What we obtain to cheaply, we esteem too lightly… it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. – Thomas Paine
In large part I think Thomas Paine was right, in that we little value the freedom that has literally been handed to us on a silver platter! After all, how many of today’s Americans have ever been required to defend that freedom by serving a few years in the military, or even been involved in a hard fought political campaign to preserve our rights!? For that matter, how many of today’s American citizens even know what freedom and liberty are? Freedom seems to be one of those “magic words” that has many meanings to different people, and that fits hand in glove with several other terms. According to my dictionary, the definition of “freedom” is the “absence of interference with the sovereignty of an individual by the use of coercion or aggression. Individual freedom is the moral stance, political philosophy, or social outlook that stresses independence and self-reliance.” Along with “Freedom”, we commonly find the word “Liberty”, which is defined as the condition in which an individual has the ability to act according to his or her own will. From this, it would seem that freedom and liberty have much the same meaning. Thus, by these definitions, if I were truly free, I would be independent and self-reliant, responsible only to myself for my actions, and no other individual would be in a position to force me to do anything that I didn’t want to do. Of course I would also be the only one at fault if, due to ignorance, mistakes, or sheer stupidity, I managed to get myself injured or killed. It doesn’t take any real flash of genius to conclude that about the only way I’d ever have complete freedom or liberty is if I were the only person on the planet. (Which I suspect would get rather lonely, in a hurry.) Finally, the word “Law” is defined as a system of rules that shapes society and serves as the primary mediator in relations between people. So then, law is a modifier of freedom and liberty that tends to regulate the social interactions of people.
I’ll go a step further and ask “what is society”? Again from the dictionary: “A society is a body of humans generally seen as a community or group that is delineated by the bounds of cultural identity, social solidarity, or functional interdependence. A society allows its individual members to achieve individual needs or wishes that they could not fulfill by themselves, without the existence of the social group.” From that definition I’ll assume that society developed from the days when two or more cave dwellers decided to cooperate, share the cave, and the job of keeping the fire going. From that stage, a rudimentary society would logicially have evolved into hunter-gatherers remaining in the vicinity of a seasonal food source and thus becoming an agricultural – tribal community, and later into an early age town – city and possibly even a “nation” based culture. In political science, ‘society’ is often used to mean the state, the rule of government within a given territory, and over it’s inhabitants. The earliest states developed when it became possible to centralize power in a sustained manner. The development of agriculture allowed the production and storing of a food surplus, and immediately thereafter the emergence of a specific group of people who controlled the agricultural surplus and thus did not have to spend most of their time providing their own food. Essentially, “government” began with societies unproductive parasites assuming control the fat of the land, and things don’t seem to have changed much in the essuing centuries.
The history of the ‘state’ usually begins with classic antiquity when government took on a variety of forms. There were monarchies where power was based on the religious function of the king, and his control of a centralized army. There were also bureaucratic empires like the Romans, which depended on effective military and legal organizations along with the cohesion of the aristocracy. The dissolution of the Roman Empire led to the feudal European system which was a conglomeration of suzerains and anointed kings. There, a monarch was not an absolute power who could rule at will, instead, relations between kings and lords were controlled by varying degrees of interdependence, which was ensured by the absence of a centralized system of taxation. The local Lord collected the taxes in his fiefdom, and generally handed the King his share of the take. Thus the ruler needed to obtain the 'consent' of each estate in the realm before undertaking any major project. The struggles over taxation between the monarch and the nobility gave rise to what is now called the “Standstaat”, or the state of Estates, characterized by specific groups which negotiated with the king about legal and economic matters. These estates sometimes developed into full fledged parliaments, and sometimes they lost their struggle with the monarch, leading to greater centralization of lawmaking and coercive (military and police) power in his hands. Beginning in the 15th century, this centralizing process gave rise to the modern nation-state. Only recently has the military power been used primarily to defend the state from foreign threats.
Taxes are the tool by which government acquires value from the populace, and, as government cannot create value by itself, can only be acquired by extorting it from the citizenry. A Tax may be defined as a "pecuniary burden laid upon individuals or property to support the government." It "is not a voluntary payment or donation, but an enforced contribution, exacted pursuant to legislative authority" and is "any contribution imposed by government … whether under the name of toll, tribute, impost, duty, custom, excise, subsidy, aid, supply, or other name." When taxes are not fully paid, civil penalties (such as fines or forfeiture) or criminal penalties (such as incarceration) may be imposed on the non-paying entity or individual, hence the usage of the word “extortion”.
Interestingly enough, the founders of the United States of America took a step backwards, away from centralized government, when they produced our Constitution. Rather than placing the authority to levy taxes in the hands of the federal government, they gave it to the ‘several states’, in a manner reminiscent of feudal lords, with the understanding that those states would provide any vitally needed federal funding. The only taxing authority allowed the central government was collecting import revenues, and a tax on the production of whiskey. (Now we know why there has always been a severe dislike of “revenoor’s” in this country!) Although somewhat cumbersome, this system worked quite well, until Congress, probably claiming temporary insanity, passed the Internal Revenue Act, which effectively took taxation authority away from the states and gave it to the suddenly expanding central government.
The question is of course, when are we finally going to get fed up with a self-proclaimed omnipotent federal government, take the taxing authority away from “them”, and thus force them to do what “we the people” want done for a change?
Monday, June 29, 2009
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Our Flag
Last Sunday, June 14th, we celebrated Flag Day, commemorating the adoption of the flag of the United States of America, which happened on that day by resolution of the Second Continental Congress in 1777. Known by various names, the red white and blue, the Stars and Stripes, Old Glory, the Star Spangle Banner, the American flag, it is the symbol of the heart and soul of our country, and our freedom. It represents the fifty states and the blood of the men and women who died carrying it in their hearts and souls as they fought for the freedom of our nation.
Though tattered and torn, it waved as 6,000 patriots died in the Revolutionary War. It survived the Civil War and draped the caskets of many who fought and died defending freedom. It flew at Gettysburg and the Battle of the Bulge, was blood stained at Kae-son, stood watch at Pearl Harbor as ships and men died on a burning sea. It proudly flew over a blood stained mountain on Iwo Jima. It was tried on the beaches of Normandy, on Porkchop Hill, Hamburger Hill, and it waved triumphantly on the shores of Tripoli. It proudly stood while 116,000 Americans fell in WWI, and 405,000 more in World War II. It survived the Chosin Reservoir and heard Taps being played for more than 54,000 soldiers who lost their lives in Korea. It waves over a wall that bears the names of the 58,000 who died in the jungles of Vietnam. It flew for the 293 Americans' who died in Desert Storm, and for more than 4,300 Americans who have given their lives in Operation Iraqi Freedom. It continues to wave over the 260,000 Americans silently sleeping in Arlington Cemetery. When a soldier dies it drapes his casket, and with suitable ceremony is presented to the bereaved with the words “… from a grateful nation”. It still waves over our country, reminding us of the freedom with which we've been blessed, and the terrible cost of that freedom.
Many have spit on our flag, burned it and shamed it, not realizing the freedom it represents is the very thing that allows them that right, no matter how obnoxious or disrespectful it may be. But what a pity they do not know how much blood was shed so they could have the freedom to express the bitterness and hatred they appear to have for their own freedom and everything it represents.
Over one million Men and Women have died defending what our flag symbolizes, but others have died simply for living the American Dream it represents - a total of 2,986 Americans died on 9-11, the victims of evil people full of the hatred that comes with a freedom such as ours. But even then, when our spirits were at their lowest, three exhausted New York City Firemen had the inspiration to hoist an American flag for all the world to see, so they would know we had not been defeated, symbolizing the freedom, hope, and determination of the American people and the strength of our spirit. Some have purchased the freedom our flag represents, others have defended it, so that the rest of us might simply live under it in the greatest country on the face of the earth.
Some say it is not the flag, but what it represents that we should honor. I contend that we cannot honor the flag without a pledge to that flag. The Pledge of Allegiance debuted in October 1892 on Columbus Day, when 12 million children across America recited it for the first time. It has had three changes through the years, the most significant in 1954 when President Dwight D. Eisenhower added two simple words, “Under God”. He said “In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war”. Yet the Pledge of Allegiance is only 31 words in length, words that are packed with pride, honor, loyalty and devotion.
Red Skelton, a brilliant comedian of another generation, shared a story many years ago. The story of his teacher, a Mr. Laswell, who began to think his class was just saying the pledge out of routine. This is what he said to them:
“I've been listening to you boys and girls recite the Pledge of Allegiance all semester and it seems as though it is becoming monotonous to you. If I may, may I recite it and try to explain to you the meaning of each word.”
I - me, an individual, a committee of one.
Pledge - dedicate all of my worldly goods to give without self pity,
Allegiance - my love and my devotion
To the flag - our standard, old glory, a symbol of freedom. Wherever she waves, there's been respect because your loyalty has given her a dignity that shouts freedom is everybody's job.
United - that means we all have come together.
States - individual communities that have united into 48 great states. 48 individual communities with pride and dignity and purpose; all divided with imaginary boundaries, yet untied to a common purpose and that's love for country.
And to the Republic - a state in which sovereign power is invested in representatives chosen by the people to govern. And government is the people and it's from the people to the leaders, not from the leaders to the people.
For which it stands, one nation - one nation meaning 'so blessed by God.'
Indivisible - incapable of being divided.
With liberty - which is freedom-the right of power to live one's life without threats, fear or some sort of retaliation
And Justice - the principle or quality of dealing fairly with others
For all - which means boys, and girls, it's as much your country as it is mine.
Mr. Skelton said that two states had been added to our country since his childhood, and two words had been added to the pledge, the words “Under God”. Then he said it be a pity if someone decided that those two words were a prayer and should eliminated. Little did he know that just a few years later such an effort would stand before the United States Supreme Court.
But the flag still waves, our nation is still one nation under God, and we still live under the banner of democracy, the flag waves in our churches, school yards, government buildings, and always in our hearts and homes, because that's where freedom originated, and that is where it must remain. America is as much a state of mind as it is a physical location. It’s the concept of an independent people, free to follow their dreams wherever they may lead. It’s a spirit of cooperation among equals, under a mutually agreed upon law. It’s the idea that no man must be subservient to another, and that no man should enforce his will on another.
(Inspired by a 2005 speech given by Ms. Beth Chapman, Secretary of State for Alabama.)
Though tattered and torn, it waved as 6,000 patriots died in the Revolutionary War. It survived the Civil War and draped the caskets of many who fought and died defending freedom. It flew at Gettysburg and the Battle of the Bulge, was blood stained at Kae-son, stood watch at Pearl Harbor as ships and men died on a burning sea. It proudly flew over a blood stained mountain on Iwo Jima. It was tried on the beaches of Normandy, on Porkchop Hill, Hamburger Hill, and it waved triumphantly on the shores of Tripoli. It proudly stood while 116,000 Americans fell in WWI, and 405,000 more in World War II. It survived the Chosin Reservoir and heard Taps being played for more than 54,000 soldiers who lost their lives in Korea. It waves over a wall that bears the names of the 58,000 who died in the jungles of Vietnam. It flew for the 293 Americans' who died in Desert Storm, and for more than 4,300 Americans who have given their lives in Operation Iraqi Freedom. It continues to wave over the 260,000 Americans silently sleeping in Arlington Cemetery. When a soldier dies it drapes his casket, and with suitable ceremony is presented to the bereaved with the words “… from a grateful nation”. It still waves over our country, reminding us of the freedom with which we've been blessed, and the terrible cost of that freedom.
Many have spit on our flag, burned it and shamed it, not realizing the freedom it represents is the very thing that allows them that right, no matter how obnoxious or disrespectful it may be. But what a pity they do not know how much blood was shed so they could have the freedom to express the bitterness and hatred they appear to have for their own freedom and everything it represents.
Over one million Men and Women have died defending what our flag symbolizes, but others have died simply for living the American Dream it represents - a total of 2,986 Americans died on 9-11, the victims of evil people full of the hatred that comes with a freedom such as ours. But even then, when our spirits were at their lowest, three exhausted New York City Firemen had the inspiration to hoist an American flag for all the world to see, so they would know we had not been defeated, symbolizing the freedom, hope, and determination of the American people and the strength of our spirit. Some have purchased the freedom our flag represents, others have defended it, so that the rest of us might simply live under it in the greatest country on the face of the earth.
Some say it is not the flag, but what it represents that we should honor. I contend that we cannot honor the flag without a pledge to that flag. The Pledge of Allegiance debuted in October 1892 on Columbus Day, when 12 million children across America recited it for the first time. It has had three changes through the years, the most significant in 1954 when President Dwight D. Eisenhower added two simple words, “Under God”. He said “In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war”. Yet the Pledge of Allegiance is only 31 words in length, words that are packed with pride, honor, loyalty and devotion.
Red Skelton, a brilliant comedian of another generation, shared a story many years ago. The story of his teacher, a Mr. Laswell, who began to think his class was just saying the pledge out of routine. This is what he said to them:
“I've been listening to you boys and girls recite the Pledge of Allegiance all semester and it seems as though it is becoming monotonous to you. If I may, may I recite it and try to explain to you the meaning of each word.”
I - me, an individual, a committee of one.
Pledge - dedicate all of my worldly goods to give without self pity,
Allegiance - my love and my devotion
To the flag - our standard, old glory, a symbol of freedom. Wherever she waves, there's been respect because your loyalty has given her a dignity that shouts freedom is everybody's job.
United - that means we all have come together.
States - individual communities that have united into 48 great states. 48 individual communities with pride and dignity and purpose; all divided with imaginary boundaries, yet untied to a common purpose and that's love for country.
And to the Republic - a state in which sovereign power is invested in representatives chosen by the people to govern. And government is the people and it's from the people to the leaders, not from the leaders to the people.
For which it stands, one nation - one nation meaning 'so blessed by God.'
Indivisible - incapable of being divided.
With liberty - which is freedom-the right of power to live one's life without threats, fear or some sort of retaliation
And Justice - the principle or quality of dealing fairly with others
For all - which means boys, and girls, it's as much your country as it is mine.
Mr. Skelton said that two states had been added to our country since his childhood, and two words had been added to the pledge, the words “Under God”. Then he said it be a pity if someone decided that those two words were a prayer and should eliminated. Little did he know that just a few years later such an effort would stand before the United States Supreme Court.
But the flag still waves, our nation is still one nation under God, and we still live under the banner of democracy, the flag waves in our churches, school yards, government buildings, and always in our hearts and homes, because that's where freedom originated, and that is where it must remain. America is as much a state of mind as it is a physical location. It’s the concept of an independent people, free to follow their dreams wherever they may lead. It’s a spirit of cooperation among equals, under a mutually agreed upon law. It’s the idea that no man must be subservient to another, and that no man should enforce his will on another.
(Inspired by a 2005 speech given by Ms. Beth Chapman, Secretary of State for Alabama.)
Monday, June 15, 2009
Restructure?
"Standing in the middle of the road is very dangerous; you get knocked down by the traffic from both sides." -- Margaret Thatcher
I spend far to much of my time grumbling and growling about the failings of our government and the loss of our freedoms, without making very many constructive suggestions. We all, at one time or another, get upset about some specific situation, and mumble something along the line of “there outta be a law”, or perhaps just “throw the bums out”, without really considering what the consequences of such action might be. After all, not considering all the results of their actions appears to be the preferred style of the Democratic Party, and I’m not the least bit impressed with that! Nor can I say that the republicans are doing much better. Then to, it seems that every time somebody gets a bright idea, congress passes another new law, and look at where that’s gotten us. As for throwing people out of office and starting fresh, just what are we going to do with a vast influx of ex-government employees suddenly on the dole? Besides, I’d like to retain some of those folks, as a few of them do, or at least try to do, a good job.
We know that our country faces a wide range of problems today, ranging from the economy to national defense, from crime to the environment, from immigration to an ageing infrastructure. And no one is going to wave a magic wand and solve those problems overnight, despite Mr. Obama’s promise of “change”. (Don’t ‘ya just love his comment about the United States being the greatest country in the world, and that he intends to change all that?) We certainly do need to make some changes, but… just what, specifically, do we want to change, how do we propose it be done, and in particular who is going to do it? Personally, I don’t think I’d trust either the Republicans or the Democrats of today with such an important and far reaching undertaking. Bi-partisanship will wreck anything that mainstream politics tries to accomplish. And any major change proposed by radicals of the left or right is going to be met with a lot of suspicion and even more resistance from most of the public. That does leave one group that the mainstream politicians are trying very hard to ignore, and that none of the radicals will ever trust. But the political moderates day may well have come, and they might well be the one group that gets things done.
Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Group stated that "Centrism has emerged as a dominant factor in public opinion as the Obama era begins. ... Republicans and Democrats are even more divided than in the past, while the growing political middle is steadfastly mixed in its beliefs about government, the free market and other values that underlie views on contemporary issues and policies." Accordingly, 39 percent of the American people identify themselves as political independents, the highest percentage in 70 years. OK, so who represents the rapidly increasing middle of the road moderates? Perhaps it’s Nancy Pelosi, the radical speaker of the House, who accuses the CIA of lying, who advocates for abortion on demand and who pushes a radical environmental agenda? How about Rush Limbaugh, who insists that the Republicans lost the election because they weren't conservative enough? Is it to be Mr. Obama, who sprinkles his speech with centrist language, but who governs from the far left? Keep in mind that even proven moderate politicians will have problems gaining support, because they so often play to the radicals in an effort to gain a few more votes.
It’s far more likely the Mariners will win the World Series than a political moderate of either party will rise to the top leadership. The most important part of being a congressional leader today is the ability to raise money, and it’s rather difficult for a moderate to convince donors that they will become leaders in the party and are thus worthy of financial support. Special interest groups prefer people who support them all the time, and mistrust people who support them only three quarters of the time. Whether it is George Soros on the left or Richard Mellon Scaife on the right, donors give their money to fellow travelers and not to deal-makers. Centrists also make for bad television ratings and even worse talk radio. The absolutists on either side make nice headlines. With the rise of Fox on the right and MSNBC on the left, moderates are either attacked as being sell-outs or ignored by both sides, making it hard to become a respected national figure in today's media culture. Yet despite these warnings from the left and the right, the American people are increasingly seeing themselves as centralist moderates.
So the question is, if moderates can't get any attention from either party, why don't they form their own? It's a good question, and not difficult to answer. History has not been kind to third parties in America. The Know-Nothings collapsed into nothingness. The Bull-Moosers died when Roosevelt lost. The Dixiecrats eventually became Republicans. And Perot’s Reform Party ran out of Perot's money. But it might well be time for our political system to evolve into a three party system. Can you imagine what a world would look like if we were to reach a legislative consensus on almost any subject that was satisfactory to most of the country?
For either party to prosper they must appeal to the nearly 40 percent of the voters who think of themselves as independents and who are personally centrist in their politics. The next election, like the last one, won't be decided by raging liberals or pious conservatives. It will be decided by the vast middle, those centrist voters who see the real world problems, and are completely unimpressed by ideological absolutes. In the meantime, about the only thing currently in the middle of the road are yellow stripes and dead armadillo’s.
I spend far to much of my time grumbling and growling about the failings of our government and the loss of our freedoms, without making very many constructive suggestions. We all, at one time or another, get upset about some specific situation, and mumble something along the line of “there outta be a law”, or perhaps just “throw the bums out”, without really considering what the consequences of such action might be. After all, not considering all the results of their actions appears to be the preferred style of the Democratic Party, and I’m not the least bit impressed with that! Nor can I say that the republicans are doing much better. Then to, it seems that every time somebody gets a bright idea, congress passes another new law, and look at where that’s gotten us. As for throwing people out of office and starting fresh, just what are we going to do with a vast influx of ex-government employees suddenly on the dole? Besides, I’d like to retain some of those folks, as a few of them do, or at least try to do, a good job.
We know that our country faces a wide range of problems today, ranging from the economy to national defense, from crime to the environment, from immigration to an ageing infrastructure. And no one is going to wave a magic wand and solve those problems overnight, despite Mr. Obama’s promise of “change”. (Don’t ‘ya just love his comment about the United States being the greatest country in the world, and that he intends to change all that?) We certainly do need to make some changes, but… just what, specifically, do we want to change, how do we propose it be done, and in particular who is going to do it? Personally, I don’t think I’d trust either the Republicans or the Democrats of today with such an important and far reaching undertaking. Bi-partisanship will wreck anything that mainstream politics tries to accomplish. And any major change proposed by radicals of the left or right is going to be met with a lot of suspicion and even more resistance from most of the public. That does leave one group that the mainstream politicians are trying very hard to ignore, and that none of the radicals will ever trust. But the political moderates day may well have come, and they might well be the one group that gets things done.
Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Group stated that "Centrism has emerged as a dominant factor in public opinion as the Obama era begins. ... Republicans and Democrats are even more divided than in the past, while the growing political middle is steadfastly mixed in its beliefs about government, the free market and other values that underlie views on contemporary issues and policies." Accordingly, 39 percent of the American people identify themselves as political independents, the highest percentage in 70 years. OK, so who represents the rapidly increasing middle of the road moderates? Perhaps it’s Nancy Pelosi, the radical speaker of the House, who accuses the CIA of lying, who advocates for abortion on demand and who pushes a radical environmental agenda? How about Rush Limbaugh, who insists that the Republicans lost the election because they weren't conservative enough? Is it to be Mr. Obama, who sprinkles his speech with centrist language, but who governs from the far left? Keep in mind that even proven moderate politicians will have problems gaining support, because they so often play to the radicals in an effort to gain a few more votes.
It’s far more likely the Mariners will win the World Series than a political moderate of either party will rise to the top leadership. The most important part of being a congressional leader today is the ability to raise money, and it’s rather difficult for a moderate to convince donors that they will become leaders in the party and are thus worthy of financial support. Special interest groups prefer people who support them all the time, and mistrust people who support them only three quarters of the time. Whether it is George Soros on the left or Richard Mellon Scaife on the right, donors give their money to fellow travelers and not to deal-makers. Centrists also make for bad television ratings and even worse talk radio. The absolutists on either side make nice headlines. With the rise of Fox on the right and MSNBC on the left, moderates are either attacked as being sell-outs or ignored by both sides, making it hard to become a respected national figure in today's media culture. Yet despite these warnings from the left and the right, the American people are increasingly seeing themselves as centralist moderates.
So the question is, if moderates can't get any attention from either party, why don't they form their own? It's a good question, and not difficult to answer. History has not been kind to third parties in America. The Know-Nothings collapsed into nothingness. The Bull-Moosers died when Roosevelt lost. The Dixiecrats eventually became Republicans. And Perot’s Reform Party ran out of Perot's money. But it might well be time for our political system to evolve into a three party system. Can you imagine what a world would look like if we were to reach a legislative consensus on almost any subject that was satisfactory to most of the country?
For either party to prosper they must appeal to the nearly 40 percent of the voters who think of themselves as independents and who are personally centrist in their politics. The next election, like the last one, won't be decided by raging liberals or pious conservatives. It will be decided by the vast middle, those centrist voters who see the real world problems, and are completely unimpressed by ideological absolutes. In the meantime, about the only thing currently in the middle of the road are yellow stripes and dead armadillo’s.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Patrick Henry
I’m going to take this week off, and instead let a great American patriot speak. This is possibly the greatest public speech ever given by an American politician, other than Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. It was delivered by Patrick Henry in 1775 to the Virginia House of Burgesses. It has become famous as the "Give me Liberty or Give me Death" speech. Don't read it if going back to the spirit of the American Revolution bores you. Don't read it if you don't care to hear again why this country is great, or hear when men of true greatness speak about what it takes to remain a free and independant nation.
Patrick Henry to the Virginia House of Burgesses Assembled:
"No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to
be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.
Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes
with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and
darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its
purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so
long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free-- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!
They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying
supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just
God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.
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!”
It doesn’t take much reading between the lines to see the close comparison of “then” and “now”. Are we to be the slaves of elitist rulers in a socialist world, or are we to be free men?
Patrick Henry to the Virginia House of Burgesses Assembled:
"No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to
be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.
Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes
with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and
darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its
purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so
long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free-- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!
They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying
supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just
God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.
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!”
It doesn’t take much reading between the lines to see the close comparison of “then” and “now”. Are we to be the slaves of elitist rulers in a socialist world, or are we to be free men?
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Liberal Government?
Of all of the presidential contenders' slogans last year, Barack Obama was the most interesting. His campaign motto of "Yes, we can", was however somewhat ambiguous. Any reasonable person would ask: "Can what?", to which the stock answer was "Hope." But yet again, a reasonable person might ask: "Hope for what?" To which the answer was always "For change", or perhaps "Change We Can Believe In". I suppose that’s the opposite of unbelievable changes. It did make quite a battle cry of course, but the problem is that change can be either good or bad.
It would seem to me that the Democrats usually confuse change with improvement. They appear to believe in some sort of natural law which decrees “change” to always be for the better. They also fail to weigh the costs of change, or to consider unintended consequences. But the ability to bring about change becomes the leading symbol of the liberal politician. Thus it was that Hillary was so quick to join Obama on the change bandwagon. Her claim of "experience" sounded a bit thin, so "Ready on Day One" signs were soon replaced by "Ready for Change." But then, Republican campaign slogans weren’t much to brag about either. John McCain didn’t have a slogan, except "Mac is Back." Mitt Romney's idea was: "Washington is Broken" which was slightly better, but was still little more than an echo of Ross Perot.
Well, I was ready for change as well, but I like to think I’m smart enough to realize that the value of change lies in the eye of the beholder. Consider that when the Forest Service policies were changed, the destruction of the timber industry was an improvement to the environmentalists, even though the rest of us had a somewhat different viewpoint. But I’m still ready for “change”. I would certainly like to see a change with government expenditures being reduced, and our tax load trimmed as well. I would also like to see government agents and agencies get out of our personal lives. Then to, I would very much like to see a change to a limited government based on our constitution. The Democrats of course want even more government, so their ignoring government limitations are to be expected. But the Republican “dereliction of duty” indicates a serious drift away from the conservative standards of our nation’s founders. (I also realize that abandoning the constitutional ideals of our nations founders is grounds for a serious party in the halls of the DNC!)
But anyway, we’ve been promised a change by the present regime. Well… I’m still waiting. Our wars continue, we’re still mad at Iran, and I suspect that with the recent developments in North Korea we can expect a lot of saber rattling in that direction as well. Taxes are still going up you may have noticed (while the economy still flounders about), the Brady gun grab continues, globalization is once again on the rise, and of course anyone who doesn’t fully agree with the regime is listed as a domestic terrorist by homeland security. After all the weeping and wailing during the Bush administration I also notice that our Democratic Congress hasn’t repealed the so called Patriot Act, we’re still being “folded, spindled, and mutilated” into a national database, torture is now an approved interrogation technique, the Homeland Security guys happily continue spying on us, and the national debt is increasing fast enough to make FDR proud!
Then there are a few other choice tidbits from the Democrats, one of the best being, as I understand things: back in January that Rep. Jose Serrano (D-NY) seriously proposed a Constitutional Amendment to repeal the 22nd Amendment (the one that limits a president to two terms in office). FDR would have loved the possibility of becoming “President for Life”… well, FDR did just that in a manner of speaking, but this of course would make it official. Now the Dems want to try again with Mr. Obama I presume. The proposal was sent to the “Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties” for serious consideration. Dunno if the mainstream media ever noticed this or not, but they sure didn’t mention it!
It’s been said that the country is not yet ready for a three party political system. However, I don’t see where it’s ready for our current “one and a half party” system either. At present it appears that we have the disorganized Conservatives on the one hand, and the far more numerous Republicrats on the other. Unfortunately the hand on the throttle has us running full speed on a downhill slope, with no thought about what happens when we hit the curve at the bottom! (Its gonna be one jim-dandy train wreck I can assure you!) If however, the nation’s conservatives can ever get their act together, they stand a very good chance of grabbing the brake lever and stopping this pell-mell rush to disaster! Remember Ross Perot? He won 19% of the (mostly hard core conservative) vote in a presidential election when we weren’t facing anywhere near the problems we see today. Incidentally, Conservatives do make up about 48% of today’s voters. Now if we could just find another Ronald Reagan or Barry Goldwater…
The solution to the problem is fairly simple in concept, but will be rather difficult to put into practice. Essentially we need to get the nations conservatives to put aside their petty squabbles, join hands, and take back the government of our nation, starting with the various statehouses. Americans have been notorious over the last couple of hundred years for being able to cooperate, and put up a pretty respectable fight, in the face of severe adversity. If we, as a free and independent nation, have lost that ability, we might as well forget the whole thing and get used to new world order globalization and European style socialism!
There is of course the easy way out of the dilemma, just join the liberals, because then everyone will like you, including the ex-friends who abandoned you when you started spouting conservative opinions. Besides, it’s much easier to allow others to form your opinions instead of researching an issue for yourself, particularly when the facts you discover differ from the politically correct consensus. You can be rewarded for all shortcomings and nothing would ever be your fault. Your irresponsible behavior would be forgiven merely by preaching the spending of someone else’s money on whatever the latest cause. If you ‘care’, you won’t have to accept responsibility for the consequences of your actions. Besides, everyone knows that conservatives are racist, homophobic, stupid, and motivated only by profit, instead of any desire to be nice people. Even better, you can redefine reality to whatever you might want it to be. You could turn failure into success, murder into choice, or lies into ‘misstatements’, just by wanting the meaning of a word or two changed. You can be considered wise by your peers, instead of opinionated. Best of all, you could make up the rules as you go, changing them in midstream if needed, and then blame everything bad that happens on the conservatives.
That of course would be the easy way.
It would seem to me that the Democrats usually confuse change with improvement. They appear to believe in some sort of natural law which decrees “change” to always be for the better. They also fail to weigh the costs of change, or to consider unintended consequences. But the ability to bring about change becomes the leading symbol of the liberal politician. Thus it was that Hillary was so quick to join Obama on the change bandwagon. Her claim of "experience" sounded a bit thin, so "Ready on Day One" signs were soon replaced by "Ready for Change." But then, Republican campaign slogans weren’t much to brag about either. John McCain didn’t have a slogan, except "Mac is Back." Mitt Romney's idea was: "Washington is Broken" which was slightly better, but was still little more than an echo of Ross Perot.
Well, I was ready for change as well, but I like to think I’m smart enough to realize that the value of change lies in the eye of the beholder. Consider that when the Forest Service policies were changed, the destruction of the timber industry was an improvement to the environmentalists, even though the rest of us had a somewhat different viewpoint. But I’m still ready for “change”. I would certainly like to see a change with government expenditures being reduced, and our tax load trimmed as well. I would also like to see government agents and agencies get out of our personal lives. Then to, I would very much like to see a change to a limited government based on our constitution. The Democrats of course want even more government, so their ignoring government limitations are to be expected. But the Republican “dereliction of duty” indicates a serious drift away from the conservative standards of our nation’s founders. (I also realize that abandoning the constitutional ideals of our nations founders is grounds for a serious party in the halls of the DNC!)
But anyway, we’ve been promised a change by the present regime. Well… I’m still waiting. Our wars continue, we’re still mad at Iran, and I suspect that with the recent developments in North Korea we can expect a lot of saber rattling in that direction as well. Taxes are still going up you may have noticed (while the economy still flounders about), the Brady gun grab continues, globalization is once again on the rise, and of course anyone who doesn’t fully agree with the regime is listed as a domestic terrorist by homeland security. After all the weeping and wailing during the Bush administration I also notice that our Democratic Congress hasn’t repealed the so called Patriot Act, we’re still being “folded, spindled, and mutilated” into a national database, torture is now an approved interrogation technique, the Homeland Security guys happily continue spying on us, and the national debt is increasing fast enough to make FDR proud!
Then there are a few other choice tidbits from the Democrats, one of the best being, as I understand things: back in January that Rep. Jose Serrano (D-NY) seriously proposed a Constitutional Amendment to repeal the 22nd Amendment (the one that limits a president to two terms in office). FDR would have loved the possibility of becoming “President for Life”… well, FDR did just that in a manner of speaking, but this of course would make it official. Now the Dems want to try again with Mr. Obama I presume. The proposal was sent to the “Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties” for serious consideration. Dunno if the mainstream media ever noticed this or not, but they sure didn’t mention it!
It’s been said that the country is not yet ready for a three party political system. However, I don’t see where it’s ready for our current “one and a half party” system either. At present it appears that we have the disorganized Conservatives on the one hand, and the far more numerous Republicrats on the other. Unfortunately the hand on the throttle has us running full speed on a downhill slope, with no thought about what happens when we hit the curve at the bottom! (Its gonna be one jim-dandy train wreck I can assure you!) If however, the nation’s conservatives can ever get their act together, they stand a very good chance of grabbing the brake lever and stopping this pell-mell rush to disaster! Remember Ross Perot? He won 19% of the (mostly hard core conservative) vote in a presidential election when we weren’t facing anywhere near the problems we see today. Incidentally, Conservatives do make up about 48% of today’s voters. Now if we could just find another Ronald Reagan or Barry Goldwater…
The solution to the problem is fairly simple in concept, but will be rather difficult to put into practice. Essentially we need to get the nations conservatives to put aside their petty squabbles, join hands, and take back the government of our nation, starting with the various statehouses. Americans have been notorious over the last couple of hundred years for being able to cooperate, and put up a pretty respectable fight, in the face of severe adversity. If we, as a free and independent nation, have lost that ability, we might as well forget the whole thing and get used to new world order globalization and European style socialism!
There is of course the easy way out of the dilemma, just join the liberals, because then everyone will like you, including the ex-friends who abandoned you when you started spouting conservative opinions. Besides, it’s much easier to allow others to form your opinions instead of researching an issue for yourself, particularly when the facts you discover differ from the politically correct consensus. You can be rewarded for all shortcomings and nothing would ever be your fault. Your irresponsible behavior would be forgiven merely by preaching the spending of someone else’s money on whatever the latest cause. If you ‘care’, you won’t have to accept responsibility for the consequences of your actions. Besides, everyone knows that conservatives are racist, homophobic, stupid, and motivated only by profit, instead of any desire to be nice people. Even better, you can redefine reality to whatever you might want it to be. You could turn failure into success, murder into choice, or lies into ‘misstatements’, just by wanting the meaning of a word or two changed. You can be considered wise by your peers, instead of opinionated. Best of all, you could make up the rules as you go, changing them in midstream if needed, and then blame everything bad that happens on the conservatives.
That of course would be the easy way.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
"The One"
I received this piece in an e-mail, and have no idea of who wrote it, or of where it appeared. Unfortunately it’s far to long to fit into my column, for I think it’s quite appropriate to the situation we find ourselves in today. (Which it is of course, supposed to be.) I wish I could claim to be the author, as this guy's good!
“The One”
And it came to pass in the Age of Insanity that the people of the land called America, having lost their morals, their initiative, and their will to defend their liberties, chose as their Supreme Leader that person known as "The One". He emerged from the vapors with a message that had no meaning; but He hypnotized the people telling them, "I am sent to save you. My lack of experience, my questionable ethics, my monstrous ego, and my association with evil doers are of no consequence. For I shall save you with Hope and Change. Go, therefore, and proclaim throughout the land that he who preceded me is evil, that he has defiled the nation, and that all he has built must be destroyed." And the people rejoiced, for even though they knew not what "The One" would do, he had promised that it was good; and they believed. And "The One" said "We live in the greatest country in the world. With your help we change it"!! And the people said, "Hallelujah!! Change is good!"
Then He said, "We are going to tax the rich fat-cats." And the people said "Sock it to them!" "And redistribute their wealth." And the people said, "Show us the money!"
And then He said, "Redistribution of wealth is good for everybody" And Joe the plumber asked, "Are you kidding me? You're going to steal my money and give it to the deadbeats??" And "The One" ridiculed and taunted him, and Joe's personal records were hacked and publicized. One lone reporter asked, "Isn't that Marxist policy?" And she was banished from the kingdom!
Then a citizen asked, "With no foreign relations experience and having zero military experience or knowledge, how will you deal with radical terrorists?" And "The One" said, "Simple. I shall sit with them and talk with them and show them how nice we really are; and they will forget that they ever wanted to kill us all!" And the people said, "Hallelujah!! We are safe at last, and we can beat our weapons into free cars for the people!"
Then "The One" said, "I shall give 95% of you lower taxes." And one, lone voice said, "But 40% of us don't pay ANY taxes." So "The One" said, "Then I shall give you some of the taxes the fat-cats pay!" And the people said, "Hallelujah!! Show us the money!"
Then "The One" said, "I shall tax your Capital Gains when you sell your homes!" And the people yawned and the slumping housing market collapsed. And He said, "I shall mandate employer-funded health care for EVERY worker and raise the minimum wage. And I shall give every person unlimited healthcare and medicine and transportation to the clinics." And the people said, "Give me some of that!"
Then he said, "I shall penalize employers who ship jobs overseas." And the people said, "Where's my rebate check?"
Then "The One" said, "I shall bankrupt the coal industry and electricity rates will skyrocket!" And the people said, "Coal is dirty, coal is evil, no more coal! But we don't care for that part about higher electric rates." So "The One" said, "Not to worry. If your rebate isn't enough to cover your expenses, we shall bail you out. Just sign up with ACORN and your troubles are over!"
Then He said, "Illegal immigrants feel scorned and slighted. Let's grant them amnesty, Social Security, free education, free lunches, free medical care, bi-lingual signs and guaranteed housing..." And the people said, "Hallelujah!!" And they made him King!
And so it came to pass that employers, facing spiraling costs and ever-higher taxes, raised their prices and laid off workers. Others simply gave up and went out of business and the economy sank like unto a rock dropped from a cliff. The banking industry was destroyed. Manufacturing slowed to a crawl. And more of the people were without a means of support.
Then "The One" said, "I am the "The One" - The Messiah - and I'm here to save you! We shall just print more money so everyone will have enough!" But our foreign trading partners said unto Him, "Wait a minute. Your dollar is not worth a pile of camel dung! You will have to pay more..." And the people said, "Wait a minute. That is unfair!!" And the world said, "Neither are these other idiotic programs you have embraced. Lo, you have become a Socialist state and a second-rate power. Now you shall play by our rules!"
And the people cried out, "Alas, alas!! What have we done?" But yea verily, it was too late. The people set upon "The One" and spat upon him and stoned him, and his name was dung. And the once mighty nation was no more; and the once proud people were without sustenance or shelter or hope. And the Change "The One" had given them was as like unto a poison that had destroyed them and like a whirlwind that consumed all that they had built. And the people beat their chests in despair and cried out in anguish, "Give us back our nation and our pride and our hope!!" But it was too late, and their homeland was no more.
“The One”
And it came to pass in the Age of Insanity that the people of the land called America, having lost their morals, their initiative, and their will to defend their liberties, chose as their Supreme Leader that person known as "The One". He emerged from the vapors with a message that had no meaning; but He hypnotized the people telling them, "I am sent to save you. My lack of experience, my questionable ethics, my monstrous ego, and my association with evil doers are of no consequence. For I shall save you with Hope and Change. Go, therefore, and proclaim throughout the land that he who preceded me is evil, that he has defiled the nation, and that all he has built must be destroyed." And the people rejoiced, for even though they knew not what "The One" would do, he had promised that it was good; and they believed. And "The One" said "We live in the greatest country in the world. With your help we change it"!! And the people said, "Hallelujah!! Change is good!"
Then He said, "We are going to tax the rich fat-cats." And the people said "Sock it to them!" "And redistribute their wealth." And the people said, "Show us the money!"
And then He said, "Redistribution of wealth is good for everybody" And Joe the plumber asked, "Are you kidding me? You're going to steal my money and give it to the deadbeats??" And "The One" ridiculed and taunted him, and Joe's personal records were hacked and publicized. One lone reporter asked, "Isn't that Marxist policy?" And she was banished from the kingdom!
Then a citizen asked, "With no foreign relations experience and having zero military experience or knowledge, how will you deal with radical terrorists?" And "The One" said, "Simple. I shall sit with them and talk with them and show them how nice we really are; and they will forget that they ever wanted to kill us all!" And the people said, "Hallelujah!! We are safe at last, and we can beat our weapons into free cars for the people!"
Then "The One" said, "I shall give 95% of you lower taxes." And one, lone voice said, "But 40% of us don't pay ANY taxes." So "The One" said, "Then I shall give you some of the taxes the fat-cats pay!" And the people said, "Hallelujah!! Show us the money!"
Then "The One" said, "I shall tax your Capital Gains when you sell your homes!" And the people yawned and the slumping housing market collapsed. And He said, "I shall mandate employer-funded health care for EVERY worker and raise the minimum wage. And I shall give every person unlimited healthcare and medicine and transportation to the clinics." And the people said, "Give me some of that!"
Then he said, "I shall penalize employers who ship jobs overseas." And the people said, "Where's my rebate check?"
Then "The One" said, "I shall bankrupt the coal industry and electricity rates will skyrocket!" And the people said, "Coal is dirty, coal is evil, no more coal! But we don't care for that part about higher electric rates." So "The One" said, "Not to worry. If your rebate isn't enough to cover your expenses, we shall bail you out. Just sign up with ACORN and your troubles are over!"
Then He said, "Illegal immigrants feel scorned and slighted. Let's grant them amnesty, Social Security, free education, free lunches, free medical care, bi-lingual signs and guaranteed housing..." And the people said, "Hallelujah!!" And they made him King!
And so it came to pass that employers, facing spiraling costs and ever-higher taxes, raised their prices and laid off workers. Others simply gave up and went out of business and the economy sank like unto a rock dropped from a cliff. The banking industry was destroyed. Manufacturing slowed to a crawl. And more of the people were without a means of support.
Then "The One" said, "I am the "The One" - The Messiah - and I'm here to save you! We shall just print more money so everyone will have enough!" But our foreign trading partners said unto Him, "Wait a minute. Your dollar is not worth a pile of camel dung! You will have to pay more..." And the people said, "Wait a minute. That is unfair!!" And the world said, "Neither are these other idiotic programs you have embraced. Lo, you have become a Socialist state and a second-rate power. Now you shall play by our rules!"
And the people cried out, "Alas, alas!! What have we done?" But yea verily, it was too late. The people set upon "The One" and spat upon him and stoned him, and his name was dung. And the once mighty nation was no more; and the once proud people were without sustenance or shelter or hope. And the Change "The One" had given them was as like unto a poison that had destroyed them and like a whirlwind that consumed all that they had built. And the people beat their chests in despair and cried out in anguish, "Give us back our nation and our pride and our hope!!" But it was too late, and their homeland was no more.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Idaho County
I’ve lived in Idaho County on and off, for roughly half of my life. The other half was spent in a number of states, and even in a few foreign countries thanks in part to the US Air Force. I’ve been to a few places that I liked, and a lot of places that I didn’t care for at all. Southern California was a pretty nice place… back in the 1940’s and early 1950’s. Arizona wasn’t bad either, if you like living in a blast furnace. South Florida somewhat resembles a sauna in the summer, and is occupied by a liberal supply of swamps, snakes, and alligators, in the winter it’s a bit cooler, but infested with Yankee tourists. Virginia’s Shenandoah Valley was quite beautiful before the developers and sub dividers arrived from California. Overseas I liked Germany just fine, and thought Norway was a fantastic place to visit. But back in the days when we still owned Wheelus Air Force Base, North Africa really didn’t impress me at all. (But we really outta consider making camel riding a rodeo event! It’s almost as much fun as riding a saddle bronc… for a couple of hours at a time!) Exotic Thailand was impressive and a great opportunity for an amateur photographer, while Laos has a lot of beautiful scenery along with some real friendly people, even if the neighbors do have a bad habit of shooting at American flyers.
I guess I’ve seen my share of the world through the years, and in comparison with Idaho I’ve seen bigger mountains, larger rivers, taller trees, more game animals, and sometimes a lot better weather. Funny though, I’ve never seen ‘em all in the same place, or at the same time. When opportunity knocked, I came back to Idaho, and Idaho County, because warts and all, this is my home. And we do seem to have more than our share of problems, mostly economic, and which I will, in my ever popular style, blame on “government”.
Back in the old days, when I was growing up around here, I really don’t remember anybody being homeless, or even “broke” as such, but it always seemed like money was in fairly short supply among most of the folks I knew. Dad was a logger, and while he was usually busy Mom had to work as well, and I noticed that the luxuries were generally few and far between. Today it seems that much the same situation exists among far to many of our citizens. In doing a little checking on county demographics, I found that the average yearly income in Idaho County is approximately $29,515, or about seventy percent of the national average of $41,994 per year, and that about a quarter of our citizens live below the national poverty level! While I wouldn’t expect a rural area to be quite as affluent as a high-tech urban area, that disparity does seem a bit much. From that twenty-nine thousand dollar average income we all pay… TAXES… city, county, state, and federal taxes, along with those of a wide assortment of taxing districts, and a few things I have yet to figure out as well. Taxes are of course the curse of just about everyone, with the exception of the politicians who get to spend all that money, and the folks that think “government” is supposed to take care of us. (Personally I think that if they want the government to take care of them, they can go ahead and work, send their paycheck to the IRS, and then try to subsist on food stamps. But that’s a story line for another day.)
Any government entity has to operate on the income from its tax base, which at state and federal level can be fairly good sized. Cities and counties on the other hand don’t have all that much income, and they still have to provide the services that their citizens demand. With that, they’re always looking for means by which they can improve their income, and some of those means are pretty innovative! (I believe it’s New York City that charges a fee for city tax forms, and then levies a tax on that fee!) Most communities aren’t quite that desperate I guess, and generally settle for little more than property taxes, sales taxes, and what have you. The greater the property value, the more money the community can take in, and thus spend. In our case, the county budget runs about twelve and a half million dollars per year, with the lion’s share of the money going to things like schools, roads, and the Sheriffs Department. It seems however that there are always a number of projects that have to be held in abeyance for a few years due to a lack of funds. With that, the county is always trying to attract new businesses that will build (taxable) factories and hire a lot of local people, thereby enlarging the tax base even more.
According to the US Census Bureau, our county consists of a total area of 8,502 square miles, of which, 8,485 square miles is land and 18 square miles of it is water. According to my calculator, 8,502 square miles comes out to 5,441,280 acres, of which the vast sum of 15% (or 816,192 acres) is private land, and thus taxable to support the rest of the county! The Nez Perce National Forest is located entirely within Idaho County, and comprises approximately 50% of the entire county land area. In addition we have parts of five other National Forests located in the county. That leaves four million, six hundred and twenty five thousand acres that “belong” to government, and who do not pay property taxes on said lands. With the Idaho County tax base working out to about $2 per acre of private land according to Idaho County Accessor James Zehner, along with whatever else he can find to tax. Instead of property taxes on forest lands, we get PILT (Payment in Lieu of Taxes) funds from the feds every year. I realize that undeveloped forest land probably doesn’t have the same taxable value as producing farm land, but PILT pays the princly sum of thirty-two cents on the acre each year. (Incidently, Idaho received $25,831,812 in PILT funds for the entire state in 2008, and that has to be spread between all forty-four counties!)
The federal government has so far killed our timber industry, strangled our mining industry, and is now attacking our ranchers through their grazing allotments. The fledgling recreation industry that we so painfully started will quite likely be stillborn, thanks to forest road and trail closures. (So much for the “multiple use” of our public lands.) All this federal attention has hit the county tax base where it hurts, right square in the budget, and it’s not doing our employment situation any good either. In return, the feds send us our annual welfare check to the tune of 16% of what the rest of our land owners have to pay!
County Commissioner James Rockwell recently made comment that if the feds were “good neighbors” and paid the same tax rate per acre that the rest of us do, the county’s economic balancing act would be a whole lot simpler, and we wouldn’t need PILT money, Craig-Wyden funds, or any other federal handout. He’s quite right of course, but just how do we go about getting the feds to do that? They are after all busily robbing us blind… and like good little citizens we’re all standing around with a smile on our faces, and not doing a darn thing about it!
I guess I’ve seen my share of the world through the years, and in comparison with Idaho I’ve seen bigger mountains, larger rivers, taller trees, more game animals, and sometimes a lot better weather. Funny though, I’ve never seen ‘em all in the same place, or at the same time. When opportunity knocked, I came back to Idaho, and Idaho County, because warts and all, this is my home. And we do seem to have more than our share of problems, mostly economic, and which I will, in my ever popular style, blame on “government”.
Back in the old days, when I was growing up around here, I really don’t remember anybody being homeless, or even “broke” as such, but it always seemed like money was in fairly short supply among most of the folks I knew. Dad was a logger, and while he was usually busy Mom had to work as well, and I noticed that the luxuries were generally few and far between. Today it seems that much the same situation exists among far to many of our citizens. In doing a little checking on county demographics, I found that the average yearly income in Idaho County is approximately $29,515, or about seventy percent of the national average of $41,994 per year, and that about a quarter of our citizens live below the national poverty level! While I wouldn’t expect a rural area to be quite as affluent as a high-tech urban area, that disparity does seem a bit much. From that twenty-nine thousand dollar average income we all pay… TAXES… city, county, state, and federal taxes, along with those of a wide assortment of taxing districts, and a few things I have yet to figure out as well. Taxes are of course the curse of just about everyone, with the exception of the politicians who get to spend all that money, and the folks that think “government” is supposed to take care of us. (Personally I think that if they want the government to take care of them, they can go ahead and work, send their paycheck to the IRS, and then try to subsist on food stamps. But that’s a story line for another day.)
Any government entity has to operate on the income from its tax base, which at state and federal level can be fairly good sized. Cities and counties on the other hand don’t have all that much income, and they still have to provide the services that their citizens demand. With that, they’re always looking for means by which they can improve their income, and some of those means are pretty innovative! (I believe it’s New York City that charges a fee for city tax forms, and then levies a tax on that fee!) Most communities aren’t quite that desperate I guess, and generally settle for little more than property taxes, sales taxes, and what have you. The greater the property value, the more money the community can take in, and thus spend. In our case, the county budget runs about twelve and a half million dollars per year, with the lion’s share of the money going to things like schools, roads, and the Sheriffs Department. It seems however that there are always a number of projects that have to be held in abeyance for a few years due to a lack of funds. With that, the county is always trying to attract new businesses that will build (taxable) factories and hire a lot of local people, thereby enlarging the tax base even more.
According to the US Census Bureau, our county consists of a total area of 8,502 square miles, of which, 8,485 square miles is land and 18 square miles of it is water. According to my calculator, 8,502 square miles comes out to 5,441,280 acres, of which the vast sum of 15% (or 816,192 acres) is private land, and thus taxable to support the rest of the county! The Nez Perce National Forest is located entirely within Idaho County, and comprises approximately 50% of the entire county land area. In addition we have parts of five other National Forests located in the county. That leaves four million, six hundred and twenty five thousand acres that “belong” to government, and who do not pay property taxes on said lands. With the Idaho County tax base working out to about $2 per acre of private land according to Idaho County Accessor James Zehner, along with whatever else he can find to tax. Instead of property taxes on forest lands, we get PILT (Payment in Lieu of Taxes) funds from the feds every year. I realize that undeveloped forest land probably doesn’t have the same taxable value as producing farm land, but PILT pays the princly sum of thirty-two cents on the acre each year. (Incidently, Idaho received $25,831,812 in PILT funds for the entire state in 2008, and that has to be spread between all forty-four counties!)
The federal government has so far killed our timber industry, strangled our mining industry, and is now attacking our ranchers through their grazing allotments. The fledgling recreation industry that we so painfully started will quite likely be stillborn, thanks to forest road and trail closures. (So much for the “multiple use” of our public lands.) All this federal attention has hit the county tax base where it hurts, right square in the budget, and it’s not doing our employment situation any good either. In return, the feds send us our annual welfare check to the tune of 16% of what the rest of our land owners have to pay!
County Commissioner James Rockwell recently made comment that if the feds were “good neighbors” and paid the same tax rate per acre that the rest of us do, the county’s economic balancing act would be a whole lot simpler, and we wouldn’t need PILT money, Craig-Wyden funds, or any other federal handout. He’s quite right of course, but just how do we go about getting the feds to do that? They are after all busily robbing us blind… and like good little citizens we’re all standing around with a smile on our faces, and not doing a darn thing about it!
Secession?
Secession? The subject of last week’s edition of Texas Rep. Ron Paul’s “Texas Straight Talk” took me by surprise, and aroused my curiosity as well. After all, any serious discussion of a state seceding from the Union has been somewhat unpopular in this country ever since Yankee bayonets enforced federal authority at Appomattox Courthouse nearly 150 years ago. Still, the subject has come up in the media any number of times in recent years, most recently when Texas Gov. Rick Perry, in comments following an anti-tax "TEA party" on April 16th, suggested that Texans might get so fed up with taxes and the federal government that they would want to leave the union. He never specifically advocated Texas breaking away from the United States, but even his mild comment was sufficient to trigger a firestorm of media reaction across the country, and once again screaming outrage from the liberal left.
To many in the United States, secession is much the same as treason and rebellion, a fact resulting from ignorance of the words real meaning. Yet the United States itself came about from an act of secession, in an era when secession and self determination were not only believed to be inalienable rights, but were practiced, often with mixed success. In North America, Virginia set the ball rolling in June of 1776 by declaring her independence from Great Britain. The twelve other colonies jointly declared their independence the following month. Still, most Americans generally associate secession only with the US Civil War, and usually think the issue was settled for all time. Yet even a cursory search of the internet finds that nearly half our states have secessionist movements active today! From New Hampshire to Hawaii, from Alaska to Texas, these groups are alive and well, and passionately pleading their cause. Oddly enough, Idaho isn’t one of those states with an active secessionist movement. All are rather small organizations naturally, but in some cases are quite vocal if nothing else. What are their chances of success? Slim I’d say, but keep in mind that only three percent of the American colonists actively planned, staged, and won their rebellion in 1776.
Today of course, we are “much more civilized” than our forbearers, and given the largess distributed by our benevolent federal government, we have no need to withdraw from our great union. Or at least that’s what we’re supposed to believe. It seems almost un-American to believe that the compact which holds the Union together might be sundered. Yet the right to secede is not denied us by the US Constitution, or by any State Constitution that I’m aware of! (I don’t think a state can be involuntarily kicked out either.) The framers of the constitution apparently assumed that if we join the Union voluntarily, we would have the right to withdraw from it if we so desire. With that, obviously, the next question would be… why would American citizens wish to secede from the union?
Man is a social creature after all, and has been since the dawn of the human race. People banded together in small groups in prehistoric times, they built tribal communities, and over time developed the system of government that gave rise to the modern nation state. Government is supposed to be the guarantor of greater peace, tranquility and health than might otherwise be obtainable. In theory it serves to protect property and rights, even though it does not grant or create them. John C. Calhoun in his “Disquisition on Government” expressed the view that; "although intended to protect and preserve society, has itself a strong tendency to disorder and abuse its powers, as all experience and almost every page of history testify.” What then are we to make of this fearful creation that we rely so heavily upon? How do we make government the servant of our needs, and avoid becoming servants of the government? Strangely enough, the framers of our constitution had the answer to that as well, when they very severely limited the powers of the Federal government. Federal powers were clearly described, and the individual states are guaranteed all other powers that are not specifically denied them. Unfortunately, since the end of the Civil War, the several states have quietly allowed the Federal government to assume many of those powers, a trend that does not seem to be ending.
The principle of “one man, one vote” refers to the fact that all citizens, regardless of where they reside, are entitled to equal legislative representation. Initially, the House of Representatives was apportioned by the population of each state. Thus, as the nation’s population grew, so did the number of seats in the house. When the House reached the unwieldy number of 435 members, the law was juggled as to apportion those seats in such a manner that voting power (and thus political authority) was retained by the densely populated urban states at the expense of the rural states. While we might think this is all well and fine, it completely overlooks the fact that the wishes and needs of urbanites are usually totally different from those of our rural citizens. One example of this disparity might be the stimulus program. While large amounts of money are being handed out to every state and most counties in the country, the larger cities are making out like bandits, which is great for the cities, but rather difficult for the ruralites in the country, who, making up around 48% of the population, are going to find themselves paying 48% of the bill. Keep in mind also that Mr. Obama’s budget will increase the national debt by more than that of President Reagan, both Bush’s, and Bill Clinton… combined. Where is either the justice or even the equality in that? Besides, with all that stimulus money being borrowed from China, what are we using for equity on that loan, our big cities perhaps, or maybe our countries natural resources that just happen to be located in rural areas? Or are we supposed to believe that Communist China is loaning us those trillions of dollars out of the goodness of their hearts? For all practical purposes this disparity might be considered as making us two distinct countries under the same flag!
There are always people who generally figure that their knowledge and ideas are superior to all others, and who like nothing better than to tell everyone else what to do. Government seems to be the natural home of these control freaks, where they can happily become mini-tyrants. On a small scale they can generally be ignored, but when they become “the government” with the power to enforce their radical ideas, they quickly disturb the peace of mind of everyone around! When the citizenry isn’t in agreement with the government, the army is always available to enforced obedience. Remember that our revolution was decided by force of arms, as was our civil war. All of our early day incipient rebellions fizzled out when faced by the US Army. The same situation exists today, considering that a mob of aroused citizens armed with hunting rifles isn’t going to last long when faced with an organized and disciplined army equipped with tanks, machine guns, and attack helicopters!
Secession? I think I’ll keep calling for a voter’s rebellion instead…
To many in the United States, secession is much the same as treason and rebellion, a fact resulting from ignorance of the words real meaning. Yet the United States itself came about from an act of secession, in an era when secession and self determination were not only believed to be inalienable rights, but were practiced, often with mixed success. In North America, Virginia set the ball rolling in June of 1776 by declaring her independence from Great Britain. The twelve other colonies jointly declared their independence the following month. Still, most Americans generally associate secession only with the US Civil War, and usually think the issue was settled for all time. Yet even a cursory search of the internet finds that nearly half our states have secessionist movements active today! From New Hampshire to Hawaii, from Alaska to Texas, these groups are alive and well, and passionately pleading their cause. Oddly enough, Idaho isn’t one of those states with an active secessionist movement. All are rather small organizations naturally, but in some cases are quite vocal if nothing else. What are their chances of success? Slim I’d say, but keep in mind that only three percent of the American colonists actively planned, staged, and won their rebellion in 1776.
Today of course, we are “much more civilized” than our forbearers, and given the largess distributed by our benevolent federal government, we have no need to withdraw from our great union. Or at least that’s what we’re supposed to believe. It seems almost un-American to believe that the compact which holds the Union together might be sundered. Yet the right to secede is not denied us by the US Constitution, or by any State Constitution that I’m aware of! (I don’t think a state can be involuntarily kicked out either.) The framers of the constitution apparently assumed that if we join the Union voluntarily, we would have the right to withdraw from it if we so desire. With that, obviously, the next question would be… why would American citizens wish to secede from the union?
Man is a social creature after all, and has been since the dawn of the human race. People banded together in small groups in prehistoric times, they built tribal communities, and over time developed the system of government that gave rise to the modern nation state. Government is supposed to be the guarantor of greater peace, tranquility and health than might otherwise be obtainable. In theory it serves to protect property and rights, even though it does not grant or create them. John C. Calhoun in his “Disquisition on Government” expressed the view that; "although intended to protect and preserve society, has itself a strong tendency to disorder and abuse its powers, as all experience and almost every page of history testify.” What then are we to make of this fearful creation that we rely so heavily upon? How do we make government the servant of our needs, and avoid becoming servants of the government? Strangely enough, the framers of our constitution had the answer to that as well, when they very severely limited the powers of the Federal government. Federal powers were clearly described, and the individual states are guaranteed all other powers that are not specifically denied them. Unfortunately, since the end of the Civil War, the several states have quietly allowed the Federal government to assume many of those powers, a trend that does not seem to be ending.
The principle of “one man, one vote” refers to the fact that all citizens, regardless of where they reside, are entitled to equal legislative representation. Initially, the House of Representatives was apportioned by the population of each state. Thus, as the nation’s population grew, so did the number of seats in the house. When the House reached the unwieldy number of 435 members, the law was juggled as to apportion those seats in such a manner that voting power (and thus political authority) was retained by the densely populated urban states at the expense of the rural states. While we might think this is all well and fine, it completely overlooks the fact that the wishes and needs of urbanites are usually totally different from those of our rural citizens. One example of this disparity might be the stimulus program. While large amounts of money are being handed out to every state and most counties in the country, the larger cities are making out like bandits, which is great for the cities, but rather difficult for the ruralites in the country, who, making up around 48% of the population, are going to find themselves paying 48% of the bill. Keep in mind also that Mr. Obama’s budget will increase the national debt by more than that of President Reagan, both Bush’s, and Bill Clinton… combined. Where is either the justice or even the equality in that? Besides, with all that stimulus money being borrowed from China, what are we using for equity on that loan, our big cities perhaps, or maybe our countries natural resources that just happen to be located in rural areas? Or are we supposed to believe that Communist China is loaning us those trillions of dollars out of the goodness of their hearts? For all practical purposes this disparity might be considered as making us two distinct countries under the same flag!
There are always people who generally figure that their knowledge and ideas are superior to all others, and who like nothing better than to tell everyone else what to do. Government seems to be the natural home of these control freaks, where they can happily become mini-tyrants. On a small scale they can generally be ignored, but when they become “the government” with the power to enforce their radical ideas, they quickly disturb the peace of mind of everyone around! When the citizenry isn’t in agreement with the government, the army is always available to enforced obedience. Remember that our revolution was decided by force of arms, as was our civil war. All of our early day incipient rebellions fizzled out when faced by the US Army. The same situation exists today, considering that a mob of aroused citizens armed with hunting rifles isn’t going to last long when faced with an organized and disciplined army equipped with tanks, machine guns, and attack helicopters!
Secession? I think I’ll keep calling for a voter’s rebellion instead…
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
RS 2477
Albert Einstein is often credited with saying “Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.” Old Al was a pretty smart guy I think, and the US Government seems determined to prove him right once again. More specifically, the feds are once again attempting to take our rights away from us. With Congress doing little more than sitting on their hands, and with the assistance of the “Republic of the 9th Circuit Court”, the bureaucrats are following an agenda that could well have been written by extremists from the Sierra Club. And from all appearances they will very likely succeed. More specifically, we face the imminent loss of our RS 2477 roads to bureaucratic decree. Many of us will remember the escapade a few years ago wherein the Idaho County Commissioners “wasted” our tax money in having all known RS 2477 roads in the county tracked down, inventoried, and mapped. At the time I stayed out of the donnybrook, mostly because I had no real idea of what these roads were, or why they are so important. As it turns out, the commissioners were right, while the nay-sayers (along with the fence sitters) were wrong.
In July of 1866, Congress, realizing that transportation was crucial to the development of the western territories, passed a one-line law that granted “the right of way for the construction of highways over public lands, not reserved for public uses.” (A one line law… My, how times have changed!) It granted to counties and states a right-of-way across public lands whenever a highway was built. Remember that nearly everything was public land at those days, and that every farm, ranch, mine, homestead, and burgeoning town needed a road or trail for public access. This statute, commonly called “R.S. 2477,” remained in effect for 110 years, with most of the roads, railroads, and waterways in the West being established under that authority. During that period of our history, national policy promoted the development of public lands into private (productive) hands, with R.S. 2477 rights-of-way being a key part of that policy. Unlike any other federal land statute, the establishment of R.S. 2477 rights of way demanded no formalities: no entry, no application, no license, no patent, and no deed from the feds; and no formal act of public acceptance on the part of the states or localities involved. The Supreme Court of Utah noted 75 years ago that R.S. 2477 “was a standing offer of a free right of way over the public domain,” and the grant may be accepted “without formal action by public authorities.” It’s also interesting to note that in the common use language of the time, a “highway” was nearly any route by which people, livestock, or materials were moved from point A to point B. They included but were not limited to roads, trails, footpaths, railways, waterways, and even the occasional goat path! If it could be traveled over, it was a legal “highway”, with Revised Statute 2477 granting the status of a permanent right-of-way. Even more crucial, those rights-of-way were held by the individual state and county governments, not by the federal government, and particularly not by any federal land management agency. By Congressional intent, the feds have absolutely no authority over those routes. Nor do they have any responsibility for maintaining them.
In 1976 Congress abandoned its development approach to public lands, and adopted a preference for retaining public lands in federal ownership, with, at the insistence of various environmental groups, an emphasis on conservation and preservation. As part of that statutory change, Congress repealed R.S. 2477. There could be no new R.S. 2477 rights of way after 1976. But as Congress repealed the original act, it specified that any “valid” R.S. 2477 rights of way “existing on the date of approval of this Act” (October 21, 1976) would continue in effect. The difficulty is in understanding what this all means, with the BLM apparently thinking that “if it ain’t paved, it ain’t in use”. In its Report to Congress on R.S. 2477: “The History and Management of R.S. 2477 Rights-of-Way Claims on Federal and Other Lands” (June 1993), the Department of the Interior lamented that R.S. 2477 highways “were constructed without any approval from the federal government and with no documentation of the public land records, so there are few official records documenting the right-of-way or indicating that a highway was constructed on federal land under this authority.”
On January 22 1997, then Sec. of the Interior Bruce Babbitt wrote a departmental memo "Revoking" the Department's prior policy regarding R.S. 2477 road rights-of-way, which forms the bulk of the rural transportation network in the Western states and is critical to all public lands access, for everything from natural resource production to recreation. The revoked policy was an attempt to reflect long-established law regarding these right-of-ways, which are owned and managed by state and local government entities. Interior Department personnel were instructed to offer no recognition of any R.S. 2477 right-of-way without prior authorization from the Secretary unless the holder gives evidence of a "demonstrated, compelling, and immediate need". Babbitt created a situation where government personnel would in effect say: "You can't exercise your rights unless we acknowledge that it's valid (or for you to go to court to prove it), and we are prohibited from taking action to acknowledge its validity. Therefore, if you exercise your rights, the United States may sue you". Since Congress had prevented issuing any new regulations, Babbit's memo claims that this is not rule making, even if it has the same effect. The memo stated that the Department will determine whether a right-of-way meets certain criteria concerning "withdrawals and reservations", "construction" and "highway". Given the BLM's proven hostility towards public access to federal lands, these terms will not be clearly defined, but applied on a case by case basis. Here we have yet another example of government bureaucracy being totally out of control! After all, Congress writes the law, it’s not the job of a bunch of regulation issuing pencil pushers sitting behind their desks in Washington DC. At the urging of environmental activists, our land management agencies are using regulatory decisions as another way to keep American citizens off our public lands. Why? Well, consider… The United States has more known energy reserves (coal, oil, gas, and Uranium) than almost anywhere else in the world. If however, we don’t utilize those reserves, the environmentalist ideal of “Stop Global Warming” is realized. At the same time, the energy producers of the world can continue to get rich at the expense of the American people. How to do both jobs in one fell swoop… simply lock up the American west in even more wilderness and roadless areas through land management agency regulations, whereby they win their War on the West by default.
Still, no matter what they claim, those rights-of-way do not belong to the feds to close or whatever, they belong to the individual states and counties. The same states and counties who have the legal right, and authority, to tell the feds where they can put their regulations! If it calls for a long and expensive court fight, so be it. All we have to do is explain to our duly elected city, county, state and congressional officials, that if they won’t fight for our rights, we can surely elect people who will!
In July of 1866, Congress, realizing that transportation was crucial to the development of the western territories, passed a one-line law that granted “the right of way for the construction of highways over public lands, not reserved for public uses.” (A one line law… My, how times have changed!) It granted to counties and states a right-of-way across public lands whenever a highway was built. Remember that nearly everything was public land at those days, and that every farm, ranch, mine, homestead, and burgeoning town needed a road or trail for public access. This statute, commonly called “R.S. 2477,” remained in effect for 110 years, with most of the roads, railroads, and waterways in the West being established under that authority. During that period of our history, national policy promoted the development of public lands into private (productive) hands, with R.S. 2477 rights-of-way being a key part of that policy. Unlike any other federal land statute, the establishment of R.S. 2477 rights of way demanded no formalities: no entry, no application, no license, no patent, and no deed from the feds; and no formal act of public acceptance on the part of the states or localities involved. The Supreme Court of Utah noted 75 years ago that R.S. 2477 “was a standing offer of a free right of way over the public domain,” and the grant may be accepted “without formal action by public authorities.” It’s also interesting to note that in the common use language of the time, a “highway” was nearly any route by which people, livestock, or materials were moved from point A to point B. They included but were not limited to roads, trails, footpaths, railways, waterways, and even the occasional goat path! If it could be traveled over, it was a legal “highway”, with Revised Statute 2477 granting the status of a permanent right-of-way. Even more crucial, those rights-of-way were held by the individual state and county governments, not by the federal government, and particularly not by any federal land management agency. By Congressional intent, the feds have absolutely no authority over those routes. Nor do they have any responsibility for maintaining them.
In 1976 Congress abandoned its development approach to public lands, and adopted a preference for retaining public lands in federal ownership, with, at the insistence of various environmental groups, an emphasis on conservation and preservation. As part of that statutory change, Congress repealed R.S. 2477. There could be no new R.S. 2477 rights of way after 1976. But as Congress repealed the original act, it specified that any “valid” R.S. 2477 rights of way “existing on the date of approval of this Act” (October 21, 1976) would continue in effect. The difficulty is in understanding what this all means, with the BLM apparently thinking that “if it ain’t paved, it ain’t in use”. In its Report to Congress on R.S. 2477: “The History and Management of R.S. 2477 Rights-of-Way Claims on Federal and Other Lands” (June 1993), the Department of the Interior lamented that R.S. 2477 highways “were constructed without any approval from the federal government and with no documentation of the public land records, so there are few official records documenting the right-of-way or indicating that a highway was constructed on federal land under this authority.”
On January 22 1997, then Sec. of the Interior Bruce Babbitt wrote a departmental memo "Revoking" the Department's prior policy regarding R.S. 2477 road rights-of-way, which forms the bulk of the rural transportation network in the Western states and is critical to all public lands access, for everything from natural resource production to recreation. The revoked policy was an attempt to reflect long-established law regarding these right-of-ways, which are owned and managed by state and local government entities. Interior Department personnel were instructed to offer no recognition of any R.S. 2477 right-of-way without prior authorization from the Secretary unless the holder gives evidence of a "demonstrated, compelling, and immediate need". Babbitt created a situation where government personnel would in effect say: "You can't exercise your rights unless we acknowledge that it's valid (or for you to go to court to prove it), and we are prohibited from taking action to acknowledge its validity. Therefore, if you exercise your rights, the United States may sue you". Since Congress had prevented issuing any new regulations, Babbit's memo claims that this is not rule making, even if it has the same effect. The memo stated that the Department will determine whether a right-of-way meets certain criteria concerning "withdrawals and reservations", "construction" and "highway". Given the BLM's proven hostility towards public access to federal lands, these terms will not be clearly defined, but applied on a case by case basis. Here we have yet another example of government bureaucracy being totally out of control! After all, Congress writes the law, it’s not the job of a bunch of regulation issuing pencil pushers sitting behind their desks in Washington DC. At the urging of environmental activists, our land management agencies are using regulatory decisions as another way to keep American citizens off our public lands. Why? Well, consider… The United States has more known energy reserves (coal, oil, gas, and Uranium) than almost anywhere else in the world. If however, we don’t utilize those reserves, the environmentalist ideal of “Stop Global Warming” is realized. At the same time, the energy producers of the world can continue to get rich at the expense of the American people. How to do both jobs in one fell swoop… simply lock up the American west in even more wilderness and roadless areas through land management agency regulations, whereby they win their War on the West by default.
Still, no matter what they claim, those rights-of-way do not belong to the feds to close or whatever, they belong to the individual states and counties. The same states and counties who have the legal right, and authority, to tell the feds where they can put their regulations! If it calls for a long and expensive court fight, so be it. All we have to do is explain to our duly elected city, county, state and congressional officials, that if they won’t fight for our rights, we can surely elect people who will!
Sunday, May 3, 2009
TEA Parties
At the moment there are no final numbers available for the April 15th “Tax Day Tea Party”, but the present estimates are that over 650,000 upset American citizens showed up at more than 850 locations to protest a number of government policies. Unlike many of the somewhat “riotous” left wing political protests of past decades, this was a peaceful demonstration of conservative American citizens’ reaction to the loony left’s aggressive and rapidly accelerating efforts to create a radical, socialist country out of the once free United States of America. The Tea party folks did not just demonstrate what they are against, but what they are for as well, minor little things like free enterprise, limited government, accountability, lower taxes, and less spending. Much like the 1773 Boston Tea Party, the 2009 version was in response to the actions of a government that treats American citizens as if they were subjects/slaves to be ordered about, rather than as citizens of a free country with constitutionally guaranteed rights. For the most part the elitist media are trying very hard to ignore this citizen’s protest, which the leftist government promptly labeled as a right wing “extremist” plot, and that has the loony left hysterically up in arms denying that any sane person would oppose their political agenda. That’s nothing unusual I guess, considering all the weeping and wailing (along with the rioting) that happens whenever they don’t get their way. The Tea Party showing was rather impressive, especially since the media virtually ignored the entire movement, no big donor was behind it, and conservative Americans usually have jobs that severely limit their chance to do much more than work and pay taxes. For the most part they also lack the professional “community organizing” experience of the left, experience that began with college students who had nothing better to do than violently protest the Vietnam War. David Axelrod, President Obama’s chief strategist, told CBS’s “Face the Nation” that the Tea Party movement was potentially “unhealthy.” He might be right with that one, as it indicates to me that the “silent majority” just might be getting completely fed up with the leftist demands for a socialist nanny state.
The intensity of the liberal response quite surprised me with its vitriol. It’s common practice on internet news sites to have a space where people can leave comments about whatever story they wish to respond to. I’ll quote a part of one such comment about the TEA parties: “Attention Tea-Baggers, (CENSORED), Red-Neck White Trash, racist pigs, Neo-cons. red-staters, in-bred, Appalacia, Sheet Wearers, War Hawks, Porn-lovin' bible thumpers, and Hillbilliys and Cowboys: I put up with your sorry (CENSORED) for 8 years. You go straight to (CENSORED) or Texas which ever you get to first. Keep your (CENSORED) guns and put those where the some (?) don't shine. You are so disgusting I could and have vomited thinking of you. Take your Confederate States and GET OUT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!! You are morally repugnant. (I'll pause while you look that up). As an aside; I was raised in Applacia - I know what you scum bags are, what you do, and what "feeds you stupidity." Just go NOW.” (As this paper is intended for reading by mixed company, I did censor a few of the more descriptive terms.) If the writer of that particular literary masterpiece is typical of American liberals, I’m going to be really concerned about Mr. Obama’s choice of office holders in his radical leftist government! The “Left”, according to one government report, is much better educated that the “right wing extremists”, more “gainfully” employed, much better paid, and of course totally unlike us “inbred” redneck conservatives. They are I noted, much more likely to be college graduates, and prone to include Doctors, Lawyers, entertainers, Government employees, and with that I presume social workers as well. If the above is an example of what the “educated” American left thinks and says, I’ve got an eight year old granddaughter that does a much better job of writing, if she dosen't know anything about politics!
Every American is, or at least should be, concerned about the harmful effects of big government, big deficits, big bureaucracy, big politicians and big taxes. Left leaning economists admit that spending a few hundred billion dollars hasn’t done any good so far (read that as “failed”), so they consider that as proof that we need to spend a few trillion more dollars that we don’t have! But today’s vocal liberals want to know where the conservative TEA Party protesters were when Mr. Bush was busily running up a trillion dollar deficit, if we’re so concerned about spending deficits. Well boys and girls, for your information we were here, and busily protesting, but we aren’t in the habit of burning down cities, throwing rocks at police officers, or blowing up college campuses when we protest. That of course means that we’re not newsworthy, so nobody hears about it.
Left leaning politicians and pundits are doing their best to discredit the Tea Parties by describing them as a partisan Republican movement, and as a revolt of greedy rich people who don’t want to pay more income tax. After all, we did get a tax cut they parrot… which only means that I get to keep a couple of extra dollars of my own money each week. What the media missed is the fact that state and local taxes are spiraling out of sight for everyone. Add higher gasoline taxes, corporate taxes, “sin” taxes, death taxes, Social Security and Medicare taxes, along with the threat of an energy tax. All of these are convincing people that the overall tax burden is still getting bigger despite Mr. Obama's "tax cut".
Tea Party participants are not just angry about higher federal income taxes, but are alarmed at the growing burden of government on all Americans. Keep in mind that California tried the Obama soak-the-productive "stimulus" plan years ago. In just a few years Democrats had turned California into a state (it's now known as a "job-free zone" I understand), with a $41 billion deficit, a credit rating that has reached junk-bond status, and a middle class that is now living in Arizona. Democrats governed California the way Democrats always govern, they bought votes with taxpayer-funded jobs, salaries, and welfare benefits, and then accused productive people of "greed" for not wanting to have their taxes raised yet again. California was a laboratory for Democratic fiscal policies… the rabbit died, so now they want to try it on the entire nation!
So let me see if I understand the “change” we’ve been promised, and apparently are about to get. Spending trillions of dollars we don’t have on social engineering experiments is good for the country. Check. Taxpayers supporting a few million illegal aliens is good for the country. Check. ACORN subverting our election system is good for the country. Check. Cutting national defense yet again is good for the country. Check. Liberal activists disrupting Congress and vandalizing Marine Corp recruiting stations is good for the country. Check. Conservative citizens defending the Constitution and protesting runaway government spending is unhealthy. Humm….
The intensity of the liberal response quite surprised me with its vitriol. It’s common practice on internet news sites to have a space where people can leave comments about whatever story they wish to respond to. I’ll quote a part of one such comment about the TEA parties: “Attention Tea-Baggers, (CENSORED), Red-Neck White Trash, racist pigs, Neo-cons. red-staters, in-bred, Appalacia, Sheet Wearers, War Hawks, Porn-lovin' bible thumpers, and Hillbilliys and Cowboys: I put up with your sorry (CENSORED) for 8 years. You go straight to (CENSORED) or Texas which ever you get to first. Keep your (CENSORED) guns and put those where the some (?) don't shine. You are so disgusting I could and have vomited thinking of you. Take your Confederate States and GET OUT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!! You are morally repugnant. (I'll pause while you look that up). As an aside; I was raised in Applacia - I know what you scum bags are, what you do, and what "feeds you stupidity." Just go NOW.” (As this paper is intended for reading by mixed company, I did censor a few of the more descriptive terms.) If the writer of that particular literary masterpiece is typical of American liberals, I’m going to be really concerned about Mr. Obama’s choice of office holders in his radical leftist government! The “Left”, according to one government report, is much better educated that the “right wing extremists”, more “gainfully” employed, much better paid, and of course totally unlike us “inbred” redneck conservatives. They are I noted, much more likely to be college graduates, and prone to include Doctors, Lawyers, entertainers, Government employees, and with that I presume social workers as well. If the above is an example of what the “educated” American left thinks and says, I’ve got an eight year old granddaughter that does a much better job of writing, if she dosen't know anything about politics!
Every American is, or at least should be, concerned about the harmful effects of big government, big deficits, big bureaucracy, big politicians and big taxes. Left leaning economists admit that spending a few hundred billion dollars hasn’t done any good so far (read that as “failed”), so they consider that as proof that we need to spend a few trillion more dollars that we don’t have! But today’s vocal liberals want to know where the conservative TEA Party protesters were when Mr. Bush was busily running up a trillion dollar deficit, if we’re so concerned about spending deficits. Well boys and girls, for your information we were here, and busily protesting, but we aren’t in the habit of burning down cities, throwing rocks at police officers, or blowing up college campuses when we protest. That of course means that we’re not newsworthy, so nobody hears about it.
Left leaning politicians and pundits are doing their best to discredit the Tea Parties by describing them as a partisan Republican movement, and as a revolt of greedy rich people who don’t want to pay more income tax. After all, we did get a tax cut they parrot… which only means that I get to keep a couple of extra dollars of my own money each week. What the media missed is the fact that state and local taxes are spiraling out of sight for everyone. Add higher gasoline taxes, corporate taxes, “sin” taxes, death taxes, Social Security and Medicare taxes, along with the threat of an energy tax. All of these are convincing people that the overall tax burden is still getting bigger despite Mr. Obama's "tax cut".
Tea Party participants are not just angry about higher federal income taxes, but are alarmed at the growing burden of government on all Americans. Keep in mind that California tried the Obama soak-the-productive "stimulus" plan years ago. In just a few years Democrats had turned California into a state (it's now known as a "job-free zone" I understand), with a $41 billion deficit, a credit rating that has reached junk-bond status, and a middle class that is now living in Arizona. Democrats governed California the way Democrats always govern, they bought votes with taxpayer-funded jobs, salaries, and welfare benefits, and then accused productive people of "greed" for not wanting to have their taxes raised yet again. California was a laboratory for Democratic fiscal policies… the rabbit died, so now they want to try it on the entire nation!
So let me see if I understand the “change” we’ve been promised, and apparently are about to get. Spending trillions of dollars we don’t have on social engineering experiments is good for the country. Check. Taxpayers supporting a few million illegal aliens is good for the country. Check. ACORN subverting our election system is good for the country. Check. Cutting national defense yet again is good for the country. Check. Liberal activists disrupting Congress and vandalizing Marine Corp recruiting stations is good for the country. Check. Conservative citizens defending the Constitution and protesting runaway government spending is unhealthy. Humm….
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)