first control does not work, tighten the leash” appears to be the follow-up.

God declared, “Thou shalt not kill”!  In the intervening years since that monumental and spectacular pronouncement mankind’s appointed masters have written ten thousand laws to enforce the Ten Commandments.

In recent years the consummately conspicuous contraptions of control have been “hate crimes”.  These are a set of laws adding subtly distinctive punishment to thoughts.  This breed of punish focuses on controlling the thoughts as well as the behavior.

Terrorism is one of those popular “hate crimes”.   It gets particular mileage for those that would be gods over the otherwise godless.  The right brand of labeling makes, in the eyes of the beholder, a crime more vicious.  It’s vileness rest on the motivations of the perpetrator.

We tend to used extraordinary descriptive words to explain the conduct of those whom are motivated by their beliefs. In the case of Tsarnaev’s, they are guilt of murder.  A trial will be legitimately held to determine the certainty of that.  Likewise it will determine the fate of the younger of the two.  Society, via mostly through our elected officials seeking to be extraordinarily offended, label their actions as terror.  Yet, Gosnell is guilt of murder. He is guilty of far more murders.  Some stories suggest him crimes against humanity have been as extensive as the “terrorists” of September 11, 2001.  The terms “terrorist” or “legal abortionist” do not alter the facts about their conduct. They are murders.

They committed violence against a natural right and ought to be punished, not rehabilitated. Their motivations (create terror, or, enhance the lifestyle of a woman) may be relevant for discussion and planning for the future, but those motivation do not alter the fact that they are murderers and ought to be punished, in the course of proper and lawful jurisprudence.

The nature of the victim, the vastness of their wicked thoughts ought not determine the depth or breadth of their punishment.  Politicians are a breed of self-conceited dictators.  Just as they seek special favor for their paying supporters, they warp their thinking into special brands of crime for enemies that likewise offend those same supporters.  It matters not what principle may be at heart.  It matters only if their pride can be satisfied among those that would buoy them up.

Giving a special name to an age-old crime does not categorize it into a form of vileness.  It only segregates the crime into a platform for self-indulgence by those who would exercise control over others.

Senator—“Hello”!

It has been said before but I will say it again.  Federally elected officials just don’t comprehend the role of government.

Today I read a comment by Senator John Hoeven.

More than two years ago I persuaded former Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to initiate a new USGS study of the Williston Basin to stimulate more private-sector investment in infrastructure like housing, hotels, retail stores and other services to meet the needs of a rapidly growing western North Dakota. This new USGS study further confirms and reinforces the fact that the Williston Basin is a sustainable, long-term play warranting strong private-sector investment for decades into the future.

As laudable as encouraging private investment in job creation is, it does not justify theft.  When the government steals resources from one person to create wealth for another person it is theft.

I presented a question to Senator Hoeven in a response to his self-congratulatory Facebook post.  Do I have authority to take from his resources in order to accumulate more of mine own?  I answered him, and say to you, “I think not!”

Federal elected officials continue to fail to recognize that government is an extension of my authority, not the master of it.  The Constitution states “We the people” created the government.  Honest Abe said this a nation of, for, and by the people.  The government ought not presume to have authority greater than that which has been given them by the people.  Now, it may shock some of my wise conservative friends, but even the people do not have legitimate authority to take from one to specifically enhance the quality of life of another.  Theft is not a natural right of man.

Our dear and beloved federal elitists fail to understand this simple concept.  Just as I have no authority to take another man’s life, I also have no right to take another man’s property without his consent.  That is not a hard concept to grasp.

Maybe, just maybe, the God of Moses got it right when He said “Thou Shalt Not Steal!”

In America we prattle on about being a capitalist society.  The over-educated elected in Washington bray the loudest about it.  Yet, it is such an elementary concept they continue to fail math class because their calculations simply don’t add up.

America was not built on “capitalism”.  It was built on the idea of a free market.  Every nation that is, was, or will ever be will be capitalist.  Capital is nothing more nor less than the resources of production.  Capital is the seed that grows to wheat, it is the wheat that is ground to flour, it is the flour that is baked to bread, it is resource of life.

It is who owns and controls the resources (capital) that determines how the seed goes from soil to bread.  In a free market system private individuals own and control the capital.  Each barters, for money or bread, directly with others to increase one form of capital in exchange for another form.

Some societies operate as government owned and control capitalist systems.  I won’t even engage in the debate that those systems have failed miserably.  Other societies operate under the premise of private ownership and government control.  More failed and inefficient systems.

The United States of America prospered, generally, when it was operating a free market.  But, as self interests and pursuit of power began to influence the government this great nation became stifled.  What generated that stifling was greed.  Some men saw others accumulate more resources (capital) and demanded it for themselves…outside of a barter system.  They chose through unionization to restrict the trade of their resources (labor) for other resources.  They also sought to expand the role of government and became redistributionists.  When that happened the system began to have leaks and chasms of decay, generally.

Today, one cannot swing a dead cat in Washington without hitting some elected officials that believes the role of government is to redistribute capital!

I come back to my question, what right does a government have beyond my own rights?  The answer is, “none”.

Senator Hoeven, and most of his colleagues are infected with the disease of illogic.  They believe that somehow the government has authority to steal corn from Kansas to study turtles Mississippi.  That is theft of capital.  Is it well intended?  Most likely it is.  Does it balance the scales of economic justice.  Perhaps it does.  Is it wrong in a nation historically free market.  Without a doubt.

 

More Hacking at the Roots

It is difficult to assure accuracy in an incident without knowing all the facts.  However, knowing all the facts is also nearly impossible.  Thus, mouth-all-mighty people like me offer opinions based on the information they have available.  As more information becomes available opinions shifts.

Now, I come to target of this monologue.

This past weekend the Snow Canyon Lady Warriors rugby team in St. George, Utah conducted an event to raise money to assist them in traveling to a national competition, out of state.  A passerby decided to choose to be offended by the event. “This is a highly inappropriate way for a team to raise money, no matter how desperately it’s needed.”

What was the egregious event?  A bake sale combined with a raffle for shotgun.  In this lady’s mind the raffle equated to insensitivity to recent tragic events across the nation that have cost people their lives.  Insensitivity to mayhem raises the eyebrow of any rational person.

Yet, with full sensitivity to those events, I asked the question, “What made this women chief of the appropriateness police?”  Where does she deem she has authority delegated to her by society to decide what is or is not appropriate…beyond her own self-appointed superiority complex?  Yes, I know that sounds harsh.  It was intended to sound harsh.  Because those who would lord themselves over others will learn by no other means than directness.

This woman of course ran to the school officials bawling that she was too weak to view opinions opposed to her own.  In response the equally weakling principal jumped to confusions about his role.  According to the newspaper article he is placing the coach in jeopardy of her job.  Why?  Because he too believes it is somehow his role to declare to the community what moral offenses (as his opinion dictates) can or cannot be committed.  He has assigned himself, by merit of a simple administrative bureaucrat role, as the chief of moral values for the community.  How absolutely presumptuous.  Perhaps rather than dismissing the coach, for allowing her team to conduct a legal activity, it should be the principal that is fired for being a clear and present danger to the liberties of the community.

We live in a society that is sacrificing itself upon the alter self-importance.  Somehow, a preponderance of members of our society have come to the conclusion that their choice to be offended is more precious than another person’s right to liberty.  Another way of stating that is “My desires are more relevant than your rights”.  Or, yet, even more succinctly “My liberty to have control over you exceeds your liberty to have control over yourself.”

Such presumptuousness is evil at its core.

We have, in the name of the awful doctrine of psychological self-awareness, attempted to build a moral fabric of society upon a foundation of “feelings” rather than conduct.  Said a woman and a principal of questionable principles “we are entitled to pretend that our opinions deserve the same protection as does violation of your liberty.”

Further, we have fallen victims to the age old fallacy that “when they are learned, they think they are wise.”  We were warned and forewarned against such foolish assumptions…by men far wiser than most of us.

Now, for the record, I despise the use of guns.  I equally despise the acts of violence which so easily men engage in to enforce their power-over others.  The use of guns in place of reason is an insult to the dignity of mankind.  I make no distinction as to why, what brand, what caliber a gun is.  I despise the lot of them.  Yet, having said that, I know how to use many of them.  And, because some reactionary people, such as those who take offense at the liberty of others or seek to exercise control over them by mere titles, it becomes necessary for some of us to keep and bear arms.

The US Constitution assured that right to bear arms after diligent and thoughtful discourse among men of reason and principle.  I have yet to meet or hear of any person in my lifetime with greater wisdom and inspiration than them.  But, it is not just their wisdom we can honor.  It was the reasonable understanding and logic of the entire nation of people that embraced that right to bear arms to whom we ought to look to fashion our own wisdom.

The assault on a group of girls by a zealot, supported by a potentate, is possibly far more egregious, to all, than the girl’s offense of being nothing more than a group of carnival barkers crying “Come one and all.  Step right up.  Try your chance at winning a symbol of your liberty.”

This is Not about Ireland

The old man sat alone in the pub.  On the table in front was a pint of Irish ale.  The sleeve of his tattered jacket, dirty as the whole of it, bore the symbol of an army long defeated on the battlefield, yet not in the heart of a true Irishman.  Or so he retold himself.  His eyes were glassy as they carefully examined the war of twenty-two and twenty-three.

“Will ye be hav’n another pint, old fella?” ask younger man dressed in the casuals of modern barman.  Then he stood and waited for a reply.  He stood a while longer…waiting for a reply.

The ancient shoulders squared.  His head snapped to attention like a soldier called for special assignment.  “Maybe one for the boys, and then I’ll be head’n me back to joint them.”  He looked and sounded sad.

“Ma name is Andrew” the boy nearly whispered, “I notice your boys are left on quite a while back.  Can ya share with me just how you aim to catch on up to them?”

“Good ones, all of them.  They stood proud, you know!”

“I never had the chance to meet them, sir.  Ma shift is nearly done, will ya tell me who they were?”

“Well, lad, their names are gone from me, just as they left this life long ago.  But prouder men of Erin ya might like never to have found.  Loyal to their native land and lore were they.  Alright indeed lad, alright indeed.”

“Were they your sons?”

“Yea, they were sons and more.  They were friends.  Men of valor amongst them all.  Died fere Ireland they did.  Not to hoist the Union jack, but to bleed beneath honor of the Orange and Green.”

A quiet settled for a few moments, as those nearby set their mugs at rest.

“Tell me, lad.  What colors would ya lay your life down fere?”  It was asked with resolution, firmness, and dignity without judgmental challenge.  The room fell fully quiet.  Among those whose attention rested on the boy were men surely twice his age, yet still only half a lifetime spent during the old man’s years.

The young man blushed.  He was a college student studying accounting.  He had never considered himself one to be counted upon, but rather one who would simply count.  In a moment of brief self-introspection Andrew again spoke softly “It’s never given me no thought or care.  I mean ya no disrespect, sir, but that be how she really in ma head. It never gave me no thought.”

“Ah, me young lad, don’t let it be unnerving to ya.  Most of yer admirers in here have never gave her thought as well.”  There was a discernible shiver in the crowd.  “Give a good thought to me question, lad.  Give it a good thought.  Ya deserve to know what ya value, whatever she may be.”  With that the old man downed his last swallow of ale and left the pub.

The next morning at the pub Andrew skimmed the local news.  There on page four was a short article, accompanied by a picture.  The headline read “Final Captain of The Irish Civil War Found Deceased”.  Pictured below was a young man in a clean sharp battle dress jacket.  Beside that picture was another of the same man lying beside a stone that bore his name and date of birth.  He wore the same jacket, but it was worn and dirty.  On his chest, held firmly in a death grip, were the delicately folded Orange and Green.  No ribbons, no medals, no insignia of rank, just a tattered jacket and an aged yet pristine flag.

Three evenings later the boy began to write.  By midnight more sheets were in the trash than remained on pad.  But Andrew’s eye gleamed brighter than when he started.  He knew he was getting close.  As the morning rays of sunlight cast early shadows across the ground he walked toward a clothing store, with his written conscience resolutely in his trouser pocket.

By the time his shopping was done the shadows were at their shortest and the sun at her highest.  Andrew stood at the foot of a mound of dirt, headed by carved stone.  On the stone a death date had been chiseled more brightly than all the rest.

“I have an answer, sir” said Andrew, as softly as he ever spoke, but yet with a depth of conviction meant to come from an older, wiser, more hardened man.  He shifted in his new jacket.  In his hands he held the Orange and the Green, folded according to national custom.  Resting on the flag was his hand-written statement.

“I lay my life before my maker, for the blessing of life and liberty.

Together they are indivisible.  Life and liberty are one complete sentence.

Life begins with birth; it ends with liberty.

Ireland, Land of Abundance, grants abundance of life and a greater abundance of liberty.

The Orange (liberty) and Green (life) in a field of pure white represent a dedicated nation.

I lay my life beneath the Orange and Green, because without them abundance turns to shallow.

Erin Go Bragh.”

This article is a poor attempt at writing “in Irish”.  I conform to the notion that there are two nationalities: Irishmen, and those that want to be.  Many readers may believe this article is about Ireland, about nationality, or simply a short tale.  Do not be derailed!

This article is about life and liberty…and what they really mean.  Reread…between the lines.

Politically Sound Doctrine

Leadership and management theory can be narrowed down to three interrelated concepts; Authority, Responsibility, and Accountability.

Yes, there are dozens of books on the market about various approaches to leadership and management.  Some folks have made a very good living theorizing how to be a better leader, or, a better manager, or being a superb both.  No criticism here about those principles and ideas.  To some extent they all work in some scenarios.  But this article is about Authority, Responsibility, and Accountability mentioned above.

Not only is it about authority, responsibility and accountability but it is also about how they interact in the political realm.  Let’s take them briefly one at a time.

Authority is the right to act within one’s own judgment.  In most cases authority is delegated from someone with superior authority.  Delegation simply stated means that an individual is given the freedom to act by their own volition on behalf of that superior authority.

Responsibility is the act of accepting authority to perform an assignment given.  A substantive difference between authority and responsibility is in the ownership.  Authority is solely own by an individual.  Responsibility is co-owned between one delegating authority and the one to whom authority is being delegated.

Accountability is the act of exacting an explanation of how one has used their authority and fulfilled their responsibility.  Again accountability is a joint duty of both parties.

Delegation, assignment, exaction.  Authority is delegated.  Responsibility is assigned.  Accountability is exacted.

Political Authority

In America authority was delegated to the federal government by the superior authority, the people.

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union…, secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

The people then defined within that Constitution the various roles (authority) of the articulated branches of the federal government.  Neither the federal, state, nor local government may rightfully take upon themselves authority which was not delegated to them by the people.  The government did not establish the US Constitution.  Was it written by men of sound and prudent minds?  Of course it was.  Was it approved by various legislatures?  Again, of course it was.  Yet, it was the people’s delegation of authority, not government’s assertion thereof.

Neither the federal, state, nor local government have the authority beyond that which was delegated to them by the people.  Those governments have no additional authority than that which is delegated as documented in the Constitution.  Throughout the history of this great nation many holding the authority of the government have attempted, intentionally or otherwise, to exert their personal whims to demand more authority than they rightfully possessed.  In the very act of doing so, regardless of their intentions or wisdom, they violated their right of their delegated authority.

Far too frequently those who pretend to adhere to the Constitution appeal to the words of the “founders”.  I take nothing from such men of wisdom as John Adams and James Madison.  Their words, counsel and genius were in fact inspired.  However, the Constitution was not their possession.  It belonged to the people.  Those men had to engage as diligently in informing the people of the Constitution as did those men who put the words of it to paper.

Ultimately the people delegated certain authority to a government which they intended for those given authority to be forever diligent in maintaining that sacred trust.

Political Responsibility

The Constitution in its initial framework and the Bill of Rights, which was subsequently added within a few years, conveyed the responsibilities which govern held, under that document.  In short the government had summarized responsibilities.  First and foremost was that all people and the various states were to be governed by equitable laws.  Equitable laws simply mean no person or state is treated preferentially based upon merit of position, but rather on the merit of maintaining equitable treatment under the law.

“A more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…”

The responsibility assigned to the federal government, by its superior authority-the people, was articulated in the Bill of Rights in keeping the promise of Constitutional Convention.  The government had a responsibility to restrict itself from infringement upon the rights of the people and the states.

When Congress, on March 4, 1789, conveyed the Bill of Rights for consideration by the various states under Article 5 of the Constitution the content of that conveyance, seldom discussed, bears significantly upon the responsibility of the federal government.

“THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.”

Note the particularity with which Congress, many members of whom participated in the writing of the adopted Constitution of the people, emphasized the intent of the Bill of Rights, “in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers”.

The assignment given to Congress was a responsibility to restrict the invasiveness of the government.  In those early days the federal government comprehended that assignment, and acted within their limited authority and breadth of responsibility to comply.

Political Accountability

The people, the founders of this nation and its Constitution, were foremost concerned with limiting the degree of liberty they would sacrifice to a government.  Said the participants in the Constitutional Convention that prepared and presented the “Conscience of the Country” to the people for ratification, the following:

“that it is liable to as few exceptions as could reasonably have been expected, we hope and believe; that it may promote the lasting welfare of that Country so dear to us all, and secure her freedom and happiness, is our most ardent wish” (emphasis added).

In essence the people said to the federal government, ‘we have delegated to you authority, we have assigned to you a responsibility, now we come to exact an accountability.  What have you done with that authority and Responsibility which we have given and shared with you?”

Summary

In the beginning Congress saw their duty clearly, and with the leadership of men such as John Adams (whom some contend that he did not fully embrace the Bill of Rights) championed, jointly with the people, the responsibility which they had been assigned.

It comes as no surprise to anyone that this author concludes that the bulk of the men and women of authority in the government today fall far short of leadership and proper management of the government.

It is nearly as though each delegatee in the federal government seeks first to exceed the authority granted by the people.  They act as though they are an authority unto themselves, rather than trustees of the superior authority of the people.

The responsibilities of the government are clear.  Historically and logically, to a just arbiter of fact, current members of the articulated branches of the federal government routinely exceed their responsibilities.  They are failing to provide the equity of law which they were mandated to provide.  A preponderance of laws focus upon the nature of redistribution of justice to classes of people rather the application to the whole.  They correspondingly excel their clear boundaries with abridgements, infringements, and disregard for the specifics of the Bill of Rights.  They are failing to meet their designated responsibilities, while exceeding their authority exponentially.

What is left then, is the accountability.

It may seem like a moment of great despair to those that are conscious of the neglect of duty by federal officials.  All too often people cry out in dismay, “I just want to hear SOMETHING good about the government.”  Vast arrays of similar insults are hurled toward federal officials.  Others like, Mike Vanderboegh, advocate open disobedience to laws that fall outside the authority and responsibility of Constitution.

In Mormon (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) theology they have a scriptural reference which could be applied, in principle, to what we see in government today.  (Below is a paraphrase, and in no manner represents the views or position of the LDS Church.  It is this author’s interpretation for the sole purpose of conveying a political viewpoint).

“Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen?

Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson—

That the rights of the government are inseparably connected with the powers of people, and that the powers of people cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of delegated authority.

That they may be conferred upon elected and appointed officials, it is true; but when those officials undertake to cover their wrongs and flaws, or to gratify their pride, their vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of men, the strength and support of the people is lost; and when it is lost, the authority of that man is lost as well.

Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the authority over him, to persecute the people, and to fight against them.

We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unjust dominion.”

There is a great need for two actions to occur.  First, public officials must return to the soundness of the Constitution.  It is within their authority to propose amendments to the Constitution, if they so desire.  They have authority to act for themselves in wisdom and a statesman like manner, within the confines of the Constitution.  That authority grants them the full right to propose changes to that Constitution.

However and this is most significant, until the superior authority of the people has delegated additional authority to those officials they do not have such authority.  They cannot assume unto themselves authority which they do not rightfully hold, without the consequence of full accountability.

The second great action that needs to occur is recognition among the people that they share responsibility for leadership and management with their elected and appointed officials.  The people ought not to be idle in that duty.  Their authority is perpetual and superior.  However, their responsibility is likewise perpetual.  It does not end in the voting booth.  It is not suspended during each intervening two, four, or six years.

If we go back before the Constitution to July 4th, 1776 the people of this nation operated under the premise that

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”.

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are perpetual rights.  They cannot be denied.  Yet, they can be neglected by a people unwilling to express their consent.  Ignorance of infringement upon those rights is not consent to infringement; it is ignorance of duty by the superior authority of the people.  It is often said that silence is consent.  That is a fallacy!  Silence is ignorance.

When a government becomes egregious to the authority, rights, and equity under law to the people from whom they have derived their powers than the people MUST (not “may”, not “should”, not “if convenient”, not “if desirable”, etc.) assert their proper role as superior authority to the government.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to demand accountability from their government they must lay their lives, their liberties, and their pursuit of happiness upon the line that shall not be crossed…or surely the day shall come when all three are lost, not by will but by dominion.

“With a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence,” the time has come for that “we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor” to restore a “Government of the people, by the people, for the people”.

I Had a Dream

Last night I had a dream about Barack Obama.

In the dream he was a shabby young man.  He had been abandoned by his father and left to be raised by his mom’s family.  His grandparents spent their life criticizing America, while basking in the wealth they had acquired.  His daddy, far away in Kenya, was known for criticizing America.

One day, while sitting on a bale of hay, Barack was told by a passing hippie that Martin Luther King, Jr. had provided equal rights for all black men.  Further, the hippie explained that some very rich white men had passed a law that allowed special groups of people in America to attend college at the expense of men who were a little less powerful than themselves.  So off to several colleges Barack scampered.  He was average in every sense of the word.  Yet, on occasion he was loud.

Time passed quickly in my dream.  I next saw Barack walking through one of his favorite places, a ghetto.  The people in the ghetto liked to trash-talk each other in order to make themselves feel better.  That was the example which he had grown up with.  His Grandparents and daddy always trash-talking.  He felt at home with the ghetto talk.

Yet, as he was walking through the ghetto he saw a man sitting in the corner of a rundown closed warehouse.  He recognized the man as an acquaintance of his grandparents.  The man had use to come to their home and complain about how unfair and evil the United States of America was.  Now, the man just sat there staring vacantly into space.  He was cold and shivering.  He told Barack that he had not eaten in days.  The man was in poor shape and Barack felt bad.

Time must have passed in my dream because I next saw Barack walking through a wealthy neighborhood.  He was surrounded by several servants and police to protect him.  I somehow realized that he had become president.  While walking through the wealthy neighborhood he peered into the window of one rich man.  President Obama looked at a list of people, and saw that the rich man was not one of his friends.

So, the President decided he would use his ample wisdom, as he saw it.  He observed that the rich man was eating a piece of steak.  On the table by the man’s plate was expensive silverware, including a delicately designed fork and solid carving knife.  On the man’s plate was the steak and a healthy portion of peas.  Above the plate was a fancy wine glass filled with wine.  The man himself was well dressed while eating except that he did not wear his shoes, only slippers with socks on.

President Obama looked at the wine with great desire.  Within a moment his past echoed through his mind.  Zealously, he pounded on the man’s door.  When it was answered he went to the dining room and chastised the rich man for eating and living with such plenty when others went without wine during their dinner.  “I am the president, and I will make this right”, he declared.

Within moments he had his policemen start to collect up all of the man’s food and even his slippers.  One of the President’s people whispered into his ear, “Mr. President, if you take everything the man has  than you will be trash-talked by the free marketists.  Go slowly and only take a little.  The time will come when you can take more, and the rich man will be too weak and tired to complain.”  So, the president seeing the wisdom in the deception gave new instruction to his police.

“We must not take all that he has.  However, we must have him pay his fair share.  Leave him his steak, but take the vegetables, as my wife would require.  Do not take all his silverware, only the knife because it is solid and will last longer in a harsh environment.  Leave him his slippers, but take his socks.  Give me his glass of wine.  We shall give all but a small portion of his goods to a friend of my grandparents so that he may eat and be warm.”

With that accomplished the president swallowed the rich man’s wine with one long slurp.  “Call the press”, he demanded, “I want them to report on the generosity of America’s president.”

The entire group then proceeded back to where the old family acquaintance still sat in the corner.  “His hands are freezing,” proclaimed the president to his staff and the media.  “Quickly, put the socks over his hands and sew them to his sleeves so that others cannot steal them.  Take the vegetables and silverware, the rich man fair-share, and place it before this poor fellow so he can eat.  Retrieve a bottle of water from the trunk of my limousine so he can drink.”  The media scurried off to praise the president for his great generosity and wisdom.

In my dream I flashed back to the house of the rich man.  A friend had arrived and was seated at, the now less-rich man’s, table.  “The man is a fool”, I overheard the rich man say, “he left my fork and steak, but nothing with which to cut it.  It is nearly impossible to eat.  Also, I have no socks to wear with my shoes, please go out and find me both new socks and a sharp knife?”

His friend quickly left to get the things which his companion had asked for.  As he passed an old warehouse he heard swearing from a dark corner.  Although weary of the neighborhood he felt he should investigate.  In the shadows he found a man cursing in anger.  He immediately recognized the quality of the socks on the man’s hands.  Then he spotted his friend’s expensive knife on the ground beside an empty plate, in the middle of vegetables spilled all about.  “What are you swearing about” he asked the stranger?

“The son of an old family friend decided to help me out,” the man explained.  “However, it does not matter what great position he holds, he is not very bright.  He brought me food and clothing which he said was my fair share of a rich man’s wealth.  He gave me a plate of peas and nothing but a knife to eat them.   I was unable to even pick up the peas with my fingers, because he bound my hands up in these old socks.  When I attempted to tip the plate so the food could slide into my mouth the whole thing spilled on the ground.  When I went to drink the water it was frozen from the cold.  I am now hungrier because I have been tempted.  The man is not very bright at all.”

Confession of Conviction

A couple weeks ago I decided to “like” several US Senators on Facebook.  Specifically, it was fourteen of the sixteen Republican Senators that voted, in contradiction of their oath of office, on a resolution regarding gun control.

Since that time I have also “friended” Bryan Hyde (StGeorgeNews.com and host of 1-4 pm program “Perspectives” on 1450 KZNU).  Today Bryan had posted a video of Mike Vanderboegh giving a speech regarding gun control.  His flatter of Mike’s speech was infectious to a guy like me who always loves to listen to a good motivational speech.  So, I listened.

Far better than I can summarize Mr. Vanderboegh boldly stated that he was a follower of the Constitution and laws that violate the constitution are void.  He then confessed to having violated some “void” laws.  He went further.  He confessed that he intended to violate other “void” laws.  For those who are alarmed at that behavior he cited a Judge’s ruling that stated that a law that violated the Constitution was in fact void.  That, however, is not the intent of this commentary.

What is relevant and consequently the intent of this commentary is that Mike Vanderboegh resolutely “Confessed His Conviction”.

Confession of Conviction!

It motivates other people to believe, to be emotional, to laugh or weep.  It motivates people occasionally to act!  It always invites others to confess their convictions.

Through history we have witnessed confessions of people with conviction.  They have changed the world.  Imagine standing beside Patrick Henry when he said,

“It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace – but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

He sort of just “laid it on the line”, didn’t he.  That is why his words are still quoted over 200 years later.  He had a conviction and he confessed boldly, as did most of the founders.

Ghandi was another such man.  He was constantly putting his own life at peril…for the things he was convicted to, the freedom and character of his people.  From the movie that bears his name Ben Kingsley did a remarkable portraying Ghandi.  I enjoyed the movie and his role.  However, for me the most moving scene was of his followers that caught his conviction and turned it into their own confession.  There is a point where hundreds of his devotees walk forward, without violence, and are beaten to the side of the road by their countrymen.  Yet, almost astonishingly, they kept coming.  In the end we know that their conviction, and willingness to confess it boldly, won the day.

I began this essay talking about “friending” several senators on Facebook.  Friending may be a misnomer.  In actuality I wanted access to their pages so that I could express my profound disappointment in their failure to honor the oath of office which they had taken.  I was not alone.  Dozens of fellow Americans used sound logic to absurd insults toward these elected officials to convey their frustration.

But, here is what I noticed.  In the following days senator after senator used their Facebook presence in an attempt to convince the reading public of their great value as leaders.  One senator, Pat Toomey, from Pennsylvania has very prominently tried to sell himself to voter by describing all of the wonderful things his field staff is doing.  Senator Lindsey Graham, on another hand has been posting repeatedly his attacks on President Obama, because the Chief Executive is doing precisely the same things which Graham himself did.  Senator Kelly Ayotte, of New Hampshire, is evading scrutiny by lauding war veterans at every turn.

Well, the series of dodges go on by these elected folks.  Although some of them speak up in opposition to a political opponent I have not seen any of them truly stand up FOR principles.  I see no confession of conviction by any of them.

Now, my attack may seem to be focused on the senate.  However, we see the same lack of integrity in the president.  On the one hand we hear his promises of catching people, whom he refuses to refer to as terrorists, who killed four Americans.  Yet, on the other hand he offers no opinion about a doctor that slaughtered thousands of children.  One on hand he seeks to restrict Americans of their constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms.  Yet, he then opts to arm those with a commitment to kill Americans.  He spend public fund on himself and his family without reservation.  Then he turns about and attempt to defend cutting essential and rightful government services.  He speaks with a forked tongue.

Congress has the lowest approval rating in its history.  The president’s approval rating is higher than congress, but only because he has the centralized effort and resources to focus his message.  I believe that the people doubt elected officials in general!

I also believe that they feel this way because these “leaders” have a lack of conviction.  If they are not lacking in conviction, than they are abundant in compromising the confession of their conviction.  That is why the people cannot find full faith and confidence in them.  That is why government is failing miserably to unite a nation, and, why the government officials are contributing to the disarray of America.

Friends and relatives had told me “you can’t say that”, it might be offensive.  On the contrary, “I must say that”, not to offend but rather to be just.  It is my sincere desire that our elected officials will discover their conviction, whether they agree with mine or not.  Then, I hope they will be willing to confess those convictions.  We do not need another Patrick Henry, George Washington, or even Ronald Reagan.  We are in desperate need of men willing to stand at the helm of the ship of state, when fury rages around them, prepared with the conviction to sail on confessing their confidence in course to follow.

 

On a Fool’s Errand

Sometimes it appears that the federal government, maybe every level of government, is on a fool’s errand.  Now, for those that are unaware of this phrase a fool’s errand is “a completely absurd, pointless, or useless errand”.

Some examples of a fool’s errand would be the United States Senate, controlled by Democrats, spending hours attempting to pass a gun control Bill that is completely absurd, pointless to send it to Republican House of Representatives, and ultimately a useless effort.  The president, rather than recognizing the inevitable outcome, then squeals like a stuck pig because it didn’t pass the Senate.  He promises to not let it go, just like he did with “Obamacare”.

Now, consider that for all intents and purposes Obamacare has been an abject failure.  States are getting waivers.  Cost projections to conduct the fiasco have exceeded all pre-vote estimates.  Businesses are making major shifts toward reducing personnel expenses in order to avoid Obamcare mandates.  In other words the jobs recovery is in fact threatened by this boondoggle.  Barack Obama is a lame-duck president.  His shaky allies from the Obamacare days will not have the loyalty to him that he could demand previously.  A fool’s errand.

Let us move on so as not to focus all failures on the president.  The senate had the opportunity to prevent a discussion of the violation of Second Amendment.  Sixty-eight senators, including sixteen Republicans decided for their various reasons to evade their oath of office, which reads:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

Yet, sixty-eight senators specifically ignored “I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same”. The oath does not say “If I agree with it”.  Now for clarification the Constitution says, quite clearly I might add, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”.

In other words each senator takes an oath of allegiance to not infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms.  That is the starting point, not the fallback position.  An effort by the senate, regardless of how well meaning it was, to bring this gun control Bill to the floor for a vote was in fact a fool’s errand.  For a senator faithful to their duty any excuse was absurd.

Finally, following on these ill-conceived notions by Senators, House members, and the President we had a terrorist attack in Boston.  I have jokingly said that more people were trampled by Washington politicians, racing for a microphone, than were injured in that attack.  Each had to express an opinion outside their role in the government.  They pretend to be reassuring the nation and consoling the victims.  Yet, we have become so accustomed to their frivolity we recognize their efforts for what they really are; A fool’s errand, absurd and unbelievable.

I am not hard-hearted.  I fully believe in rallying a nation behind a good cause.  However, I also oppose grandstanding by politicians to curry favor during a crisis.  Here is the key element.  Congress passed a Bill to provide for the defense of the nation.  The president signed that Bill, and it became law.  Whether you agree with that law or not Congress is done with it.  The Executive Branch has a duty under that law.  Grandstanding by Congressmen is a fool’s errand.

Now, back to the president.  His duty is to faithfully execute the laws of the land.  That duty is in the Constitution as his oath of office; ” I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”  That is all he needs to do.  It is neither requisite nor prudent to engage in discussions of reading someone their rights, exaggerate to avoidance of the use of the word “terrorist”, or even issue threats (idle or genuine).  To do otherwise is “completely absurd, pointless, or useless”.  Regardless of what religion the president is, or claims to be, the advice of Jesus Christ is sound “But let your communication be, Yea, yea; {or} Nay, nay.”

The nation, overall, lacks confidence that our Washington DC elected officials are sincere, capable, or rational.  The people see them as being on a fool’s errand.  And, quite candidly, that is exactly how they act.

 

 

 

Sympathy for Dzhokhar

On Saturday I suggested that the main stream media, specifically CBS was starting the effort to setup Dzhokhar Tsarnaev as a victim in the Boston Marathon bombings. It soon followed that other media systems began building on the “sympathy for Dzhokhar” story.

In the “Sunday spin” for Washington politicians Senator Dianne Feinstein of California brought the “sympathy for Dzhokhar” out of the media and into the political realm with her statement, regarding his enemy combatant status, “I do not believe … that he is eligible for that. It would be unconstitutional to do that”. Keep in mind that this is the same senator that has been the foremost senate advocate for disregarding the Second Amendment (or second of of our Bill of Rights) for all other Americans.  Me thinks the lady doth protest too much.

In the coming days watch and you will see a decided effort by many in Washington and in the media begin to regurgitate Feinstein’s orchestrated message. Within a week we will witness Chris Mathews claim that calling Dzhokhar an enemy combatant is being racist.

As I predicted, today President Obama has joined the bandwagon to exonerate this terrorist from what he is rightfully described as, an enemy combatant.  I refuse to engage in a debate about the semantics of the phrase “enemy combatant”.

I firmly and completely defend every citizen’s right to a fair trial. I defend their right to be presumed innocent before being presumed guilty…in a court of law.  However, the evidence is overwhelming that these brothers were engaged in a terrorist act.  Further, it is indisputable that they killed a police officer, and engaged in a gun battle with other officers (causing injury and property damage).

Senator Feinstein and President Obama fail to comprehend the role of the Executive Branch of the federal government. It is not the same role as the Judicial Branch. The Executive Branch is, in fact, tasked with “presuming guilt” after careful investigation into evidence.  The Executive Branch does not have the same mandate to ALWAYS presume innocence.  Once the Executive Branch has presumed guilt it is their duty and obligation to present relevant facts to the Judiciary, which should always presume innocence, until the evidence provides sufficient reliable proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Barack Obama was trained attorney.  His role as an attorney was to sustain innocence (or not violation of law).  Further, his only work experience was as a community organizer.  Community organizing is simply defined as the orchestrated effort to disassociate “special interests” from the obligations placed on the whole of society.  It is his training and experience which lead Obama to undermine his obligations as the Chief Executive.  His personality simply pushes him in that direction.  Senator Feinstein comes from a community that has a long and ardent history of exempting itself from the mainstream social fabric.

First and foremost Congress should remain silent on the issue of guilt or innocence.  Their job has been completed.  They passed Bills, which were signed by the President, to become law.  They now have no role in the guilt or innocence of individuals under those laws (beyond assuring that the President executes them).  In short Senator Feinstein, along with the mad rush of her colleagues to find an open mic, should simply shut-up.

President Obama, likewise should shut-up his efforts to make a political statement out of his obligations under law.  His role is to provide evidence to the courts regarding why he deems a terrorist as guilty.  Propagandizing the case does nobody, not even himself any value.  He needs to do his job, not his politics and training.

As for me I would not make a good juror.  I am 100% convince that the terrorist was exactly that a terrorist.  His intentions were to destroy lives, property, and peaceful association of American citizens.  That ladies and gentlemen is an enemy combatant.  Do not let your media or elected officials persuade you differently.

New Cat Discovered

Today the Masai Mara National Reserve announced that an American couple (names withheld to provide anonymity-initials NP and HR) on Safari discovered a new breed of jungle cat. It is a cross between the more common leopard and the lion. It new cat appears to have traits similar to both breeds. It congregates in a “pride” like the lion, but much smaller groups of only 7-8 (the lion prides can exceed 30 members). Yet, like the leopard it hunts in a solitary fashion. The new cat is genetically unable to bear fur or hair, similar to Sphynx breed (scientifically bread for cat lovers allergic to pet hair). The most unique feature of this new cat is that it has traits like a Chameleon, with skin tone changing to blend with its environment. Due to the lack of fur to maintain a stable body temperature the cat seldom ventures from its habitat in the dense vegetation. It is speculated that more open environs would dehydrate the cat and cause substantial burning if subject to the sunlight. Like the Rhinoceros that remains predominantly in water while in the open the new cat says close to areas of sand when in the open. If the heat becomes to intense the new breed buries itself in the sandy for shelter and cooling. As of latest reports, due to the unique traits of this beast, it appears it will officially be named the “Buffoon”. Because the cat was discovered by the two prominent Americans the Masai Mara National Reserve Public Relations office is requesting a special occasion to donate two more of these Buffoons to the White House. I’ll keep you updated as more news comes in.

Political Stance — Economic Liberty : Platform of Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists

Previously, beginning March 15, 2013  I posted the Platform of the Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists (TLC) political initiative.  This is not an official political party as yet.  However, it is a series of positions which can unify the nation around sound public policy which a vast number of Americans are craving.

Below, in conjunction with the previous posts, is the first section of the statement of the Political Stance of this initiative.

Platform of Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists (TLC)

POLITICAL STANCE

2.0    Economic Liberty

All members of society should have abundant opportunities to achieve economic success. The Free Market Capitalism, a free and competitive market, allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others within such a market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society within a Free Market Capitalism system.

2.1    Property and Contract

Property rights are entitled to the same protection as all other human rights. The owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others.

Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists oppose all controls on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and interest rates.

Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists advocate the repeal of all laws banning or restricting the advertising of prices, products, or services.

Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists oppose all violations of the right to private property, liberty of contract, and freedom of trade. The right to trade includes the right not to trade — for any reasons whatsoever. Where property, including land, has been taken from its rightful owners by the government or private action in violation of individual rights, Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists favor restitution to the rightful owners, where possible to return it in like condition as when acquired.

2.2    Environment

Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists support a clean and healthy environment and sensible use of our natural resources.  Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Pollution and misuse of resources cause damage to our ecosystem. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights in resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists realize that our planet’s climate is constantly changing, yet environmental advocates and social pressure are the most effective means of changing public behavior, rather than the use of coercive force of government.

2.3    Energy and Resources

While energy is needed to fuel a modern society, government should not be subsidizing any particular form of energy. Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists oppose all government control of energy pricing, allocation, and production, other than what is rightfully owned by government in an open competitive marketplace.

Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists endorse government officials encouraging the development of renewable energy sources, without regulatory enforcement, requirement, or funding thereof.

2.4    Government Finance and Spending

All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution.  Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists oppose any requirements forcing employers to serve as tax collectors.

Government should not incur debt, which burdens future generations without their consent. Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists oppose the passage of a “Balanced Budget Amendment” to the U.S. Constitution.

Governments at all levels should operate within available revenue, accrued from consumption tax rates approved by the people.

Whereas all federal spending originates in the House of Representatives the budget development process of the Government United States of America should be modified as follows:

  1. The budget shall be a two-year budget coinciding with the 18 months of the current congress, begin on the first July of said congress. (I.e. the 112th Congress runs from January 3, 2011-January 3, 2013.  The 112th Congress would adopt a budget encompassing two years beginning July 1, 2011.)
  2. All funding for federal programs shall be by a general consumption tax, or special program revenue fee-for-service.
  3. Once an initial consumption tax rate has been established by Congress, not to exceed 17%, any increase in the rate must be approved by the people at the same time as congressional elections, and by fifty-one percent (51%) of the states.
  4. A general government reserve must be established and maintained at a rate equivalent to 1/3rd of the approved consumption tax rate. (I.e. if the approved tax rate is 17%, than the reserve rate would be 5.7 %.).  [If the budget were 2 trillion dollars, required reserves would be 114 billion dollars].

2.5    Money and Financial Markets

Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists favor free-market banking, with unrestricted competition among banks and depository institutions of all types. Individuals engaged in voluntary exchange should be free to use as money the legal tender of the United States.


2.6    Monopolies and Corporations

Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of companies based on voluntary association. Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists seek to divest government of all functions that can be provided by non-governmental organizations or private individuals.  Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists oppose government subsidies to business, labor, or any other special interest. Industries should be governed by free market capitalism.

2.7    Labor Markets

Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists support repeal of all laws which impede the ability of any person to find employment.

Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists oppose government-fostered forced retirement.

Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists support the right of free persons to associate or not associate in labor unions, and an employers should have the right to recognize or refuse to recognize a union.

Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists oppose government interference in bargaining, such as compulsory arbitration or imposing an obligation to bargain.

Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists oppose all forms of unionized government employment, unless specifically approved by a vote of the people of the respective jurisdiction. (I.e. local or state government shall maintain the authority to submit to its respective citizens the right to decide whether such government shall be obligated to unionize any or all of its employees.)

2.8    Education

Education, like any other service, is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Schools should be managed locally to achieve greater accountability and parental involvement. Recognizing that the education of children is inextricably linked to moral values, Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists would return authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. In particular, parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children’s education.

2.9    Health Care

Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want, the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions.

People should be free to purchase health insurance across state lines.


2.10    Retirement and Income Security

Retirement planning is the responsibility of the individual, not the government. Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists would phase out the current government-sponsored Social Security system and transition to a private system.

Individuals have responsibility, accountability and liberty to manage their own lives.  However, we have learned from experience that most individuals, unaware of what future consequences of their life choices may bring, will fail to plan for adequate resources to care for themselves during time of incapacity.  Further, although liberty is individual, care for one another is a natural part of life’s experience. Governments in all ages have sought to control and provide for individuals during periods of incapacity.   In light of this reality it is proper for governments to require that all members of society prepare for their own eventual incapacity through a self-administered plan for future self-sufficiency.  Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists directly oppose any government regulation, control, or management of such self-care programs beyond requiring individuals to select such a plan and adhere to it.

The proper and most effective source of help for the poor is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals. Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists believe members of society will become more charitable and civil society will be strengthened as government reduces its activity in this realm.