The Future of the Republican Party

The Republican party is currently in a great deal of disarray. After getting trounced on the national stage for the second consecutive election, they have lost the legislative and executive branches and most of their say in the Federal Government. Politicians and pundits are going to great lengths to distance themselves from the failings of the party, with some leaving completely. Blame is being thrown in every direction as quickly as they can find a camera or a willing audience. Some are blaming the "moderates" in the party and calling them RINOs (Republicans in name only) and demanding that they be kicked out of the party. Others are blaming the "far right" - the neo and theocons - for making the party too hard lined and forcing out moderates. Most of the party is also blaming the libertarians and paleoconservatives for not holding their noses and voting to stop "socialism". If it wasn't for them not voting for the "lesser of two evils", then the Republicans may still be in power and road to authoritarianism may have been a little more scenic.

Amidst all of this chaos, the Republicans are trying to "re-brand" their party to become viable on the national stage again. They now stand at a fork in the road: go with the Cheney, Palin, Jindal wing of the party or turn back to the more traditional small-government Republican ideals of Barry Goldwater, Robert Taft, and Ron Paul. For all the talk about how moving to the center harmed them, they never moved away from the social authoritarianism and international nanny-statism that got them in this position in the first place. There was never a true belief in capitalism or personal responsibility in the current crop of Republicans, whether they were called RINOs or not. George W Bush, who is still defended by many Republicans, even said “I’ve abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system” in explaining his rational for more big government. The same people that are blaming John McCain for their loss hailed Joe Lieberman simply because he supported the War with enthusiasm. If these people are allowed to dictate the path of the "new" Republican party, then they will continue to lose elections, as it is the same old garbage in a new package.

What Republicans need to do is turn back into the truly small government party. They need to go back the the humble foreign policy and the smaller, decentralized government they used to represent. Most Americans want the government out of every aspect their lives. That includes both financial and social decisions. They definitely do not want a party that only gives them the stick and never the carrot. Republicans also need to return to truly believing in the free market and getting away from the same Keynesian economics that the Democrats espouse. The Democrats will always sell this better as it looks like Republicans only wield government to help "big business". If they are going to govern like the Democrats, with the exception of social issues, then they are going to continue to lose. The combination of the social issues and the Democrats ability to pretend to support the "little guy" will make them win every time. If the Republicans honestly want to be the party of personal responsibility, they have to work to get the government out of peoples' lives in every facet; not just in the areas they personally agree with. If they do not make this change, they are going to go the way of the Whigs. However, if (when) that happens it may make room for another party that actually believes in small government.

Update: HR 1207 - 143 co-sponsors!

HR 1207 continues to gain steam in the House of Representatives and has now collected 143 co-sponsors. You can see the full list here and if your Representative is not on that list please contact them via phone or email. You can go to http://www.house.gov/ to find out who your representative is and how to contact them. This bill is getting bipartisan support as it is now, more then ever, the time to reign in the Federal Reserve. With all of the bailouts and stimulus programs it is vital that the American People can see where their money is going. On top of that, Obama now wants the Fed to be a regulatory "supercop" (story here) which would give it even more power. If we ever hope to take back our nation, we have to start with the money.

Books: Who Killed the Constitution?

The Constitution is dead. That blunt but unavoidable truth should be clear by now. The examples from the past century of American constitutional history cited in this book reveal how the federal government's actions often bear no resemblance to what the Constitution's ratifiers intended, and in fact run directly counter to the plain text of the Constitution.
~Page 199

"Who Killed the Constitution?", written by Thomas E. Woods, Jr. and Kevin R. C. Gutzman, attempts to chronicle the slow death of the Constitution of the United States of America. It focuses on twelve especially grievous examples of the Government usurping power from the time around World War I up to the Presidency of George W. Bush. These twelve examples touch all aspects of America's eroding liberties from state sovereignty to personal and financial freedoms. Through them, the authors of this book have been able to create a definitive proof that the Constitution has been overrun by the politicians and judges sworn to uphold it. They also show that this destruction did not happen overnight. It was government building on itself, over time, that allowed this to happen.

The assaults on the Constitution are not the work of one branch of government, or of one party, and they did not and could not emerge overnight.
~Page 2

The authors of this book smartly chose to avoid laying the blame at the feet of one party over the other. In fact, the book starts with the abuses of Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, and ends with George W. Bush, a Republican. The book points out that those blinded by partisanship often see wrong doing in those on the "other side of the aisle", but fail to see any when it is their "team". They also do a great job pointing out that it is not just the fault of "activist judges" or any other single branch of the government. All three branches have failed to act as the "checks and balances" to each other as they are Constitutionally obligated. Instead, they have conceded powers to one another, such as giving the President almost unlimited war powers. They have then turned to the states and to the people to find new powers to obtain. This fact crosses both partisan ideologies and, as this book has show, no matter how much lip service to the Constitution or outrage shown over the other party flaunting it, few politicians from either side will actually work to restore it.

[I]f we are truly to confront a government that has destroyed our allegedly hallowed Constitution, we must not shy away from calling attention to abuses, regardless of whom it offends.
~Pages 3-4

One of the strongest aspects of this book is that it does not shy away from controversy in making its case of Constitutional abuse. Instead of only cherry-picking examples that are both unconstitutional and are glaringly harmful to the citizens, the authors have also chosen some examples that seem like the government was doing the right thing. One such example is the matter in which schools were integrated. Almost everyone can agree that segregation was a horrible thing, but that does not necessarily mean that the Federal Government had carte blanche to end it. Some of the action that the government took to stop segregation, and discrimination in general, were unconstitutional, and in fact, discriminatory. By calling out this and other "taboo" examples, the authors are able to build a much stronger case about the government leaving its Constitutional bounds. It would have been very easy to use only government actions that they disagree with on a personal level, but that would have been little more then partisan whining.

In plain English, Madison was saying that Congress had only a few powers... The power to build roads, bridges, and canals was not among them.
~Page 75

The book also casts a harsh light onto things that the American people take for granted as government responsibilities and powers. There are many things that the American people no longer bother questioning whether they are even Constitutional. It is assumed that the government handles roads and has the power to make fiat money. This was not always the case and the government had to absorb those powers in steps. There has been a change in the American way of thinking that instead of the government having to prove that its actions are Constitutional, they are now assumed to be. This way of thinking has permeated all the way up to the Supreme Court. It has become so accepted that the government should have a role in every aspect of American life, that it has become almost impossible to "prove" that the government has assumed a power that does not belong to it.

By calling attention to what the Constitution really says, we can alert the people to just how consistently and dramatically their fundamental law has been betrayed.
~Page 202

This book succeeds at its goals admirably. It lays out a clear case that the government has destroyed the Constitution, and has been doing so for almost a century. By not laying the blame solely at the feet of either party or branch of the government, they show that they are not simple partisan hacks. By pointing out that what is "right" is not always Constitutional, they show that the concessions that Americans are often so willing to make are not acceptable if we are to reign in our government. Finally, by questioning government institutions and privileges that are taken for granted, they show that it is up to us to cast a stern eye on our government, no matter how "accepted" their actions are. We did not end up here nor will we leave here overnight. If we are ever to limit our government again, it is up to us no matter how hard it may be.

The Birth of a Nation

The inevitable has finally happened. The last tenuous grip that state and local governments had to any semblance of freedom or sovereignty has been destroyed. Federal "aid" has finally become the top form of state income, replacing everything else(story here). Various governmental abuses in the last century had already eradicated most states' rights anyway, but final control over funding is the final nail. As many of corporations in America have learned, there is no such thing as "free" government money. You tow the line or you lose the funds. Now that this money is vital to the operations of the states, losing it is no longer an acceptable proposition. The states will be forced (even more then they were) to bow before the Federal Government's demands if they want to stay afloat.

Admittedly, the freedom of the state and local governments was already near death before they lost complete control of their finances. At every turn possible, the Federal Government has consolidated as much power as it could at the cost of the states. In spite of the 10th Amendment which says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people", the Federal Government has been able to remove anything holding it back and absorb many powers that were not supposed to be in its hands. Everything from education to abortion to drug policy has been taken from the states and given to the central authority.

The Supreme Court and federal funding have been the two most powerful forces in this theft. The Commerce Clause has been repeatedly expanded and abused to fit the whims of the leadership in Washington. As recently as 2005, in Gonzales v. Raich, the Supreme Court showed that it was still willing to preform legal back flips to excuse unconstitutional actions. When that does not work, there are still a whole host of other hollow excuses. They offer reasoning that usually "evolves" and expands the Constitution such as the "necessary and proper" clause to uses of treaty power (State of Missouri v. Holland). Even when they are unable justify a specific encroachment, there is always funding. The Federal Government has already wielded this club to great effect in the past on education, speed limits, minimum drinking ages, and other areas that it feels a need to control. Now that the states are totally dependent on them, there is little doubt that they will swing more frequently and with greater force.

With this final gasp of air, the United States of America is no more. We are no longer a federation of sovereign states. We should more aptly be named the Nation of America as that is what we have become. The leviathan has consumed all of the smaller creatures and is now all that remains. The term "Federal Government" is now truly a misnomer as it is no longer bound in any way to the states. We have a supremely strong central or national government that will no longer play even a hint of lip service to it Constitutional bounds. This power will never be returned to the states or the people by the National Government's free will. It is lost to us forever.

Golden Age Syndrome

Golden Age Syndrome is a horrible affliction that can affect millions of Americans. It is the belief that at some point in the past everything was much better and our current problems are caused by getting away from that ideal time and way of life. It's mostly seen in Republicans and social conservatives, but people of all political stripes (even Democrats and rarely Libertarians) can catch it. The symptoms include strong belief in mythologies that never happened, fervent denial of reality, defense of the imaginary, and in the final stages, a refusal to move forward. These symptoms can cause otherwise rational people to ignore any problems that existed within their ideal time, no matter how glaring they are. People from that time take on super human qualities and no contemporaries can hope to stack up. They then become so enamored that any solution to a problem that does not automatically recreate their ideal is ignored.

There are many variances of this disease, with the most common being caused by the "moral decay" strand. This is most usually seen in Social Conservatives and is typified by the belief that America's failing morals are causing all of the country's woes. They often point to some ill-defined time in the nation's past where everyone went to church and no one ever even considered doing anything wrong. This argument is usually coupled with the claim that the nation has turned away from God. Never mind that this time in America's history never existed. Many of the founders were deists, and prior to that if you believed in God (the same one) the wrong way you were burned at the stake. In fact, at the founding of the nation there were no drug laws and prostitution was perfectly legal. There was also slavery, war, disenfranchisement, rum running, riots, and any number of other things that are generally considered to be negatives that are conveniently ignored. The simple fact is that this magically wholesome time never actually existed.

The second most common variant is "hero worship" and is can contracted simultaneously with "moral decay", but that is not always the case. Reagan, FDR, and Kennedy are often the focus of this sickness. They are placed on a pedestal as some mythical creatures that in single strokes did inhumanly amazing things. Reality cannot get in the way of that vision, and the faults and wrongdoings of these men (and women) are simply misunderstood or excused because of all the amazing things that they did. When the hero was around everything in America was better because of them. Libertarians are most susceptible to the "founding" subspecies of this variant. We can start to believe that there was a time when the Constitution was followed to the letter and the founders were all honorable and brilliant men. While they may have been for the most part, they were not without (many) faults of their own. In fact, the ink on the Constitution hadn't finished drying before Hamilton and Washington began circumventing it. Hero Worship can be the deadliest of the Golden Age Syndromes because it is the one that most often leads to paralysis. Unless someone is a perfect replica of the hero, they will not get any support in what ever they do, no matter how much the afflicted agrees with them.

There are many other variants still like "unbiased press." Though they all may be different, the symptoms are usually the same. The only known cures is healthy skepticism, research, and caring friends. You should not be ashamed of this disease, and seek help if you think that you may be suffering from it. If you think that a friend may be suffering, it is your responsibility to help them, no matter how much they resist. Through hard work and caring, it may be possible to eradicate this disease from the country. Always remember, if something seems too good to be true, it probably is.

The Myth of the Unbiased Press

There is an idea in modern America that the press is supposed to be unbiased and only report the straight facts. Republicans complain about organizations like MSNBC and the New York Times, while Democrats do the same with Fox News and AM radio. Both sides act as if the press was once a shining beacon of impartiality, which has only recently become "corrupted" by bias. This notion is simply untrue. Human beings are completely incapable of being totally objective, and always have been. We tend to tell our version of the story first and foremost, and tend to give more credence to the side that we agree with.

Even at the founding of the United States, the press was extremely partisan. Most, if not all, of the early publicans were either Federalist or Republican. The Federalist Papers were initially published through several newspapers sympathetic to their viewpoints. Early politicians often used various partisan newspapers to disparage and mock their rivals. Phrases like "frog-eating, man-eating, blooddrinking cannibals" were regularly used to describe the opposition party and its leaders. When scandals, such as the one involving Alexander Hamilton's mistress, came to light it sent both sides of the press into a frenzy. The Federalist newspapers did everything they could to minimize and distract from the scandal, while the Republican ones devoted most of their resources to exposing it and find more "dirt." Scandals involving Republicans produced predictably similar results.

If anything, the news media has become less partisan to cater to a very fickle subscriber base that only wants to hear sensationalist stories and things they agree with. Even though each member of the press has their own slant on a story, it runs a distant second to ratings and readership. That means if a sensationalist story breaks about "their guy" they are still going to pull out all of the stops to report on it. It also means that if the American people are largely in favor of something then the press will likely be as well. Nothing evidenced this more then the run up to the Iraq War. There was very little question of its wisdom in the press, even "liberal" standard bearers like the New York Times. It wasn't until popular opinion began to shift about the war that the press followed. At the end of the day, ratings matter more then anything, even to the members of the press with the largest ideological axes to grind.

It falls to the American people to decide for themselves, what they want to read, hear, and see from the news media. If a certain viewpoint that enough people want to hear is woefully under represented then the market will see that and someone will fill the void. We do not need government oversight in the form of a "Fairness Doctrine" or agency to make sure that every thing is "fair and balanced". Who would decide what is fair anyway? People regularly find reporting that they agree with to be unbiased, and everyone else to be slanted or not telling the whole story. The market can do a fine job of proving media for people of all viewpoints if it is allowed to. In fact, Fox News is the highest rated cable news network, and it caters to the segment of America that is the most vehement about the "Main Stream Media" being biased and not representing them. Remember, the Constitution promises us a free press; not an objective one.

The FCC ...Yeah You Know Me

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
1st Amendment: United States Constitution

The Supreme Court has once again decided to allow the FCC to run rampant over the rights of American broadcasters. It is now perfectly acceptable for them to fine a broadcast company up to $325,000 for any content they find objectionable, even on live programming. The court used one of the favorite arguments of statists everywhere: "It's for the children." Without the protection of the government, how can the American people be protected from the filth in the would? The airwaves would be filled with such horrors as to melt away the viewers' faces. One person arguing for the government claimed that without giving the FCC broad censorship powers "Big Bird would be dropping F-bombs." Justice Antonin Scalia and his colleagues claimed that children imitate what they hear, and since television is so pervasive, it is imperative that we protect them from any indecency on it.

Never mind what the children are exposed to everyday outside of the television. Is the government going to fine parents, the children themselves, or anyone that happens to swear in a public place? Even if we ignore the realities of ever leaving your house, the government is failing to make a logical or accurate argument. The FCC and the Supreme Court claim broadcast companies may be subjected to extraordinary regulation because of the "scarcity" of broadcast signals and the "unique" pervasiveness and accessibility to children. Justice Clarence Thomas, in a concurring opinion, even noted that this reasoning was on increasingly shaky ground. The simple truth is that, even though there was a point in the nation's history when television and radio did have these unique qualities, advancements in technology have rendered those points moot.

It is also very telling that the Supreme Court chose not the address the First Amendment concerns in their ruling. Justice Thomas also pointed out that :

The text of the First Amendment makes no distinctions among print, broadcast, and cable media, but we have done so.

Even members of the Supreme Court, the protectors of the Constitution, know that the FCC is violating the First Amendment, but continue to allow them to do so anyway. Censorship is censorship, no matter the reasons. Instead of dealing with the real issue at hand, the court decided to punt back to a lower court to decide if the FCC's actions are Constitutional. They were able to do this because the previous ruling against the FCC was on procedural, and not Constitutional, grounds. If the lower court finds against the FCC on Constitutional grounds, it is very likely this case will come before the Supreme Court again. If that happens they will be forced to do the right thing or show themselves as nothing more then statists in robes.

We the people need to start taking more responsibility and regulate what our families watch ourselves. If you do not support something that is on the television or the radio, change the channel or turn it off, it's that simple. There are even technologies in every modern television that can block questionable content automatically. If we are not able to do this simple thing, how can we do anything without the government holding our hands? This is especially important as the government turns its eyes toward the internet. We must stand strong against them, and not beg them to do our jobs for us. No regulation, no matter how innocuous, must be allowed to pass. Once the government has its claws into something, there is no getting them out.

Irony and Fraud

Recently in England, there was some uproar as evidence that a government agency that was supposed to help protect people's privacy was actually in collusion with an internet ad company (read about it here). As it turns out, the agency was supposed to "ensure" the online privacy of the British people, and was likely working with a company to decide how much privacy they should be protecting. This is hardly the only example of such government abuses, and it is in no way limited to the United Kingdom. America has more examples of inappropriate government/corporation collusion then a person can count. Energy, pollution, finances, and almost everything else imaginable have fallen under the watchful eye of the government. We have seen the results, and they are not good. At best, it makes noise about protecting something or someone while doing nothing more then increasing red tape and prices for the consumers. At worst, it expands government power and influence and leads to wide spread corruption.

In the United States, most of these regulatory powers are unconstitutional and they do not work. The power over industry is what creates lobbyists and the "culture of corruption" that both parties are such fans of. If the government did not have any of these extraordinary powers, then there would be no work for the lobbyists. Not only are these powers unconstitutional, but they are also usually used to create regulations that are reactionary. The regulations are spawned because of some perceived problem or complaint from the "concerned" populous. These regulations stifle competition by ensuring that no small or start-up companies can afford to enter the market. Larger corporations, that were able to operate without these restrictions, are easily able to absorb the costs or the fines created by them. There are even lobbyists to twist the regulations to benefit the entrenched companies at the cost of newer or smaller ones. If nothing else works companies have proven that they are not above giving bribes, and politicians are certainly not above taking them. Ultimately, the government is doing nothing more then hurting the consumer by driving down choice and driving up prices.

The only way to combat this kind of governmental scope creep is to start taking responsibility for ourselves. If you want your privacy protected online then take steps to do so. If you don't want a tiered internet system, don't support any ISPs that use it. If you don't want your children to watch filth on the television, then change the channel. Even the "big" issues can be solved this way. If a company has discriminatory hiring practices (the government got rid of that right?), then don't support them by working there or shopping there. The biggest, evilest corporations in the world still need money to exist. With out money or employees, the company will have to change its ways or die. Voting with our actions is infinitely more effective then with our politicians.

Rats Jumping Ship

In a move that shocked no one, Arlen Specter abandoned ship on the G.O.P. Seeing that he had no other choice than jump sides or get unceremoniously trounced in the primaries, Specter did what most politicians are apt to do: he looked out for number one. He made all kinds of claims about the "far right" and various demogauges in the Republican party for his decision to join the Democrats. He gave his best version of the Reagan speech where he did not leave the party, but the party left him. Unlike with Reagan, people are seeing this shill for what he is. He is little more then another opportunist politician that felt a change and the winds and decided to follow suit. His voting record was never particularly principled to begin with, unless you count his constant attempts to make himself for powerful and important.

All that has changed by his actions is that the Democrats now have 60 seats in the senate and are "filibuster" proof. Unfortunately, this means that a lot more of Obama's agenda is going to get forced through the Senate. This has nothing to do with the Republicans and the Democrats actually disagreeing with each other, it's just that they have to spite each other from time to time. With this new super-majority, Obama and the Democrats are going to be able to run rampant over the Constitution and the free markets. Government Motors will soon be a small blip when compared to what is coming now. With no real opposition remaining, every big government, Keynesian pipe dream is now on the table. The saddest thing about this is that it would only be different under McCain because the Democrats would be against this stuff if a Republican proposed it.

One of the reasons that he was being pressured out of the Republican party was his support for the bailouts. It would be wonderful if that meant that the Republicans were finally moving to an honestly fiscal conservative platform. It would do the party, and the country, a great service if there was a truly libertarian voice to stand against the statism that is currently running rampant. One of the best ways for the Republicans to recapture America is to remove the neo and theo cons and the squishy center. Sadly, this is unlikely to happen. The Republicans have made many small government promises in the past, which they quickly forget once they regain power. It also wasn't too long ago that they were largely in favor of the TARP programs when Bush was proposing them. Let's also not forget a very (neo)liberal senator that recently left the Democrats and was welcomed by the Republicans with open arms simply because he supported military adventurism. It is hard to believe that the Republicans have actually changed when this guy was almost their Vice Presidential candidate:

The Red Threat

There has been an increasingly loud cry from some conservative and Republican circles that Barack Obama is leading this country down the path of socialism. There is weeping and gnashing of teeth from them and they are yelling from the roof tops that the end of days (for the American way of life) is at hand. They look at the "radical" bailouts, budgets, and government programs as proof that Obama will be the ruin of this nation. Unfortunately for them (and the people that pin their hopes on Obama to save us), what Obama is doing is nothing new - and it certainly is not socialism. What it is are the same tricks and "solutions" the government has been using for years, and a political/economic theory that has far worse connotations.

Every President since at least Wilson has been using the same techniques that Obama is now using. Presidents like FDR reveled in the thought that the government could be used as a personal savior to each and every citizen. Even Republican superheros like Reagan, massively increased the size of the government and its expenditures. One would be quite hard pressed to find any differences between the last President and this one. What people fail to realize is that a change in velocity is not a change in direction. In fact, Obama's massive increase in spending and government intervention isn't particularly out of the ordinary either. For the most part, the government has increased dramatically from one administration to another. People are just beginning to notice because 2 may not be that much bigger then 1, but 1,000,000 is much larger then 500,000.

Through all this, the United States is still not marching on an inevitable path towards socialism. The state has no intentions (or desire) of seizing the means of production and distributing the profit. What we are actually moving towards is an increasingly corporatist system. In this system, the government and private enterprises are working together at the expense of the American people. One doesn't have to look further then the TARP programs to see these ideals in action. The banks still keep their profits, but the debt is publicized so that they don't have to face any of the consequences of their actions. Farm subsidies, auto "loans", and many other government expenditures are also examples of this. The entire Federal Reserve system is based on corporatist ideals as a private institution is working hand-in-hand with the Federal Government. Where this is leading us to has been best described by Mussolini:

“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”.

A Step in the Right Direction

On February 26, Representative Ron Paul (R-TX 14) introduced H.R. 1207, which will create transparency in the Federal Reserve by allowing congress to audit its actions. The bill is currently in the House Committee on Financial Services and has recently acquired 92 cosponsors. (The full bill and its status can be found here.) These cosponsors run the political gambit from far left to far right because people are finally waking up to the fact that the Federal Reserve cannot be allowed to operate freely any longer. Even if they have different reasons, from wanting to allow the free market to work unhindered again to simply being weary of an organization with that much unchecked power, Americans are beginning to call for some reigns on the Fed, if not its dismantling.

If you are an American citizen please contact your Representative (you can find out who they are here) and ensure that they are supporting and will continue to support this bill. If they are not a cosponsor yet, please write them and insist that they become one. There are also petitions and events in support of this bill which can be found at campaignforliberty.com. This is a small but very important step in reclaiming some of our control over the Federal Reserve. If we the people do not step up and demand that our employees (and their agents) be accountable for their actions, then there is little hope for this Republic. It is time that the American people know every cent that the Federal Reserve spends (prints) so that we can stop being run into these crises, which of course gives them more power. We cannot remove the Fed in one blow, but we can finally start to chip at it.

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation then by deflation, the banks and the corporations will grow up around them, will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." ~Thomas Jefferson

The City on the Hill

With the release of the "torture memos", two debates have begun spreading across America. The first is whether the actions by the CIA and other agents acting on behalf of the United States Government should be considered torture. This debate has many legal ramifications and will greatly affect future intelligence gaining operations. It will likely be settled in the judiciary after many long precedings. There are many questions about what constitutes torture and how close we should come to that distinction. Even though this debate has it's share of demagogues and partisan hacks on either side that are more concerned with scoring political points then the truth, it is still a debate that must be had.

Unfortunately, there is another debate that threatens to do even greater harm to what's left of the remnants of America's ideals. The new question that is increasingly being posed is if it is ever alright for the American government to torture. The answer is and should always be emphatically no. It does not matter if these "enemy combatants" are not American citizens or don't fall under the Geneva Conventions. We are America, the shining beacon, the city on the hill, and we should never torture. A human life, no matter how terrible, is still a human life and, at the very least, should be respected. No matter how angry we are for what was done, or how much we hope to prevent by our actions, it is never acceptable to cross that line. We are not our enemies. If we have fallen so far as to question whether we can tolerate torture then it is likely that we have crossed the line past being redeemable.

Furthermore, if supposedly the nation with the best military, technology, and intelligence gathering in the world cannot use the means that it already has (many of them crossing various bounds as well), then how will torturing someone change that? The question is often posed as: "Should the government torture someone if it save 1,000 lives?" Who then should the government have tortured to prevent 9/11 or the first WTC attacks? What do we have left to say that the government cannot do? Another argument is that there are still more memos that prove the effectiveness of these techniques. If any technique is determined to be torture, then that should not even come into play. There is no doubt that when Saddam attacked the Kurds, there were some that had plans against his life. What he did was still wrong. Is that really what we want to become?

Government Marriage

Carrie Prejean (pictured), the runner up of this year's Miss USA pageant, recently became the center of a fire-storm over her comments about gay marriage. "Both" sides of the argument are using her personal opposition to gay marriage as some kind beacon for their own viewpoints. People like Perez Hilton are using every opportunity to attack and disparage her while Fox News and others on the Right are doing everything they can to defend her "honor". This firestorm started simply because someone that most of the country barely even knew made a statement based on what she probably spent her entire life hearing and believing. She is a person that would have already been out of the spotlight (for what it's worth) had she not made those comments.

What supporters of gay marriage don't understand is that by attacking and insulting her, they are just galvanizing the opposition. Insulting a person is definitely not the way to change their mind. She is also well within her rights to make the comments that she did. As wrongheaded as we might think what she said is, its much better to ignore or debate what she said then it is to attack her. There is nothing good that can come from yelling and screaming at someone and trying into browbeat them to your point of view. All it accomplishes is making you and your point of view look dumber and more reactionary then what you are fighting against. One of the great problems with the current American political discourse is that people can no longer discuss ideas without attacking the other side.

Also, why is the government involved in the business of marriage in the first place? As much as people want to pretend it's not, marriage is a largely religious institution and is, in fact, traditionally between a man and a woman. However, like all religious traditions, there are varying degrees that people and churches practice it. If people are so desperate for government involvement and enforcement of relationships, then at most the government should enforce civil union contracts. That way the government is completely separated from any of the religious aspects. There is then no reason for these contracts to be barred from any two consenting adults. If those two people want a marriage, then it is up to them, whoever they are, to find a religious institution that will marry them. It should also be the church's right to deny whoever they want. Part of being free is that there are people that will do things that you don't like.

Liberty or Safety?

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor, November 11, 1755.


If the last eight years and the next four (eight?) will teach the American people anything, it should be that trading any amount of liberty for some security, no matter how much is promised, is a fool's endeavor. Unfortunately, it appears that the majority is still willing to turn over their liberties at an alarming rate any time some crisis occurs. The safety is no longer just protection from various enemies, both real and imagined, but from every negative aspect of human life. We now expect the government to protect us from being poor, to video games, to lifestyles that we disapprove of. Even when it comes to things that the government is supposed to protect us from, we are all to quick to give up our liberty in the name of "efficiency".

This was never more true then in the aftermath of 9/11 (with the possible exception of WWII). From the President to Congress to the people themselves, there was a cry for action. New departments were created and bills were passed that granted sweeping new police powers to various agencies both Federal and local. When questions were raised about the validity of these new powers, they were brushed aside. These new powers are here to help us! The 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th amendments just get in the way anyways. It's not like the government would abuse this power. Besides, we know that the government never abuses any of its powers.

The same can be said about the government "protecting" us from the woes of the economy. As the Federal Reserve and the Treasury print money, buy up "toxic" assets, and insert themselves more into the "free" market, the claim is that they are only protecting us. They are saving our retirements, or making sure that we can still get credit, or any other number of reasons. Never mind that this is coming at the cost of people paying punitive 90% taxes on their bonuses or the President firing CEOs. Those people aren't us and the government would never ever abuse this kind of power.

Every other thing that the government now "protects" us from has the same consequences. We are too lazy to make sure our children aren't watching t.v. or listening to music or playing video games that we find offensive so we turn to various government agencies to do it for us. We forget that when we give them the power to do this, it is them deciding what's indecent. For one administration that may be a curse word, but for another that may involve the Fairness Doctrine. Every time we secede power to the Federal Government, we are putting our fate in their hands. Even things that seem was benign as "Network Neutrality". We have many that want to turn to the government to protect us from the evil ISPs, but we don't see that it's just a door to regulation of the internet. They would never do that though, right?

Printing Money for Fun and Profit

As the Federal Reserve and the Treasury keep printing money and forcing credit rates at artificially low numbers, it is important to consider why this is such a bad thing. As the above video illustrates, it may seem like a great idea at first. Who doesn't want more money? There are two major problems with this line of thought however.

The first, and most obvious, is that the more of something you have, the less it is worth. Imagine if you had an original Mickey Mantle baseball card or the first issue of a Super Man comic. You would be very happy because they would have an incredibly high value. Wouldn't it be great if everyone could also have those things? The problem is that they would then be almost worthless. The same thing happens to the money supply as the Federal Reserve keeps creating more out of thin air!

The other problem is a much more devious one. The government and the businesses that get this money directly from the Federal Reserve never have to see this inflation when they introduce this new money into the market. Just like the boys in the video, they get to spend the money at the current market value. It is not until this new money circulates that the overall value decreases. Since they do not feel any of the pain of their practices, they continue pumping the market with this money, and the rest of the American public are left seeing what they have decrease in value.

If these practices did not hurt the value of a currency, then why is counterfeiting illegal?

America's War on Everything

Nothing feeds the leviathan quite as well as a good crisis, or even better yet a war. This has been true since the founding of the country when Adams used the quasi-war with France as justification for the Alien and Sedition acts. It was FDR that officially drove the point home. He used the Great Depression and World War II to force a litany of unconstitutional and illegal measures down the throats of the American people. From interning American citizens to his wide array of ABC programs, there was little that he felt he could not justify to deal with these crises. From a big government standpoint, the only problem with these crises and wars was that they were finite. Once they ended the American people tended to remember what it was like to not jump at their own shadows and would sometimes question the size that the government has grown to in order to "save" them. It wasn't until LBJ and his "Great Society" that such trivialities no longer became an issue and America began declaring war on things. Things that have always existed, and will always continue to exist, thus creating a perpetual need for "war".

LBJ started this new trend with the War on Poverty. With this, the government was going to swoop in and solve everybody's problems, and it did not matter how long it took or what rights and liberties got trampled along the way. Taxes went up, wealth was "redistributed", and a wide array of programs that the government could never actually pay for were started. States rights were eroded in the name of the Federal Government ensuring that everyone got a fair shake. Never mind that few of these programs actually do anything to help the truly impoverished, or the millions and billions of dollars that disappear into the void of Federal bureaucracy. This is war we are fighting, and it is all for our own good. The only draw back of this war is its lack of a defined enemy for the American people to want to stand against.

The next eternal war was the War on Drugs. Now the government has an enemy for us to focus our attention on: druggies, dealers, and the producers. Through the drug war the government has simultaneously been able to increase the police state and our external war machine. Federal agencies need more and more funding, and are more able to override states rights and wishes because only they can deal with the problem and they know what is best. Minimum sentencing is the new way to deal with all dopers and drug fiends. Countries like Columbia regularly get fire bombed so that we can "wipe out" their production fields. Even now Obama is trying to use the drug war to curtail second amendment rights to protect us from the cartels. Now the problem is that American's aren't universally afraid of drugs. In fact most Americans are on one form of drug or another every single day.

With its newest war, the government has finally been able to produce its perfect fertilizer: the War on Terror. Now the Federal Government had its Emmanuel Goldstein. Terrorists are universally feared and reviled, and the public is willing to give up almost anything to stop them. Any constitutional right may be trampled. Any action by the government is acceptable: warrantless wire traps, torture, military adventurism, and anything else that they can think up. Entire new departments, like the Department of Homeland Security, are created and bills with names like the Patriot Act are passed. Every thing is very patriotic and if you are not behind this massive power grab then you must want America to fail! As long as the trade off is that someone will tuck us in at night and make sure our night-light is on, then the government can do whatever is "needed". Never you mind that the government is already training its eye on domestic groups that it doesn't agree with. This cause is necessary and righteous!

It's doubtful that even with these three "wars" the government will come to wield all of the power that it wants. Finite crises still play a big role (see:financial meltdown) and will still be used to enact more statist laws and ideals. There will also be even more "wars" in the future (War on Piracy?) that will fuel the governments constant expansion. The crises are the acute growth and the wars are chronic. All we the people can do is stay watchful and weary of any new "wars". No matter how much we feel that something should be fixed or removed, we have to remember that it is not always (or nearly ever) the Federal Government's job to wage War against it.

On Tea Parties and Astro-Turfing

Congratulations MSNBC, you got something right, well at least partially. The current "Tea Party" phenomenon does indeed reek of Republican astro-turfing. This is yet another way that the Republican big-wigs are keeping their followers angry at someone else and not them. The party leaders and talking heads of AM radio want to keep their sheep from noticing that the very policies they supported very recently are the ones that they are outraged over now. As long as the focus stays on "them", the Republicans can continue business as usual. Republicans have realized that it is much easier (and more lucrative for them) to talk the talk as opposed to walking the walk.

What the parrots at MSNBC missed though is that there were actual grass roots tea party movements throughout the Bush presidency. The are still many libertarian and small government types that protest government excess and idiocy no matter what the party in power happens to be. They are the people that the Republicans were calling "kooks" while Bush was spending the United States into the poor house. They are the people the Republicans blamed for McCain's loss to Obama (in spite of the fact that if McCain had ALL of the third party/write in votes with his he still would have lost). They are also the people that will continue to stand against our run away government no matter what letter happens to follow the Presidents name.

Happy Tax Day

The IRS Mission
Provide America’s taxpayers top quality service by helping them understand and meet their tax responsibilities and by applying the tax law with integrity and fairness to all.

The above can be found can be found at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040.pdf at the bottom of page 2 (of 161). This is one of the many ways that the IRS is helping us "pay [our] taxes honestly and of [our] own free will". After all getting "voluntarily" fleeced by the government is a "cornerstone principle of our democracy". In fact, it is so important that there are more people devoted to the tax business then there are armed forces currently inside the United States. Think about it, if the government was not able to obtain a constant source of revenue from the American people, the Federal Reserve Printing presses may run out of ink! Or worse yet, it may have to function within its Constitutionally limited bounds! (the horror!)

The helpful preface to the 1040 form goes on to say that:

Unfortunately, there will always be some that cheat their fellow citizens by avoiding the payment of their fair share of taxes. The IRS owes it to the millions of you who promptly pay your taxes in full to pursue these people through strong enforcement programs.

Remember, you can opt out of the system any time, but you'll be hunted like a dog, financially ruined, and thrown into jail. Don't question it, it's for your own good. Your other option of course is to become a prominent member of the Democrat party. Just make sure that you are not nominated for a cabinet position or else the plebs may find out that you are more equal then they are, and you may be expected to volunteer a small token to calm them.

Speaking of tax cheats, how is it that we are to trust Turbo Tax Timmy, a man that owes $34,000 in back taxes, to head our economy. Either he is a fraud, or his claims that he made "simple" mistakes preclude him from the job. If he is unable to keep his own financial affairs in order, how can he possibly be expected to run all of ours? Maybe the tax code is just too difficult... for the man responsible for it.

What Goes Around

A new report was released today from the Department of Homeland Security detailing the rise of "rightwing extremist activity". This new report claims that the current political and economic climate is perfect for these groups to grow. It describes these groups as those that:

can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

Hate groups of all stripes are constantly under government scrutiny, however, as long as they do nothing illegal they are still protected by the constitution to exist. Just as people have the right to disagree with them and oppose them. Their inclusion in lists such as these is nothing new, but there are two new and disturbing things in this report.

The first is the inclusion of groups such as small government libertarians and even groups that support mainstream Republican issues such as being pro-life or anti-illegal immigration. This is akin to the Alien and Sedition acts under the Adams administration. One of the government's (many) law enforcement arms is essentially being used as a political tool to attack and ostracize people that disagree with the administration. By forcing these groups to the fringe, the government is able to minimize the message of said groups without the effort of debating the merits of their arguments. This tactic is both lazy and dangerous. It stifles debate and attempts to ensure that the people do as the government wishes.

The second is the use of the word extremist. As anyone that has been in the United States for the last 8 years knows that when the government uses the word extremist, it is interchangeable with the word terrorist. With Obama's "new" decision to continue the Patriot Act and the warrantless wiretaps, there is now little question that the ever seeing eye of the Federal Government is going to be fully trained on American Citizens in the United States. There will no longer even be the illusion of the "grey area" in which the government is using extra-constitutional powers to protect us from outside forces. As with all government powers, the DHS and the Patriot Act are expanding.

The irony of all of this is of course the reaction of the partisan cheerleaders. The libertarians and certain others have denounced the Patriot Act and the DHS as dangerous and unconstitutional from the outset. Until recently liberals and democrats also denounced this government power-grab, mainly because they did not like the people implementing it. It was the Republicans and the neo-cons that supported this action and constantly said that "if you have nothing to hide then you shouldn't worry!" Now that the letters have changed and especially since some Republican pet issues have come under attack, the tunes have changed drastically. Democrats are now trying to calm the masses with much the same rhetoric that Republicans used several months ago.

The Republicans have done an especially hard 180 after this report came to light. The outrage and indignation have swept across the internet and the radio (and Fox News). They now sound almost like small government libertarians in their preaching about constitutional bounds and over-extensions of power. It is astounding how quickly they changed their song once the letter after the presidents name changed. They had forgotten the first rule of representational government. The excessive and illegal powers that "your guy" grabs may very well be used against you when the next guy is the other team's. Maybe they will take this as a lesson in the future (doubt it...).

Happy Birthday Mr. Jefferson

"The greatest [calamity] which could befall [us would be] submission to a government of unlimited powers." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration and Protest of Virginia, 1825.

Today is Thomas Jefferson's birthday. He was the author of the Declaration of Independence and one of the major voices for republicanism in the United States. Unlike many of his contemporaries, he was not content to merely remove the yolk of British oppression; he also wanted to ensure that the new government never grew to the tyranny of the old one. The main crux of his Democrat-Republican party was that the strength of the government should be largely limited and held by the states. He felt that organizing too much power in the hands of the Federal Government would remove any checks against it and unleash an ever hungry beast that knew no restraints. He believed in the ability of the individual to live their own lives, and that individual should be free from the oppression of a boundless government.

We are now, not 200 years after his death, living with the very reality that he so feared. The Federal government has become the ever growing leviathan. So much so that it has even lost any pretense of being bound by the Constitution. What used to be the shining light of our country and the chains that held the government at bay has become nothing more then an old piece of paper. We are at constant war with various spooks and even parts of the human condition. The Federal Government interferes with people's individual lives on a daily basis. The states are almost powerless and have lost all control over the likes of education and their own commerce. The Federal Reserve inflates and deflates the dollar on a whim. The executive has consolidated powers from the other branches and even invented new ones. The idea of a limited, bound government seems like little more then a fleeting dream.

The American people are not without fault in this mess either. We have become complacent in allowing our employees to run rampant. Jefferson himself said that all tyranny needs is for good people to say and do nothing. We the people have become so afraid and so timid that the question of whether the government should do something is no longer asked. Instead we now wonder how much they should do. We no longer look to ourselves or our communities to fix problems because we have become convinced that the only solutions can come from Washington troughs. We are content to give as much liberty as needed to ensure we are safe from failure, or terrorists, or any other boogeyman that the government may create.

It is time for the American people to stand up to the government and take back our liberty. Until that happens, Happy Birthday Mr. Jefferson - and sorry.

Whats Old is New Again

It's been a few months since the glorious election of Barack Obama, and already we are able to bear witness to the sweeping changes he has made from the failed policies of George W. Bush. Almost immediately after his election he decreed that Guantánamo Bay would be closed! Well, maybe - in a year... if it makes sense. He promised that the troops would come home from Iraq! At least when the time is right anyway, and only the ones that aren't needed for the new base... His ascension even ushered in a new era when the Federal Government would no longer interfere with the rights of the states with regards to their Medical Marijuana laws! Except for when they do... Finally, he is freeing us from the boondoggle that Bush made out of the economy! By doing the exact same thing that got us into this mess...

The reality of the situation is that in spite of the elation of the Democrats (and the weeping and gnashing of teeth from the Republicans) the election of Obama has do little to alter what is fundamentally wrong with this country. At most, he has pushed a little harder on the gas. Every speech, every action is essentially the same as Bush's. In fact, he represents the same government expansion and disregard for the Constitution that has existed for the better part of the last century. Granted, he is a better speaker then Bush was, and he has managed to whip up a populist fervor the way that Bush was never able to (sans briefly after 9/11), but to what goal?

He is granting unimaginable power to the Treasury. He is extending and expanding America's military adventurism. His administration has no intention of ending or even scaling back the Patriot Act. He is intent on maintaining broad executive powers through various orders and signing statements. His only differentiating quality is the grander scope of his actions, but even that is just an extension of the same big government ideals. There truly is nothing new under the sun. As long as our current duopoly stands, there will be very little change - or hope for that matter.