Freedom Blog

I have just witnessed the video of the poor three year old girl suffering a "pat down" by the TSA. She is clinging to her mother and screaming, and crying "Stop touching me." That is child abuse. If it happened in any other venue, people would be going to prison. Have we as a nation sunk so low as to tolerate this kind of tyranny?!

In Lincoln's 1838 Address to the Young Men's Lyceum of Springfield, parts of which are quoted at length on the Lincoln page of this website, he uttered a clear warning that rings true today.

Lincoln warned that men of ambition would seek distinction and glory. He speaks of how the American experiment in freedom and republican constitutional government was successful. In the beginning of this experiment, for the Founders, "Their all was staked upon it; their destiny was inseparably linked with it." Once it had succeeded, the Founders began to pass from the scene, leaving the nation to new generations. "This field of glory is harvested, and the crop is already appropriated. But new reapers will arise, and they too will seek a field."

When men of ambition and ability would arise and seek distinction and glory, they would scorn to add more stories onto monuments already built to the fame of others. Their desire would "thirst and burn for distinction; and if possible, it will have it, whether at the expense of emancipating slaves or enslaving freemen. . . . And when such an one does [spring up among us], it will require the people to be united with each other, attached to the governmnet and laws, and generally intelligent, to successfully frustrate his designs. Distinction will be his paramount object, and although he would as willingly, perhaps more so, acquire it by doing good as harm, yet, that opportunity being past, and nothing left to be done in the way of building up, he would set boldly to the task of pulling doesn." I would add, that to frustrate his designs, the people need to be attached to freedom and the Constitution.

Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are such people. Right now, they are seeking to take away our freedom and to pull down our Constitution--a Constitution that they have sworn to uphold. The "health care" bill is about power and control over other peoples lives. The methods being used to try to secure its passage are corrupt. Special deals for Florida, Nebraska, Louisiana, and who knows how many more. Apparently the proposal would outlaw private banks being able to offer student loans--WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH HEALTH CARE?--except for one bank in North Dakota. Pelosi wants to "deem" the Senate bill passed without a vote. That is a clear violation of the Constitution. The blatant nature of all the deals being made and the special provisions are very destructive. The corruption reminds me of that which occurred in Parliament before America separated from Britain. (See chapter two of America's History Revealed, or Thomas Fleming's The Man Who Dared the Lightning.) It is certainly in violation of the basic principle of "equal protection of the law." 

For years some have repeated the lie that the Bush tax cuts were only for the rich, when they were cuts across the board. As a result of these cuts at all levels, there are now about 40% of America's people who file returns, but pay no income tax. None. The lie will remain a lie, regardless of how often repeated.

Now Obama claims that he will cut income taxes for 95% of Americans. This is Orwellian calling things what they are not. Lincoln once asked, "If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a sheep have?" The answer is four. "You can call a tail a leg, but that doesn't make it one." When 40% pay no income tax, you cannot give 95% a tax cut. Personally, I would call that a lie. What he is proposing is to give that 40% a check. That is not a tax cut, nor is it a tax credit. That's "welfare," or a "subsidy," or more precisely, it is what the great advocate for liberty, Frederic Bastiat, called "legal plunder." (Frederic Bastiat, 1801-1850, French statesman, author of The Law, What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen, etc.)

Now under Obama's plan, who gets a tax increase? We don't know. The figures keep changing. First he said those who make over $300,000 per year. Then he changed it to $250,000. Then he said, $200,000. Then Biden said, $150,000. The figure is dropping--rapidly. To pay for all the new spending that he wants, either the figure will have to drop a lot lower, or he will pay for it with massive deficit spending with new money. Then we will all suffer, paying for his programs by extreme inflation, loss of jobs, and a sinking economy.

Jefferson warned about those who would ""purchase the voices of the people, and make them pay the price."

The origin of this "credit crunch" goes back to the Clinton years. Democrats especially, pushed for government to force banks to make loans to those the banks thought unqualified. Hence, they made laws and rules to that effect. Now many of the loans made between then and now are in trouble. Those who received some of these loans were poor risks, and are not repaying the loans. The bad loans put the banks in trouble, because they aren't recovering the money they loaned out. That means they can't repay their depositors. Four years ago, John McCain saw this coming, and urged new regulations for Fannie May and Freddie Mac. He said that if this were not done, that the taxpayers would end up stuck with the bill for these bad loans. Democrats in Congress fought against his idea. They said everything was fine with Fannie and Freddie. It wasn't, and McCain has been proven right. Meanwhile, two of the men who made millions while in prominent positions with those entities, are now "economic advisors" to Obama. I would say, that's putting the fox in charge of the hen house. My wife puts it differently:  that's putting the inmates in charge of the asylum.

I'm not convinced that the government bailout is the right thing to do. Aside from that, however, is the question of how the bailout money is used. Using it to buy stock in the banks is the wrong way to go. First, it points the way toward nationalization of the private banks--socialism. Bush says the government ownership of this stock is temporary. He does not intend to nationalize the banks. But Bush will only be in office for another three months. Second, it does nothing directly for the credit market. Buying stock may help the stock market, but it does not add liquidity to the credit market. It could only add liquidity, if this were newly issued stock purchased directly from the banks. That, of course, would dilute the holdings of current shareholders.

The big question is, what would that $700 billion dollars do for the economy, if left in the private hands of the taxpayers? We don't know, because whatever they would do with it will be prevented. There's a good chance that it would do more good.

Unless you are serving in the U.S. military, or receive health care benefits as an employee of the U.S. government, providing your health care is not a function of the federal government. Look through Article I Section 8, and a few other parts of the Constitution, at the powers delegated by the people to Congress. You will not find it there. Clauses 1 and 3 of Article I Section 8 have been greatly abused. I may write a future blog on that subject. Quite apart from that, why would anyone want government, which does so many things poorly, to take over health care. The more involved government becomes in it, the worse it gets. One of the things that drives up the cost of health insurance is government mandates. Typically, most, if not all, of the states require insurance companies to offer or include certain kinds of coverage. Every time you add another coverage, you force the cost to go up. If the state mandates coverage for mental health, or drug abuse treatment, the cost for everyone under that plan goes up, even though most will never need such coverage.

Government run health care destroys the quality and availability of health care. Many from other countries with such programs come to the U.S. for treatment, because they cannot get care in their home country. If the U.S. adopts a similar program, where will they go?  Where will we go?

Canada provides a good example. Canadian Mark Steyn reports that "public health care in Canada depends on private health care in the U.S." He cites the case of a Canadian woman who gave birth to quadruplets, in Great Falls, Montana. "Health officials checked every other neonatal intensive care unit in Canada, but none had space." So the woman flew 300 miles to the nearest U.S. facility in order to get care. He continues, "Everyone know that socialized health care means you wait and wait and wait--six months for an MRI, a year for a hip replacement, and so on. But here is the absolute logical reductio of a government monopoly in health care: the ten month waiting list for the maternity ward."

(Quotes from Mark Steyn from a lecture September 29, 2007, found in Imprimis, January 2008, Volume 37, Number 1; reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.)

One of the most fundamental of all human rights is the right to self defense. It is only the existance of this right that justifies the existance of government. Every person has the right to use force to defend his or her person, liberty, and property. Government is the organization of this individual right into a collective force to defend persons, liberty, and property. This right lies behind the Second Amendment, which specifies that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The part of the amendment just quoted is an independent clause that can stand on its own. Preceding that clause, it says, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," which is a dependent clause that cannot stand on its own. Those who try to make the dependent clause dictate the meaning of the independent clause, try to make the tail wag the dog. It is logically untenable.

When this was written, the militia included every able bodied man, and they were expected to provide their own arms. One of the purposes of the militia is to maintain freedom. To that end, it is to be made up of an armed populace, to serve as an obstacle to the erection of a tyrannical government. Tyrannies always seek to disarm the people. The National Guard is not the militia; it was created under Article I Section 8 Clause 12 of the Constitution, which authorizes Congress to create armies.

In the recent case of D.C. v. Heller, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Second Amendment, and the fact that it protects an individual right to own firearms. The District of Columbia enacted an ordinance effectively disarming its law abiding citizens, and outlawing self defense. Even if you were one of the few who owned a gun, the ordinance required the gun to be kept in an inoperable condition, even in the owner's home. No wonder crime multiplied in D.C.; the citizens could not defend themselves. Such a law encourages crime. Criminals do not abide by gun laws. They are criminals; they do not respect law. Will the police protect you? In most cases, no. They usually will not be able to respond quickly enough. In D.C. some years back, victims brought suit against the city, after police ignored repeated urgent calls for help, for something like 14 hours. A D.C. judge ruled that the police had no obligation to protect the citizens. On the other hand, in several places, such as Florida, when strong concealed carry laws have taken effect, crime has gone down. Criminals do not want to face an armed citizen, prepared to defend himself or herself.

The justices who ruled in favor of freedom and the Constitution were Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Chief Justice Roberts, and this time at least, Kennedy. Those dissenting justices who would have ruled against freedom and the Constitution, and in favor of disarming Americans, were Breyer, Bader-Ginsberg, Souter and Stevens. We need more justices like those in the majority in this case. It may be that neither candidate for President would appoint such justices, but it's possible with McCain. Obama would give us more like Breyer and Bader-Ginsberg. Obama favored the D.C. gun ban, voted against confirmation of Justices Alito and Roberts, and when in the Illinois state legislature, voted to allow the prosecution of people who use a firearm for self defense in their own home. McCain has supported the right of self defense and the right to keep and bear arms.

The associates of Obama make up the worst collection of associates of a President or a presidential candidate in my memory. Worse even than Jenkins, Bobby Baker and Billy Sol Estes, the corrupt associates of Lyndon Johnson. To find a collection as ominous, one must go back to Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, whose close associates in government included numerous men identified (in the Venona Papers, or by agents of the KGB) as communists--traitors and Soviet agents--such as Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White, Lauchlin Currie, Harry Hopkins, etc. In Obama's case, his associates include his racist, America haiting minister of twenty years, a former member of the PLO, and terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorn.

Obama has changed his explanations of these associations. Bill Ayers was not a casual acquaintance. He and Obama served on the same board for years, gave public speeches together, and have known each other for fifteen to twenty years. Obama chose this association.  He chose his long association with Reverend Wright and his church. In Obama's own writing, he has spoken of carefully choosing his associates in college, including Marxist professors. Given that, and the long associations with Wright, Ayers, and Dorn, it is highly probable, that these radicals reflect the mindset of Obama himself.