Government

govern-ment, n. [Fr. gouvernement, from gouverner; L. gubernare, to govern.]
1. Direction; control; the exercise of authority; restraint; regulation; the administration of public affairs, according to laws or usages, or, by arbitrary edicts.
2. A system by which a political entity is operated.
3. The process of politically administrating an area.
4. A political body under whose authority governing is undertaken.

Welcome to another installment in my "definitions" series.
This particular one seeks to explore the philosophy of one of the most dominant forces in people's lives and, posibly, point out some important pitfalls in the participation in such an enterprise, as well as important principles for keeping it benign.

Historically, we've never really ever been without government. And, it's not specific to just humans, either. Stallions in wild horse herds practice a monarchial form of government. It dictates that certain mares will come under his control, and all other studs within his sphere of influence will take a hike. And, as is often the case in human experience, his authority can be challenged. If the challenger is successful, there is a new monarch of the herd. Ant colonies, lion prides, wolf packs, and many other species work in recognizable forms of government. The earliest form of government we humans encounter is within the family. Mom and Dad are the titular heads, and, in traditional families, they are the ones who have responsibility for, and give direction to the children. They are whom the children must obey. The function of, and need for family government is of no less importance than rearing successfull adults, thereby assuring survival of the species.

The next iteration of government begins the slippery path. When mankind first determined that many hands make for easy work, organizing people to work together for the common good came about with the best intentions in mind. As soon, however, as one person became designated as leader, and the concept of the stallion's power began to infiltrate the leader's senses, mankind had trouble. The problem is, Nature instilled a particular instinct in people, as well as other species; a very important survival mechinism known as self interest. That's the one that does things like force you to defend yourself when confronted with a threat, or build shelter and gather food for future use. On an individual basis, this instinct is priceless. But, when it is too easily overfed by the accumulated efforts of others, it has a predictable tendency to try to self-perpetuate. And the only way it can do this is to keep amassing the efforts of others. Under question, it will try to justify its self by imposing order on its subjects in the name of protection. (Protection is a false comfort, as, in Nature, every adult member of a species is responsible for their own protection, thereby making a group nearly impregnable.) Its progression past the individual level, left unchecked, inevitably tends toward critical mass and ultimately, destruction. And, since, in the case of government, that mass is the result of the concentration of the resources of many others, the destruction is usually distributed through the same group of contributors. The problem is, in the case of government, that the participation is usually involuntary. I say usually because those who benefit in lesser ways than the leader at the expense of others are always willing participants.

The Founding Fathers, with all of the veiw of recorded history that we enjoy, save a couple of centuries, saw this very corollary demonstrated time and again. And for the benefit of confirmation, we have seen it reoccur again and again in the ensuing period. The point to this last ten thousand years of repeating the same mistake is that every time power became more and more concentrated in an autocratic head of a governmental organization, it became more and more about self preservation of that leader and of his organization, all the while becoming further distanced from, and, disinterested in, the plight of the masses that they excercized sovereignty over. Now, The Founding Fathers, realizing the obvious lesson being reiterated endlessly, decided for that reason, that in a fair government, the only way to keep it in check was to depend on individual self interest and divide the power of government among the people governed. That plan theoretically relies on the sound principle of self interest at it's most reliable and stable level, the individual. But, therein lies a flaw. People. While uncontrolled self interest provides the catalyst for overconcentration of the power of government, and thus the ultimate critical mass resulting in destruction, it's arch-enemy, sloth, also naturally existing in human nature, can often be counted upon on the smaller scale to cancel out the logical decisions of an individual's self interest, thereby causing a rejection of the responsibility for promoting one's self interest by participating in control of government. This sordid process can be easily and reliably begun by autocrats or their minions by simply telling the governed a nice sounding lie. And, it doesn't really matter what, to the willing victim infected with sloth, although tales of misery relief top the list of effective prevarications. Further,it has been realized, artificial dependency upon the largess that the autocrat controls can infect people with sloth, much like the effect of venom disguised as milk from an amicable but malevolent snake.

So, who exactly determines the qualifications of the autocrat? What makes this person the winner of life's sovereignty lottery? Well, for a long time, it was settled the mustang way, namely, whoever chalenged the authority of the last tribe leader and won got to rule. Unfortunately, although effective, this selection process is rather obviously flawed in that the meanest bastard in the tribe wasn't about kindness, charity, and good will toward his subjects, whom he saw as either rivals or livestock provided for his pleasure, to be dealt with accordingly. An evolution to that program was royalty, the idea that if one distributed enough of his accumulated power to friends and relatives, he could count on their help in retaining his sovereignty, which, by the way, often as not, was acquired the old fashioned way. But, being a sycophant or a brother-in-law were not very dependable tests for fair and skilled leaders either, although that pair of qualifications is relied upon heavily today for staffing many government bureaucracies. Granted, there were rare exceptions to the rule, some famous "good kings" came along by chance, and other experiments like elections by bureaucrats were tried, but, generally, most aspiring autocracies tend to follow the same route, recent examples being Hitler, Hussein of Iraq, Khadaffi of Libya, et.al. Despots in particular realized that there was no other organization concieved by man, no army, no corporation, no union, no religion, that was as easily corrupted, taken over, expanded exponentially, and made all powerful and domineering than government. How to avoid predictable results was the question at hand at the Constitutional Convention in September 1787.

One point that begs to be made here is that it was realized that any accumulation of power had to be the result of getting it somewhere from someone else. Personal sovereignty, recognized by the Founding Fathers as "unalienable rights", is "endowed" at birth. That is the spring from which all power originates. This fact is not up to interpretation. We all are born with control over our lives by our own independent thought, and are allowed to excercize it as soon as we are old enough for it to develop reasonably through experience and education. Therefore, submission in any degree by anyone to authority outside their own personal sovereignty requires surrender of part of that sovereignty to someone else, be it an autocracracy, democracy, or any other form of government. The Founding Fathers clearly recognized that all of the government's power came from the people, and their consent to it's sovereignty. Any successful revolution (the American Revolution to cite a stellar example) demonstrated that in crystal clear living color. One month, a foreign autocrat by mere birthright and assertion was the authority of the land. The next month, the entire idea of the King's authority and it's basis was refused and pitched into the Atlantic Ocean. Apparently, his sovereignty over the Americans was not "endowed by his Creator". More important, however, is the concept that any governing body that concentrates power by either consent, or by force of rule, robs the original owner (that would be YOU) of the freedom to use it to better his own lot.

Without beating the details to death here, (they all can be easily researched) the major topic at the Convention was divided into two sub topics; how to get leaders based on merit, not conquest or birthright, and, how to control government rather than let it be controlling. Election by the original sovereigns (the People) from whom the power of the leaders ultimately comes, allowing them to serve by merit, seemed the best way to do the picking. The Bill of Rights, the creation of a bicameral legislative body representing the governed, and separation of the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches seemed to spread out the powers necessarily given the government enough to control it. The Founding Fathers, through personal experience, sound deliberation, and sheer determination gave us cutting edge technology to manage the previously unmanageable. From there, the keys had to be handed over to the public. The only thing left uncontrolled because it is ultimately uncontrollable is the responsibility of The People, each and every one, to make responsible decisions and efforts to do their duty, to their country and to themselves, by voting for the best people to safeguard their individual rights and interests, rather than to acquire and concentrate power. And, to learn how to recognize a lying snake.

Envy

envy, noun; [From Latin invidia, meaning ill will, hatred.]
1. Ill repute. [Obsolete.]
2. Competition, rivalry. [Obsolete.]
3. Malice. [Obsolete.]
4. Discontent, or uneasiness at the observation of another's success or superiority, accompanied with some amount of disgust or hatred, and usually with an inclination or effort to malign the subject of the envy.
5. The object of envy, for example, she is the envy of all of her acquaintances.
envy, verb transitive;
1. To look upon with envy, to feel envy toward, to hate or feel disgust for someone for superiority or excellence in any way, and to covet that person's accomplishments, i.e. to envy a wealthy person.
2. To look at the advantages possessed by someone grudgingly; to covet those advantages.
3. To hate; to oppose. [Obsolete.]
4. To harm or injure. [Obsolete.]

Amazing, isn't it, that a four letter word that enjoys such common and seemingly benign usage in this day and age can carry so much baggage? Heck, the really creepy old meanings are "obsolete", right? Once again, all is not as it seems. The nasty old connotations are regaining strength like the broadening reoccurrence of tuberculosis. "How can this be," you ask? "What's driving this?" You'd be surprised. It's at the hands of another simple little word. Class. "Class?" Yup. Class. Not class like theives, con artists, or many congressmen lack, not class like where students torment overpaid babysitters, but, class as in upper, middle, and lower social class.

Economicaly based social classes were the bane of Europe and other regions for centuries, stagnating personal initiative and societal progress, and, are still alive and well in many contemporary cultures for the purpose of denying personal soverignty to allow political control. Simply put, if you can be confined to a low class, for example, you cannot amass the necessary assets to challenge the power of the ruling class. See how that works? One way. Historically, and, in many places today, it has been put forth as nothing more than slavery, often enforced by government forces of one type or another who have a vested interest. In the United States, it is proffered in a subtle manner. To create a more controllable population by expanding the lower class, wealth redistribution through taxes is predominantly employed. Politicians take from whoever has any wealth and give to anyone that doesn't, all the while hinting that this will continue as long as the beneficiaries make no effort to become like those who have amassed the wealth. Presto! Political control of individuals accomplished by people voluntarily giving up initiative under the pretense that thievery is okay as long as the government is doing it on their behalf. A nice, comfortable pretense that steals freedom. If you choose to participate in the looting, your freedom to rise above the trappings of the downtrodden is bargained away for a self-serving politician's promises, and, your right to live with a clear concience is a casualty. If you're the intended victim, those who have anything of value, your freedom to persue happiness through personal ownership and your ability to, by virtue of that ownership, enjoy the fruits of your or your family's labors is just as infringed as if you were the victim of armed robbery.

The two words together, class envy, constitute the tool to accomplish this violation of liberty for the statists' benefit. Avarice is a basic element of human emotion, and under the proper circumstances, it can be responsible for the motivation to succeed. But, corrupted for the statist's uses, it is employed to assist in the demonization of success, and, those who achieve it. Never mind that the premise is false and destructive, avarice is known by politicians and others to be a very powerful force in whatever direction they can cleverly guide it. And envy is the perfect tool for that force to act upon.

Once again, as with racism, people find themselves relieved of the responsibility to think clearly for the benefit their own best interests to be effortlessly guided by emotion down a slippery sewer pipe to tyranny. Don't believe it? Listen to Democrat congressmembers, and, even the President, rail against tax cuts for rich people, like a bunch of self-rightous Robin Hoods, even though those "rich people" are the economic driving force of the country. And, in the process, the term "rich" has been defined down to mean many middle class people, such as maybe a neighbor of yours who may own four or five rental houses that supplement his retirement. Funny, he didn't seem evil, did he? But, the statists have spent seemingly forever getting "rich = bad" ingrained into the societal psyche, making it easy to manipulate people's emotions against the affluent. Yet, all that has been accomplished is the driving of people into poverty and keeping them there, where they're easy to control.

I refuse to allow anyone to control my thoughts or actions through manipulation of my emotions, therefore, I remain free to aspire to success, and, inclined to accomplish it, to the benefit of all who are willing to participate in my endeavours. I remain free of my own account to enjoy liberty, and to enshrine it and to try to perpetuate it on behalf of those who don't realize it's importance in their lives, or, those who do but don't have it. And, if in the process, I manage to become successfull enough to become the object if class envy myself, I will not pity anyone who chooses to imprison themselves by participating in that nasty business.

I do not condone or defend the actions of people who seek to become rich unscrupulously, or those who have become rich and act unscrupulously. But, being rich, and, being unscrupulous are two unrelated conditions, as there are many, many poor people who are also unscrupulous, as well as rich people who do very good things and donate to many worthy causes. Bad behavior is not proportional to wealth, wealth is not an automatic reason to demonize someone.

So, before one goes to crusade to steal a percentage of a "rich" person's income just because it's there and can be done legally, one should consider the following; poor people don't pay taxes, so if tax rates were to be made "fair" by being equalized, they'd all have to pay something; poor people do not hire employees or expand the economy by purchase power; poor people don't often acquire the resources to help themselves or others out of their predicament, and, usually are not inclined to, or else they'd no longer be poor.

By the way, the forgoing should give an idea of how difficult it is to hold on to wealth in these times, irrespective of how hard you've worked to earn it. A fortune's first responsibility, no matter how modest, is to protect its self, lest it diminish to nothing to the eventual benefit of no one. But, the best management and most stringent security measures money can buy cannot hold at bay the most powerful of thieves....politicians, or shield against one of their most destructive tools, class envy. Seems they can always find people with little money to support their vote to raid yours. In reference to that, the current Vice President of the United States was recently heard to protest the retention of tax cuts in a late year last miniute lame duck deal in Congress as immoral because they couldn't further tax "the rich". Now, think about that mindset. He sees confiscation of the private property of supposedly affluent people - their money - as a moral obligation of government, just because it exists. That should not only make you furious, but, it should scare the Hell out of you. They get to decide who's rich, and, you, my friend, are in the crosshairs. To the statist, Articles IV and V if the U.S. Constitution are meaningless abstracts, not protections.

Class envy does have a lot of pretty nasty baggage after all, and for good reason. Just like drunk driving, it is done for all the wrong reasons and results in destruction and loss of freedom. And, often, like it or not, on one side or the other, it manages to get around to involving you. That is, if you choose not to react to the risks and let it.

Common Sense

common sense, noun. Sound practical judgement; good sense in relation to common things or business, the natural understanding of mankind in general, in contradistinction to the endowments of genius or the acquisitions of learning. Sense belonging or pertaining equally to more than one, or, to many indefinitely.

Well, if you've gotten this far with me, you're obviously aware of my drive for definition, and, hence, clarification. Once again, however, I'd like to carry this definition a little farther. Common sense as I know it is based on the result of previously tested logical deduction. It can be based on observations as simple as fresh manure stinks, or conversly, as complicated as the fact that mankind cannot control global climate by regulating carbon dioxide with the sun doing as it pleases. Common sense only requires a reasonable understanding of the workings and practical results of simple logic. True logic is nothing but methodic discovery and processing of facts. I would posit that common sense cannot be based on anything but fact, or, exist without it.

"Okay," say you, "where is all this going?" I simply wanted to flesh out the most valueable tool we can ever hope to posess, because, without it, not only our culture, but, our nation, and, for that matter, our very lives are at stake. And, it's critically important to be able to recognize it within your own experience, and, in other people. Common sense is not necessarily common. But without it, we cannot defend ourselves against self-serving confidence men and their diabolical schemes. As a matter of fact, it's the leading detection device for such dangers on the market. More important than a smoke detector. More usefull than a first aid kit. More utilitarian than duct tape. And, you don't have to keep it stored or hung on a wall untill you need it; you can and should always carry it with you for use at a moment's notice. As a matter of fact, if you do posess this device, you'll find that it is of constant demand, it's value far surpasses your Blackberry, and you will wonder how anyone could possibly cope without it. You'll be using it to the point that you won't even realize it most of the time. Now, how much do you think something this wonderful and valueable could be worth? Well, many have paid dearly for not having it, some with their lives. But, in a twist of irony, it's entirely free. To anyone. But, you have to want it. You see, even though the seeds are plentiful, and, anyone can plant it within you, it takes work to cultivate it and develope it's full potential. The catch is, the motivation for that work is responsibility. And, that's not a very popular concept with many people.

"So," you wonder, "to what purpose would this this invaluable commodity be put to its highest and best use?" Well, the obvious answer is that it would dictate that use its self. You use it to analyze your circumstances, and, apply it further accordingly. For instance, if you're cold, common sense indicates you should react by working to increase the temprature of the air surrounding you. It becomes easy to see that it can take very good care of you with continued application. So, following that example, you can use this versitile device to probe the depths of what is most important to you and thus continually improve your lot. Now, outside the essentials, like sustanance, personal climate control, waste elimination, rest, I would think freedom would top the list of most people who are the proud posessors of a substantial cache of common sense.

Might I interest you in an example, those of you who are unfamiliar, that is? We've all been brought up on the idea that freedom is a birthright guaranteed by the United States Constitution, right? (If you're skeptical, or just don't believe me in particular, you can begin the basic operation of the exercise of common sense by finding a copy of the Constitution and looking it up). So, let's say a congressperson comes to you via media (proffessional ones don't ever come to you in person) and promises you a new government sponsored program that will benefit you directly by nothing more than merely your application for it to the nearest government bureaucracy office. All you have to do to recieve the benefit perpetually is follow the conditions of the application to the letter. Instant gratification instincts indicate that nothing can be more important than instant compliance. But, common sense sticks its nose in at the last moment possible and saves you from a life of slavery to bureaucrats by logically indicating that nothing is free, that the Government only gives to you what it forces your friends or family to give up, mainly through taxes, and that this is nothing but a well worded cheap trick targeted at your gratitude on Election Day. The destruction this program causes other people not withstanding. Logic indicates that in this "something for nothing" scheme that would benefit the politician for a while, and, you untill the program collapses, there is eventually a cost to someone, and, likely, someone who cannot bear it for very long. Common sense says that this scheme could come back to bite you.

So, why, with this wonderful silver bullet at hand does the scenario I've just described actually flourish in today's society? Because, of course, the politician is using common sense. He's stolen our gun while he's been sweet talking us and pointed it right at us. It tells him that he'll get whatever he wants, no matter how destructive to his constituents, by removing some of their responsibility for themselves and piling it on someone else who cannot defend themselves. And, in the process, take some of their liberty and convert it to his own power. Common sense, just like nuclear energy, can be used for good or evil depending on the possessor's morality.

The Founding Fathers, using the clearest logical reasoning and highest forms of common sense avaliable to Mankind at the time saw the strong possibilities of our government being taken over by immoral politicians and used for what is nothing more than institutionalized racketteering. And they gave us the greatest weapon they could concieve of to defend against such collusion. The United States Constitution. As with any other defense device, however, continuous attack and lack of attention will eventually render it useless for it's intended duty. The Founders had hoped that the people of this country through common sense would take the responsibility to educate themselves and to maintain adherence to the Constitution, which thereby would in turn protect those who supported it from tyranny. But, politicians have relentlessly striven to twist and reinterpret that document to lead to their own ends, freed to do so by people who don't have the common sense to see the whole picture, and who reject the responsibility to support it. That has naturally resulted in a diminishing of the Constitution's power to protect and promote a free society.

This nation has the most technologically advanced, versatile, loyal, capable military force on the globe, able to defeat any enemy, yet, we repeatedly watch statist politicians let them twist in the wind in hellholes with disasterous rules of engagement and no funding to make political points.This nation has the greatest private business industrial complex in history, having brought to the civilized world the highest standard of living man has ever known, in the shortest time possible, and we watch statist politicians drive it to other countries with illogical, power-grabbing regulations and support of unsustainable labor contracts. This nation operates on the most historically effective and non-exclusive economic system ever devised, and yet, we watch statist politicians play dice with banking rules and crash the economy in a questionable scheme to gain election victories. This nation developed the leading medical treatment and research program in the world and we watch statist politicians demonize it to gain favor of those who would bankrupt it with ridiculous lawsuits and demands of treatment without fair compensation, then suffer the indignity of having those same politicians stuff socialized administration of it, without our consent, up our rectum. This nation provides unbounded opportunity to reach for and acheive success beyond any single person's wildest dreams to anyone, without exeption, who is willing to work and take risks for it, and we watch statist politicians practice class warefare and racism to balkanize the country so that they may buy votes by pandering to the larger factions they create, and in the process, taking opportunity from many others.

Now, what does common sense say about the situation we're presented with, and who got us there? Listen to it. Your freedom depends on it.

Racism

Once again, I've encountered a word with such a reputation as a scourge upon mankind that my 65 year old dictionary has failed me in being able to put forth a reference. So, never faltering in my search for clairity, I was forced to enlist a merely 20 year old tome of etymology to authenticate it's infamy.

Rac-ism noun. 1. Racial discrimination or prejudice. 2. The belief that some races are inherently better than others. From the root word race, meaning a group of people united by common nationality, tradition, or history, and, often, but not always, distinguished by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.

It's hard to know exactly where to begin to tackle such a diabolical concept. So, logic dictates trying the beginning. Not the beginning of racism, we don't have ten thousand years of historical discussion space here, and, most people know the basic history anyway. We'll start with my first encounters with the despicable subject. Caution: There is a twist........ I will be writing this from the perspective of a person not yet classified as a "minority". Those of you inclined to scream "heresy" and hide your head under the blankets because of participation in either side of an artificial guilt complex better stop right here.

One of the corollaries that I've found unimpeachable is that a baby is born absolutely innocent, there are no such things as proclivities toward anything, good, bad, or, indifferent, inherent in a child's behavior. Everything in a young person's character is the result of what he learns from others. In the town of my childhood, there were, at that time, no people of African descent, the classic victims of racism in other parts of the country. I saw the first ones on television, and, my father's first encounter with a black person was after he had enlisted in the Marine Corps and was spirited off to boot camp. I later learned all about the black people's plight, but, I had no inclinations one way or another from growing up in a predominantly white community. Unfortunately, some of my first impressions of black people were the televised reports of the Watts riots and the activities of the Black Panthers. But that was counterbalanced over time with the comedy of Bill Cosby, and, the music of Charlie Pride (which I'm currently enjoying as I write this). I really didn't have any reason to judge blacks as a whole, one way or another.

The idea that I should differentiate because of a certain physical characteristic never entered my mind. For that matter, I had caucasian classmates with birth defects that would have made it easy to single them out, but, a logical reason to do so could not seem to present its self. It should be noted that my home town was settled by immigrants from Greece, Japan, Germany, The Balkans, and, the British Isles. Later, Mexicans also came to take railroad and mining jobs, Basque people hearded sheep, and, there was even a small Chinese commuity. All of that with an active Shoshone Indian reservation near by. Point there is that you never get completely away from interaction with different races, or, people with other differences, no matter where in these United States you land.

The next point to be explored is that discrimination, the symbionic host of racism, is not necessarily confined to having race as a basis. In this forementioned small community lived a pretty common, garden variety grade school boy who happened to be treated differently for what he was. He had a marked difficulty with schooling, never getting his assignments done, always being held after class for not keeping up with the other children, constantly being sent to couselors to determine what the malfunction was, frustrating administrators, eventually being written off by the system for what was later assumed to be Attention Deficit Disorder decades before that diagnosis, or the pharmaceutical companies' involvement in it, became popular. He had an odd name that was easy to make fun of, was never admitted to the student's social circles, was the constant victim of bullies (sustaining an injury to this day that was a result of one encounter), and became shy and withdrawn because of other children's cruelty. He had to deal with unwarranted discrimination all the way through high school, untill he ultimately left his birthplace for good. All of this for the fact that he was mentally well ahead of the school system, and, he was bored with it. He eventually on his own made the Honor Roll for good grades in his Sophomore year. But, the mold was cast. His classmates never accepted him. The reasons for discrimination in most cases are this stupid.

That child went on to help others wherever he could, to champion causes that benefitted the communities he lived in, to help preserve his adopted community's citizens' property rights, and, to lead a non-profit historic preservation group, among other things. That child became me.

I can just see the lightning strike and hear the thunder. "How dare you assert that that story even remotely compares to the discrimination blacks faced in this country untill the Civil Rights Movement!" you shriek. I don't. It does, however, illustrate that an infinitely varying range of discrimination, from avoiding a person with bad breath, to The Holocaust, has existed, and, in some places, still does. And, it can happen anytime, anywhere, for any reason, to anyone. No single group is the sole authority on victimhood. Discrimination its self doesn't differentiate. It's equal opportunity.

Racism historically was never really based on differences. "Balderdash!," you exclaim. "What else could it possibly be based on?" Stick with me here. While differences were the easiest thing to use as a scapegoat for the horrific treatment of different classes of people, the logic, or, motivation, to discriminate based soley on differences, isn't there. Taking all emotion (which, by the way, is one of the basic contributors to racism) out of the situation, why on earth should one be inclined to disparage a person of say, a different skin color, or, for that matter, any other characteristic; brown eyes, black hair, Roman noses, or the like. Does varying amounts of skin pigment give any indication of a person's work productiveness? Apparently not, one would think, or, early slave owners would not have resorted to other means to decide value, as historically, slaves have been many different colors and many races. Does a nose indicate an inclination to liquor store robberies? Does eye color give any indication of even visual accuity, let alone of social acceptance? Is there anything in personal character that is inherent in a particular physical attribute? Can you logically conclude that a person with black hair and an olive complexion is either going to like rice wine and sushi or Fettuchini Alfredo? I've heard it said that the black bitch that lives with me is clingy, maternalistic, looks mean, and smells bad because she's.........a Rottweiler. Not attributes that apply exclusively to any particular human race or creed. Frankly, a crack addiction will take maternalism out of any human anyway.

"Then, what?" you demand. Simple. Discrimination's roots, and, therefore, racisim's roots, are in power. One people's power over another. One class's power over another. Racism is a blood brother of class warfare, another scourge of mankind. Prejudice is another. And, they in turn have as their parents the most base of human flaws - sloth, the father, and self aggrandizement, the mother. For example, slave owners used power over their servants to reap the benefits of the subservients' labor, therefore easing the effort on their own behalfs to maintain the lifestyle that the results of volumnious labor provides. In return, the slaves recieved basic necessities, but, nothing else. The remainder of the fruits of their labor was stolen, or, taxed, whichever you prefer, by the "owner," and, redistributed to himself and his family members. In other words, socialism. (Okay, you all thought that socialism was about spreading the "load" throughout society for everyone's benefit, but, as I've said before, it only benefits those in control, and, then, only temporarily before the inevitable collapse. It never differs, except in name, and, it's never about the true benefit of the whole "society".) Discrimination was simply a tool to maintain the power structure. It kept the victims isolated from people that, had they not been indoctrinated, would otherwise help break down the barriers around them. Those who were not indoctrinated by discrimination, for example, ran the famous Underground Railroad, helping slaves escape their bondage. Racism is merely an attempt at justifying discrimination to distract from it's true basis - control. Prejudice is instilled in a population to facilitate racism by using fear as a control and perpetuation device. Discrimination is about nothing but acquiring power. Class warfare is about nothing but redistributing wealth through the application of acquired power. These are the basic reasons why capitalism and it's participants must and do reject both class warfare and discrimination. Capitalism places the highest value on what free individuals can accomplish unfettered on their own for themselves. Capitalism is truly one of the greatest equalizers. But it cannot function under the restrictions of of concentrated social power. And it cannot condone racisim.

So, why does racism enjoy such noteriety in this day and age? Why is it not only alive and well, but, well after slavery was ended in this country, and, the successes of the civil rights movements, is it a weekly, if not often daily, topic of the national news reports? The answer may surprise some, but, was previously explained to the astute reader. It's nothing different than it has always been. Power. To acquire, or, redistribute wealth. "But," say you, "With all those evil slave owners dead, and, all of the civil rights legislation and affirmative action programs in place making, in some cases, discrimination punishable by prison sentence, who on earth would still practice such a thing, and why?" Let's return to my own experiences for a while.

Because there were many less people "of color" in my area of the country, there was practically no strife related to discrimination, and, such was the case in most areas of the Northern and Western United States. There were no race riots in Boise, Idaho, no civil rights marches in Salt Lake City, Utah, and, Martin Luther King never addressed a crowd in Elko, Nevada. Now, while I am aware of the shamefull treatment Sammy Davis Jr. recieved in his earlier career days in Las Vegas (he wasn't allowed to stay in the hotel rooms of some of the casinos he performed in) I would point out that the casino industry at that time was largely operated by people from other states, namely, Eastern crime syndicates. By the mid Seventies, that was cleaned up by the State of Nevada, and, Sammy went on to be a good friend of white gaming pioneer and tycoon, William F. "Bill" Harrah. Elsewhere, we all just accepted anyone of different race and got on with life. True to Dr. King's dream, character was all that mattered to anyone I knew. We had a bigger problem with alcoholism than racism. Come to think of it, I find it ironic that the former produces jackasses, and, the latter is practiced by jackasses. If I were the Democratic Party, I'd pick another symbol tomorrow morning.

Things started changing everywhere by the mid Seventies. The media was busy indoctrinating the minorities of the country with the horrible injustices that were, by then, thoroughly minimalized, if not entirely vanquished, Archie Bunker was out giving a lot of good people a bad name by insinuated association, and, a new type of racism was beginning to sprout and spread like mold spores in areas new to, and previously unblemished by it. Because of the actions of some bad actors well separated from me by both time and circumstance, a new generation of Americans were participating in the power process of discrimination. And, I was again the victim.

Imagine my surprise when riding my bicycle down a street during my fifth grade year in a town which knew no more of "hate crimes" than it did of Starbucks or Facebook when I come upon a small group of Shoshone children who had learned from "All In The Family" that I was a "honkie" and a "cracker", and were shouting it at me at the top of their voice. Didn't matter that my family's income taxes helped pay for their brand new Federally subsidized houses. Or, that they were never slaves. Or, that my family came from Europe in the early 1900's and never owned slaves, or, fought in any Indian battles. Didn't even matter that my lineage contains Cherokee on Mom's side and Blackfoot on Dad's. It just mattered that "Minority good, White Man bad. "

Affirmative Action and de-segregation were not required in our county, so, those one-solution-fits-all government missteps had little effect on us at the time. Or, so we thought. Already, taxes to pay for those programs were spiraling, and we all were soon in line for Jimmy Carter's newest social program: Malaise. In other communities around the nation, however, the citizens were subjected to involuntary demonstrations of how badly the government can mismanage anything without exception, that no matter how much diesel fuel you waste in a bus, you cannot use it to instill in a child motivation to succeed in a foreign environment, and, that statistical quotas are not better than personal character or achievement in filling jobs. As a matter of fact, Affirmative Action became the embodiement of a new type of racism that pervades society to this very day......and, in another twist of irony, it's referred to by its victims as "reverse discrimination." It's not completely correct, though. Reverse discrimination would technically mean that the discrimination was literally "reversed", or, eliminated. Any discrimination under any circumstance against any group is just plain discrimination, as it doesn't differentiate in it's terrible effects.

Now, as I stated earlier, discrimination only exists to facilitate control. In this case, again, economic control. The discrimination here was perpetrated by the designers of Affirmative Action to redistribute economic advancement opportunities to people who were happy to use their own race as a crutch for not trying to advance themselves by putting forth more effort. The really dispicable factor in this insanity is that those using the crutch to gain advantage over people who were willing to use their God given freedom and motivation to improve their, and, everyone else's lot, were being facilitated at the expense of the very freedom that allowed the creation of the opportunities they were handed. Nothing is ever "free." But, hell, if you can game the "system" on the basis of lineage instead of competing for higher rewards based on effort, who cares? If you can live above your means at the expense of other people whose collective effort made your opportunity to do so possible, why not go for it? Let those college educated crackers go pick cotton! They owe you this job! Funny, sounds like a future slave owner talking to me. And,if you think that this is all "trash talk," a case involving exactly this very concept embodied in the form of some firefighters (not all white, by the way) working towards promotions found it's way to the Supreme Court. I'll leave it up to you to research the outcome. Hint: Government sanctioned discrimination lost one.

By the way, what freedom did the "crutch users" loose? The freedom to live outside the the control structure of discrimination, as well as the ability to deny racism more victims. And, who still practices this discrimination? The statists in government who benefit from the support of the "minorities" to whom they are handing the tools to acquire benefits and jobs. And, the muckrakers, who have no honest way to make a living, so, they take advantage of purposely misguided emotions and opinions of target groups to extort money or attention from whomever they can tar with the racism brush, the legitimacy of which is entirely optional. (The Tawana Brawley case comes to mind.)

That brings me to the position I find myself in today. Hated by milions who lust after my percieved inborn priveledge, even though I never got a damn thing because of my color. Maligned by stereotypes that bear no more credibility in the real world than an actor in blackface. Harrassed by a black beggar on Pensylvainia Avenue, blocks from the White House, because he assumed that according to my skin color, I should be able to make a contribution to him, then being called a "nigger" by him when I could not comply. Placed "at the back of the line" in favor of anyone of any other race, through such things as rules that give preference to minorities in competition for government contracts and educational quotas, even though I never did anything to force disadvantage upon any of them. Being labeled "racist" because I don't agree with the political agendas of groups that base their membership and goals on race. Expected to not be offended by things that no other race would tolerate. Discouraged from speaking out on the hippocracy. Being treated as a second class citizen because of the things that someone who, by accident, shared a pigment distribution similar to mine, did from fifty to two hundred years ago. And, being expected to graciously and generously pay for the every want and demand of racism's percieved "victims," even though many of them are recent imports from other countries. None of which is anything less than perpetuation of racism. Only this time, to control me. The abuse I can endure for merely pointing out the facts is a manifestation of this control, and, my doing so qualifies me in some eyes, by daring to expose the game of special interests, as a racist.

By the way, there is no Constitutional right to not be offended. It's stunning the value that race baiters have gotten out of that double standard. Dare ye not say as much as a word that may offend a minority, lest ye be publicly whipped! Meanwhile, the belittlement of the "majority" is constantly in season. Well, joke's on the race baiters. Dream up whatever epithet you can contrive and apply it to me, it means nothing. While the famous "n" word can cause a riot at a Detroit social event, you cannot get more than a chuckle out of me by calling me "honkie." It, and it's basis, is meaningless to me. Just shows ignorance on the part of the bomb-thrower. I'm still too proud of my life to be offended by racist comments. So should everyone else be, unless there's good reason not to. Don't call me a liar or a cheat. Attacking my personal integrity WILL get a reaction, as it should from anyone of any race with high moral standards. But, using my race as an instigator of reaction from me is hopeless. My emotions, and, therefore, I, cannot be controlled that way.

Which brings me back to another bankable stalwart of the libreral socialist agenda, upon which not only is racisim operated, but are myriad other societal cancers such as climate change doctrine and radical environmentalism. And, one I have previously addressed. Hippocracy. In Arizona, which was forced to defend itself where Congress will not, a state law was passed supporting the Federal laws concerning illegal immigration. Lawbreakers' support groups were protesting while hiding behind a phony shield of racism because it's their most effective tool to pry more of their self serving agenda out of my tax bill. Rather than do what our Founding Fathers did to fix their own countries' governments, they want a free ticket to resources provided by me, in a country made better than the one they left by people like me, and they want me to hand over to them the keys to my community and lifestyle, for which I've worked very hard, under a cloud of shame because of the sole fact that I happen to be white. One day, they're hoisting the Mexican flag over Old Glory at a Southern California high school, and, the next, they're being "good Americans" and protesting the racism they accuse the State of Arizona of causing, saying that America wouldn't stand for it. Well, they're right there. If the racism were legitimate. That which they're perpetuating by insinuation is not. The real irony there is that if they'd just give up on the lazy way of bullying their way into this land of plenty, stop being the pawns of the true racists, and, work in good faith and earnest for legitimate citizenship, no opportunity would ever be denyed them under true conservative capitalism. The millionaires in the pro basketball and baseball franchises bear that out.

I get to wonder at the otherwise obvious incongruities, like everyone hanging on the words of the Congressional Black Caucus, or hailing the United Negro College Fund, while a counterpart similarly named would invoke cries of the invasion of the Ku-Klux-Klan. Like the "n" word only being taboo if you are not black, otherwise, it can be freely lyricized and broadcast on cable. Like fawning press coverage of the "first black, Hispanic, female, you-name-it" to accomplish something someone else has already accomplished, as though that first effort wasn't worth noting because a white guy did it, and, despite cries from many in those groups that there is no difference between anyone's ability as regards to race or gender. Like laws that provide harsher punishment for crimes against certain minorities than the same crime committed against me. Like minorities even adjusting their identification to further their prospects. Native American, African American, Mexican American, Asian American...... all promote the idea that they're one thing first, and Americans second, (and often, only when convenient) instead 0f Americans first, and, nothing else matters. You can't be a fighter of racism if you're going to insist on being identified with, and segragated by it. And, you sure as hell don't have a legitimate claim on the benefits this country provides if you won't swear allegiance to it first. By the way, does it really matter that the Wright Brothers or Neil Armstrong are white? Apparently it didn't at the time of their accomplishments, because, it wasn't noted in the news reports.

My best kindergarten friend was the son of one of one of my mother's dearest friends, last name of Martinez. My immediate supervisor early in one of my longest lasting jobs was a wonderful man who just happened to be black. My list of favorite Americans includes not only Mssrs. Cosby and Pride, but Clarence Thomas, Walter Williams, Morgan Freeman, and Condoleezza Rice. I never learned to hate anyone based on race. It's pointless. But, I will profess a very strong dislike for anyone of any race who acts in such a way as to consistently bring shame upon their fellow people by doing things that perpetuate stereotypes. Racism is exclusively practiced in, and, perpetuated by, selfish persuits, and, people who organize groups by race to take advantage of their collective emotions for gain against any other group are no different than those early slave owners, be they pseudo community activists or government officials. Groups of illegal immigrants trying to mute their criminality and the effects of their actions by declaring racism, government officials turning a blind eye to racism practiced by whichever is the currently favored minority to effect an illigitimate "payback" for long past transgressions, people of mixed race who pander to that part of their heritage that, because of racism, benefits them most, these, among others, are people who are preserving racism for no other reasons than to acquire access to my tax dollar, or, to control me by reserving from me opportunities that normally would be equally distributed indiscriminately by achievement. They have converted racism from a social stigma to a cashbox key. They use it at an unfair advantage, as, because of my color, I am exempt from access to it. Further, they condemn themselves and their followers to living by racism rather than elevating them above it.

So, if you really wonder why in this day and age racism is not dead, just look to the objectives that socialists like to demonize the most when they result from capitalism and hard work. Money, power, and control. It's just an easier way for them to access, and partake of, all three.

Personal Sovereignty

Personal sovereignty? "What the heck is that?" you ask. "Some sort of narcissistic royalty complex or something?" No, not at all. First, though, in the never ending quest for clarity, let's examine the term "sovereignty."

Sov-er-eign-ty, noun. The condition or state of a sovereign; the possession of supreme power.
Root word: sovereign, noun. [Middle English soveraine, sovereyn, from Old French soverain; French souverain; Italian sovrano, soprano; from L.Latin supranus, from Latin super, meaning over, above.]
1. One who excercises supreme power; a supreme ruler; the person having the highest authority in a state, as a king or emperor, et cetera; a monarch.

Now, with that in mind, consider the following postulates:

First, the application of sovereignty to yourself personally. You may or may not have considered it, what with all of the other persons or entities asserting some authority or control over you and your life - your employer, the Internal Revenue Service, the various layers of government, even your own family - but, contrary to popular practice, you are the true and only source of what you do in life, and hence, what results from that. If you choose to disregard the wants or demands of others, a different result will occur to your and their situations. And, if it weren't for your cooperation, others would not necessarily end up satisfied. They may not be concerned with your reasoning at first, but, whatever it is, because it's your own self determinination, it dictates the outcome without question.

For instance, say you have to complete a proposal on a deadline that would net your company a huge sale and you a handsome commission of five figures, and, you owe taxes that could cause you to loose your house if it doesn't fly. But...... you have a coronary artery blockage, and a haphazzard tour in a one-ton truck with a box and bright flashing lights on back sounds infinitely more compelling than any of the other problems at hand. It's your decision to either dilligently persevere with the paperwork, and, let your heirs divide your estate, or, preserve your carcass to fight for another sale on top of the ground later. No one else gets that call. In the end, you're the supreme authority over you. It doesn't matter what anyone else thinks or wants. Any possible situation you can come up with involves your consent, although the alternatives may not necessarily lead to optimal conclusions. The people in the top floors of the Twin Towers individually chose to either stay in the buildings or jump. We won't go through all of the rest of the possibilities here.

The point I'm trying to make is that if you conceed your authority, or, sovereignty, over yourself either temporarily, or, permanently, to someone else, except as in incapacitation, even that decision was originally up to you, thereby exercizing that original sovereignty.

Second, the Founding Fathers realized that a human being's drive to thrive depended upon the ability to take full advantage of the possibilities presented by allowing personal sovereignty the freedom it needed to be fully excercized. They understood that, logically speaking, personal sovereignty was a natural state independent of control by others, not subject to it. In other words, you have supreme authority over your self, life, and, the effort and fruits of your labor. That assumption is a basic underlying principle behind our civil rights. They don't come from your boss at work, or, other citizens, or the United States Senate. They are God given, or natural, rights. You were born with them, they are yours to practice freely, the only restriction being adverse affects on the person of others - that obviously being reciprocal.

To the end of preserving those rights, the Founders conferred government sovereignty, or, the posession of supreme power over the country, upon you and me. This is OUR country. OUR government. These are OUR lives. Not the President's, not the Speaker of the House's, not Senate Majority Leader's, the Socialists', the Statists' or, any one of the alphabet regulatory agencies'. Under the Constitution, politicians do not assume the people's sovereignty while governing, as they are only stewards of the government. (I realize that some of them aren't clear on that.) To ensure sovereignty was not usurped, the Founders made government very easy to control; with nothing more than votes.

They realized that sovereignty was both so important to the people, and, at the same time, so dangerous when concentrated in one or a few persons, that they had to divide it up equally, along with the ensuing responsibility to protect it, amongst the citizens. That's why elected officials serve at our pleasure, and are, unlike royalty, stripped of their power after being turned out of office.

But, like freedom, sovereignty can be lost. Every time you vote for a Statist or the like, and allow them to continue eroding your soveriegnty by confiscating your earnings and creating endless regulation, every time you let them get away with consolidating your lost power within themselves, every time you let them pull the wool over your eyes by not educating yourself on how to sort out the truth, you risk the clear danger of blowing away your control over your own life, of loosing your sovereignty.

And, make no mistake, your sovereignty is so valueable that there will always be con men and women trying dilligently to wrest it away from you. The effort runs the gamut, from identity theft to government taking your money and using it to control your decisions. Seriously, do you trust people who thought nothing of lying to get their jobs to run your own affairs? Allowing Congress to pass Healthcare Reform in it's present form is nothing to do with improving access to medicine. Just read the bill. It's abdication of your personal sovereignty. It's surrender of your share of absolute power over your life and destiny, and, the Country. Worse, it's subjugation of your children without their knowledge. Does that really mean less than partying with "the boys" on Saturday night or catching the final episode of "24" on Fox?

China's Tienemen Square revolt collapsed not because of a few Chinese Army tanks, but, because a billion Chinese didn't excercise their natural right of personal sovereignty and turn on the government, and, with those numbers, it could have been a rout. The Chinese government retains control because they control information, and the people never realized what they could have achieved. Hugo Chavez, the Castro brothers, Kim Jong-il all rule at the consent of the people who choose to abdicate their own power and responsibility. They continue to rule by preventing their subjects from finding that out.

But, this is our country, and, we know. And, there is no excuse for concentrating sovereignty in our government, lest it become independent of us. Our government only requires the authority to represent our sovereignty in issues involving foreign powers, or, in duties delegated to it by the Constitution. We are the supreme rulers, we are the monarchs, you and I. We are supposed to be the directors of the United States government, not the subjects of it. But, too many before us have given up their natural sovereignty and allowed a group of congressmen and and some presidents to amass your power for their own advantage. And they treat with arrogance and contempt anyone that points out what they have done. The problem with that is that kind of power concentrated is always eventually squandered. It seldom, if ever, ends up benefitting the donor. I cannot stress enough that our government is not a spectator sport. It demands your deliberation and participation. Nothing less than your personal sovereignty is at stake.

I think it necessary at this point to note that conservative capitalism is the only social system that places value on personal sovereignty because it seeks to encourage, for the benefit of all, individual initiative. In a breif 230 year period, this country working under that system and operating with the citizens ultimately responsible has led mankind from ten thousand years of using animals for machinery and living at the whim of the weather to the Computer Age and unequalled living standards. And, untill now, The United States was the only country to recognize, let alone be operated under, the citizen's sovereignty. This was done because because historically, Socialism and it's ugly sisters only benefit a few at the top for a realitively short time before it collapses and spreads misery equally, and things get pretty intolerable preceeding the collapse. Millions of others have paid the price for proving that corollary, history books are full of the accounts. That's why our Constitution seeks to avoid re-proving it. That's why the responsibility of sovereignty was vested with us. Yet, there are, amazingly, those who would seek yet another demonstration, in person, blind to the inevitable resulting tragedy.

If anyone still wants tickets to that runaway bus, they're avaliable in November at a polling place near you. Just don't take the rest of us with you.

The First Amendment

ARTICLE I.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excercise 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.

On January 23, 2010, I heard our current president comment in a weekly radio address on a recent Supreme Court decision striking down limitations on political speech by certain organizations, particularly near election times. He indicated that he thought that the decision took our society back one hundred years as far as the efforts to prevent individual speech from being suppressed. He therefore directed his administration to find ways around the decision to restore the status quo. He also indicated that he was doing that to ensure that the common people would always be heard without fear that an independent organization, such as a corporation, would be able to, by monetary or other means, drown them out.

Further, a prominent New York senator was apparently outraged enough to dedicate much chagrin to the issue, thereby granting himself another coveted soundbite intended for nothing more than pandering. He too offered any convenient time and other people's resources to sort a way around the "decision"

One thing seems to have been overlooked by these two men and others of their ilk. As much as the spin that the're trying to get maximum mileage out of may possibly benefit their agendas, the premise that that spin is based on, judicial activism, is not in this circumstance even remotely the case. The restoration of the Constitution is.

Now, first, I don't know about you, but, the idea that we have these two men in positions in which they have sworn to uphold the Constitution, and, by the way, not just untill they don't like it any more, is as stunningly incomprehensible to me as driving a Toyota Prius to the farthest visible galaxy. I simply cannot get my head around it. It truly defies any attempt to quantify it.

For years, special interests have been using the First Amendment as a bed pan for any such excrement as it could catch, for example, offensive art exhibits, filthy comedy on cable television, or, disgusting rap music lyrics. But, when the Great Equalizer is applied to political commentary from what is nothing more than another group of common citizens organized in another special interest organization - a corporation, shrieks of dispair emulate from those who for years had a monoply on such speech themselves because it shatters their perceived superiority and bestows upon them an enforced equality that they usually demand from others, but, refuse to yeild. It takes an ax to their most cherished and effective tool - class warfare.

How are political speech and class warfare both at play on this particular field? Well, for many, it's fairly obvious, but, for the benefit of others, it requires a little analysis, and so shall I indulge that requirement.

It had many, many years ago occurred to those special interests that included the various family branches of Marxism, that they could gain ground in their nefarious persuits by causing chaos by turning people against their countrymen on the grounds of a basic human character flaw - jealousy. (True to the principles of Marxists, they stole the idea from others, it's a very old ploy.) They did this by convincing groups of people, who previously understood that in this country, the only limit to achievement is one's own drive to succeed and excel, that others who practiced that doctrine, and did succeed and excel, were unfairly taking some advantage from those who choose not to put the same effort into their own situations (thereby transferring the forfeited advantage of the underachievers to the special interests). Now, logically, that's patently untrue. But, it's easy to appeal to base instincts, and, once the seed is planted, to grow and extrapolate it to encompass organizations of successfull people, like corporations. And, since these organizations could be, by chance and success, large enough to include people from other locales that aren't known to a particular targeted group, it's easy to demonize them as "nameless and faceless", creating a perception of some dark evil force. Further, this has been going on for so long that it's taken for granted to the point that it doesn't occour to people to give it a thought otherwise. This turns corporations from the prime examples of achievement into the perfect fall guys. All that remained was to pull the mean, evil, successfull corporations' teeth.


So, the next thing to do was to successively over about 75 or so years convince Congress that these mean, evil, successfull groups of hard-working citizens were opressing other groups by rightfully under the First Amendment voicing their opinions about elections. After all, weren't they all priveledged "upper class" (who EARNED it) people who weren't interested in the plight of those others of "lower class" who weren't wiling to work for the same advantage? How dare they be allowed to use their hard earned resources to affect a government that was originally concieved specifically to encourage and protect their industriousness over the lacking ability of the "do-lessers", who wouldn't put forth the effort to so participate in industry or governance? Why, that simply was not fair! Or........was it? Anyway, years of progressive gradualism practiced by the special interests culminated in the "McCain-Feingold" legislation, which, along with previous measures, restricted private citizen groups organized as business concerns, both for profit, and, non-profit, from supporting causes or candidates on a ballot, to the fullest extent so far. With their arch-enemy/host now rendered helpless, special interests like unions were free to confiscate their member's money and throw it at elections with wild abandon. All in the name of giving one "class" a better voice. (And that, by the way, is why the President gave half of General Motors and Chrysler to the unions. Oh, and, to Hell with the stockholders [grandparents and other pensioners] who had their hard earned money from being successful wrapped up in those enterprises.) While it was done in that name, it was decidedly not for that reason.


I want to make it clear that I do not intend to defend everything corporations do, good, bad, or, indifferent, but it must be realized that class warfare in this country is nothing more than a charlaitan's tool to gain illegitimate advantage over other citizens, including those organized as corporations. And, make no mistake, liberal special interests are about nothing else. The glaring irony is that while class warfare claims to oppose inequalities, it only seeks to create them. The First Amendment, however, DOES NOT RECOGNIZE inequality; it prevents it. Now, what would that lead one to logically deduce about the agenda of those who seek to legislatively limit the intent and effectiveness of the First Amendment?


The founding fathers realized that the Constitution would obviously be periodically attacked from without the country by foreign interests. And, they were prescient enough to realize that it would also be attacked from within. That is why they constructed the Constitution in such a manner as to contain the first ten Amendments. It was intended to underscore the freedoms determined to be of of primary importance. The First Amendment by it's very name and place would arguably be considered of foremost importance. What about that ranking could possibly be unclear to people sworn to protect it? Nothing. They simply lied to get the job.....to you.


Thinking about November?

Patriotism

Here it comes.....yet another tiring allusion to the realm of the lexicographer's compendiums. But, because it is, in this day and age, so very important to find and work from a definite basis in truth, and therefore, accuracy, I suspect that you will easily be able to understand the reason for the reference and follow where it leads. So, with your kind indulgence, we proceede.

Patriotism, noun. Love of one's country; the passion which influences one to serve one's country, either in protecting its rights, or maintaining its institutions and laws in purity and vigor; the characteristics of a patriot. I would add "the determined defense of its soverignty."

"That patriotism which animates and prompts to deeds of self-sacrafice, of valor, of devotion, and of death itself - that is the public virtue, that is the sublimest of public virtues."
- Henry Clay.

I submit that as well presented as the definition is, and with the forementioned lexicographer's highest talents applied to sifting out accuracy and clarity for the issue, the truest meaning of the word is stunningly understated in that brief passage. Patriotism in these times includes a much more prodigious responsibility. Patriotism should be defined as the defense of our country against ideologies that are opposed to maintaining the accomplishments of the socio-economic system that is the lifeblood of our modern civilization as provided by our founders. Lack of that specific quality of patriotism in Congress has lead directly to a precipitation of socialism and government expansionism that far outstrips the original injustices that became the basis for the American Revolution by country miles.

Already, I can just hear all of the special interests clamoring for me to be politically corectly hung from a tall tree for even hinting that there are ideas out there espoused by anyone that are not completely compatible with harmonius life in these States, and, they will endeavor to display great offense and chagrin at the very concept of such heresy. But the truth is, they KNOW they're wrong, logic dictates that on a regular basis. But they make their living and fortunes from the deceit they purvey. Socialism, and its ugly sisters, facisim and communism, only ever have benefitted the few, and temporarily at that. Political correctness as the special interests have tailored it for themselves is the only effective battering ram they have had for shoving all of their whacked, hairbrained ideas up our colons. And, it's been very successfull, as well as dependable.

Whole generations of fellow travelers too lazy or disinterested to discern right from wrong with the application of logic have been indoctrinated with that "anyone's ideas are acceptable" crap. And you are expected to accept that on no other authority than that you may offend them if you don't agree. Simply put, they're not all acceptable. For example, just as driving around with a railroad spike stuck in your tire is very easily followed by logic to a disasterous end, no matter why it got there, so is locking up energy production from any historical source to create a constriction on society that is easily controlled by bureaucrats likely to lead, just as predictably, by the same simple method of deduction, to the same result. No matter what justification the politician dreams up. Socialist ideas are not compatible with free society. Control diametrically opposes freedom.

Patriots realize that it's never really about the "good" of the country for the special interests, it's just about the control of the country, mainly by an elected plutocracy that is not affected by what they do, nor has any concience about how they do it. And, of course, the use of tax money funded payoffs to assist the power grabs. Amazingly, fighting for half of a century to socialize medical care is not a clue to them that many people aren't interested in participating in such a disaster. It's just a challenge to the elected plutocrat, like winning a Monopoly round.

Point here is that only patriotism, practiced by anyone that believes in logical, limited government, in any manner on any scale by positive means, will save this country from the balkanization that is being rampantly propagated by special interests, and, the increasing control that government uses that balkanization to justify. What patriots have worked, sacrificed, fought and died for this past two hundred years is under unceasing attack from both without and within and the cumulative effect is less freedom for us, more redistribution of our power and the fruits of our labor for the attacker's use.

Patriotism, unlike special interests, is not exclusive. Anyone that cares for the good of all as opposed to the largess of the specialized, can be a patriot. Doesn't matter if you're black, Hispanic, female, handicapped, old, blonde, green-eyed, short, bald, or gay. You just gotta have the ability to put agendas that only benefit a few aside for the cause that benefits all: Freedom. It will in turn take care of you. Guaranteed. And, should you discover that there is still something you hate about the good of all, no problem, patriotism will not stop you from leaving the country. One thing, though. You cannot be a patriot just by announcing to the press that you are. You have to act like one. Then, press releases don't even matter. They'll seek you.

A word of caution: Patriotism can only exist in an environment of unvarnished truth. Which, serendipitously, eliminates self-centered and self-serving special interests. You have to be willing to think for yourself and always search for truth for guidance, and, that can be an arduous task.

Patriotism should be revered like religion, not like barnyard chores. It is not just love of country, or even service to it. It's taking some responsibility to actively preserve it, because if we fail, the first two don't matter. Patriotism gave us the best country in the history of the world, it is how we got here in the first place, and, it's the only way we're going to stay.

Remember this: People will only do to you what you let them. Will you let your freedom be taxed, or signed, or, even voted by Congress away? You don't have to. Yet.

Responsibility

Responsibility, noun:
1. The state or quality of being answerable, accountable, liable, or responsible, as for a trust, debt, office, or person.
2. Means of meeting liabilities; ability to answer in payment.
3. That for which one is accountable, liable, answerable, or responsible, as a duty, debt, or trust.
Root word: responsible, meaning, among other things, having such intellectual or moral capacity as to be able to discriminate and choose between right and wrong; with regard to any given act, free from compulsion and having knowledge of the natural consequences. I would add to that possessing the fortitude to consistently act in the positive.

The reason for these seemingly mundane and boring recitals of definition is to attempt to give context to a thunderously serious concept which forms the most important, basic and fundamental fiber in the fabric of human relations. "Now," say you of the unknowing, uncaring, or unpracticing; "what warrants all of this hyperbole about a term which so many of us in modern society find unfamiliar, discomforting, distasteful, unattractive, or, just plain downright unfair?" This is the cut to the chase: Responsibility is the currency with which we buy freedom.

First, though, a reminder of an old saw: Freedom isn't free. Here is how it works. The founding fathers handed us the greatest socio-economic improvement device ever concieved as the basis for the formation and operation of this country. Their responsibility ended up being the first payment on our freedom. They primed the pump, started the ball rolling. Their responsibility to work or fight or die to craft such an organization as the United States of America was forged into the first incarnation of a government that was to be SUBSERVIENT to it's citizens and controlled by them for the intended purpose of protecting the newly unleashed freedom. They had witnessed tyranny and were determined that the scourge would never again in their lives take root among them. They prevented that by limiting the powers of government. That was accomplished by accepting for themselves the responsibility for the powers not given the government.

Now, those of you who cannot imagine what life would be in this day and age without government this or that in your lives are wondering just exactly where on Earth the responsibility for those functions would lie if not for it. Here's how they solved it in the late 1700's: They reserved the powers, and, responsibilities, to THEMSELVES. They provided their own retirement. They provided their own healthcare. They provided charity to those who had legitimately fallen on hard times. They provided education for their children. They developed their own specialized skills and fit them into an economy they created. They fed, clothed, sheltered, and transported themselves. Therefore, they did not have to depend on, or, answer to anyone else for whatever they chose to do or how they did it. They used morality and logic to govern their actions. Lots of hard work, that responsibility for themselves. But it always bought more freedom.

Anyone that has managed to pry themselves away from "ESPN" or "MTV" or "reality TV" or any of various vices and personal dramas might be mildly aware that there has been for over sixty years in this country a concerted effort to restrict freedom that has been presented as at first benevolent, then benign, then, as the bureaucracy unfolds and multiplies exponentially, necessary to the health and welfare of the proletariat. How did this come about? The answer is stunningly simple and obvious. Politicians, in quest of power, which only source was the people of this country, hit upon the idea that many of those people were tired of the work involved in the production of the responsibility they needed to purchase freedom. So, naturally appealing to the lazy side of human nature, they decided to eliminate as much freedom as possible to obviate the need for all that nasty hard work of maintaining an account full of responsibility.

Responsibility has qualities that compare to energy in physics as well. It can be converted to other forms, but, it cannot be destroyed. It can also be wasted. So, what happened to the responsibility that was no longer needed? The politicians said that their minions would assume it and care for it for the people, but that is not entirely the case. Much of it has been converted in that reactor that is modern government back into a different, dangerous form of power. Power, formerly vested in the governed, converted to responsibility to maintain the ability to acquire a supply of personal freedom is instead diverted and wasted by re-converting it through the pork-barrel to political power. Problem is, it is in this incarnation a Ponzi scheme, benefitting only a few political crooks.

But, lack of freedom does not eliminate the requirements of responsibility. It had merely been transferred to a pigeon hole. So, to ultimately deal with it, politicians return to their only source of anything, the people, and, in a sleazy shell game of redistributing wealth for votes, force more responsibility upon and out of them in the form of tax, which is then directly converted to more political power. You're right. That's not really dealing with it. It's just creating a responsibility deficit and then kicking it all down the road. But, the politicians, like crack addicts, can't resist, so they don't care.
Wasted responsibility. Lost freedom. Basic physics. So simple, a child could understand. So, why do so many fall for the scheme? Another simple answer: No one else cares either.

Freedom is necessary, but unchecked political power is not. And enough disinterest in responsibility, or those it's forfeited to, will loose freedom for everyone.

So, how are those Steelers doing, and, is Oprah still gaining weight?

My truck.

Okay, so everyone has his or her own ideas about what's happened to the American auto manufacturing industry. It has lately been beaten so badly that Government ownership has been the choice of actions to keep it out of the morgue. Now, when you consider their successes lately, it's like handing a patient to an undertaker rather than a physician.

My intention here, however, is to offer my own experience as to why the industry is on it's knees. First, an introduction is required, though. My first experience of memory being transported in a vehicle was in my father's 1947 GMC half-ton pickup. It was military surplus, and, had been through a few other owners by 1965, none too kind, and, it was spartan to say the least as far as amenities. Heaters were an option in those days, and Dad had to save up to buy and install one. By 1968, a broken transmission part spelled it's doom. Since it would be another 15 years before the aftermarket parts industry for "classics" such as it would have been able to save it with reproduction parts, it was unceremoniusly dismantled in our driveway. The bed ended up being incorporated into a trailer. But who knows, had a part been found, it may have lived to be a coveted "collectible", or, to evolve into a "custom street machine." Point being that it certainly didn't know that the warranty was up; that decision was made for it.

About that time, my grandfather was still periodically operating a 1942 Chevrolet ton-and-a-half flatbed for hauling firewood. Another spartan, but, ultimately utilitarian machine, also of military heritage. No frills, just hard working. It fared better than Dad's pickup, I eventually bought it during my third year of high school and drove it as my first vehicle for another 15 years, off and on. I still have it, and, it still runs. And, I can get parts for it.

However, it not being the most practicle vehicle for a daily commuter, I settled on another, smaller truck in 1981. It was a red 1966 GMC stepside with only one option to set it out from the basic low-price model. It had a white cab above the bottom window line. Oh, and, I paid $300.00 for it. What a deal! Only 98,770 miles on it! And, no wheels, no engine, no sheet metal at all past the front of the firewall, and, no transmission. I bought it on blocks! But, General Motors built approximately six million trucks in the 1960-66 family group that shared many of the same parts, not to mention GM's penchant for using things like the same alternators on many other different brand vehicles. Couldn't go wrong there. So began the reconstruction.

I bought two new fenders at the local Chevrolet dealer to start with, and, from there, I scoured wrecking yards for a 50 mile radius as well as working through old buddies to assemble the rest of the parts, and, even though I took my sweet time, it came together fairly easily and quickly. After about four months, I had a freshly reconditioned engine bolted in between the new fenders, and, was able to drive it soon after. I had to save up for another two years to give it a fitting body and paint job, but, after applying a salvaged chrome grill (standard trim was white paint) to that beautiful new red paint job, I was turning heads like a 21 year old dance hall girl in front of an Elk's Lodge.

Now, this may just seem like another sentimental, fuzzy, feel good old truck story, but, now comes the analysis. That truck cost it's first owner $3,667.00 new, and it served him and others well for an expected fifteen years. But, at what should have been it's demise, is where the story really begins. The truck is much easier to repair because it was built not only before auto emissions standards, but, before the Environmental Protection Agency ever reared its ugly head. "Heresy!" you shout. "We must protect Nature!" you cry. How dare I? Well, I'm no stranger to controversy, so, let's go down that path for a miniute.

While the vaunted E.P.A. constantly claims credit for singlehandedly abating incomprehensible and questionable amounts of dastardly you-name-its in every corner of the fruited plain, thereby justifying it's bloated buget, inept administration, and strangling regulations, the truth is that, in the case of the automobile industry, it is just the embodiment of bureaucratic Federal control over problems that other government agencies are too inept to cope with on their own. And it manages this while costing manufacturers (and you) more money. For example, smog in the Los Angeles Basin should have been thinned or prevented by proper zoning and occupancy densities at the local level. Period. We in rural Nevada don't have smog, don't live like ants, and, have no need for power robbing smog pumps and expensive catalytic converters. I'd even be willing to bet that it's the same situation in Wyoming, Texas, Montana, and many other places where blanket Federal regulations cause everyone to share in a few others' misery. I know, some people are offended by simple, black and white solutions, but, I only go where logic leads. Back to the truck.

Not having to acquire such tools of the Envirowakos as catalytic converters and other related appliances right off saved over a thousand dollars on the resurection of the truck. Further, there were no faulty airbag connections to test and repair, no engine management computer with its myriad sensors to diagnose and outwit, no power steering pump to fight belts over, no brake booster leaking vacuum pressure, no fuel injection lines cracking and spraying, no transmission cooler leaking oil into the radiator, no turbocharger with frozen bearings, no aftercooler with bent fins to block the radiator air flow, and, no automatic door locks to trap your keys in the cab. "Shazam!" you exclaim. "How could it even be legal to produce such a simple, inexpensive, practical, easy to maintain truck! And, where can I get a new one!" Sorry. It isn't. And, you can't. Simply put, that truck wasn't built with anything it really didn't logically need to carry a thousand pounds of payload at seventy miles an hour safely all day, every day, for years. But, those brilliant engineers at Congress fixed that.

"Okay. so, why are we all doomed to watch our dashboards crack in the sun and our door panels crumble and decay while you're blissfully unplagued with such maladies?" you ask. Simple. A nice young rabblerouser named Ralph Nader (originator of such needless maintenance items as the "cyclops" brakelight) decided that self-centered Senators must know more about economical transportation than the people then producing it, (the same people, by the way,who were in a pissing match with him)so, he started working toward getting automobile design legislated. That's when the inviolable laws of physics began to be supplanted with legislative laws based on fantasy. Anyway, in 1968, some of the first "safety" rules for automobile construction began issuing forth from the Federal Government, including mandatory installation of seat belts (although it was already being done voluntarily by some manufacturers as early as 1958). Also, among other things, came a rule that said that you must apply padding of some sort on what were previously painted steel dashboards so that when your torso was flung forward because of the required lap belts in an accident, your mouth would be somewhat cushioned before your teeth were all knocked out and your jaw broken. That minor oversight was corrected by shoulder belts, but, Congress never moves backward, so, car interiors will forever more be cheap, rotting, smelly, plastic trash.

I would be remiss if I were to lay substandard construction strictly at the hands of dumb safety excuses, because there's another, equally dastardly, Federal excuse for legislated control over logical manufacturing procedures. It is seemingly harmlessly known simply as CAFE. What, a restaurant? No. Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. My truck was built before any such idiocy as the thought that you could defy physics and legally demand that a given amount of hydrocarbon molecules produce infinately expandable amounts of energy upon combustion. An automotive engineer understands that burning an ounce of gasoline produces a definite amount of work. A physicist can explain why. But, only a Congressman can dictate that if that value is not exceeded, someone will pay!

Another inviolable rule is that no one can force a Congressman to understand anything he doesn't care about. So, what to do? The engineer's only choice is to do less with the same amount of fuel. What? Why not more? Once again, he has to work with physics. If you have to move a pound of steel in a paintable, dent and sun resistant, easily maintained door panel down the road a mile, and it takes a certain amount of fuel to produce the necessary work to accomplish that, but, it only takes a third of that weight in sunlight-decaying plastic to replace that pound of steel, you can move a less massive, less well constructed door panel that mile with less fuel. "Aha!," you exclaim. "But he can move it three times as far." Well, the problem is, less massive, less well constructed...... you get the idea. Now you're hurtling down the road like a loose Space Shuttle tile in a plastic ball full of expensive, dangerous contraptions designed to substitute for that all important steel shell that protects me, and, saved my father's life in a rollover accident several years ago in a similar truck. Your freedom to pay less for a well constructed vehicle that fits your needs has been hijacked by Government's need to dictate the opinions of others to you through control of your purchasing power.

Now, as for those brainwashed do-gooders that like to point to statistics that claim to justify mandatory "safety devices," where are the cries of "foul murder" when, as happened just today during a local motorcycle event, an accident claimed the life of a passenger of a bike that hit a bump in the highway and caused the driver to loose control. I'm sure that, along with her customary tank top, cutoff shorts, sandals, and tattoos, she was probably protected by the mandatory helmet. Why didn't anyone legislate that that machine come with mandatory training wheels, and, a carbon fiber cocoon with airbags? What? No self-respecting biker would buy it? Well, at least if they don't vote with their ballots, they are still, for now, able to make their own decisions and vote with their money.

But, you say, "the airbags and crush bumpers and seat belts make me feel safer." There you go again, giving up liberty for perceived security. More steel makes me feel safer. Simple physics. "But, we all have to pay for other people's injuries through higher insurance rates" claim insurance agents, and, their partners in crime, the Highway Patrol. Let's take another side trip. Normally, I don't begrudge a free enterprise making whatever the industry's market will bear. And there are circumstances where dealing with insurance companies can be beneficial. But, when they use scare tactics to lobby for a state mandated industry franchise to guarantee themselves a paycheck at MY expense, I get a little peeved. If I'm a responsible driver, why should I always have to financially share in other people's missadventures? At one time, auto insurance was nothing more than a prudent option that you were free to choose if you felt it necessary. Sort of like adding oil to your engine if you wanted it to last longer. Accidents were settled by legal means. They ultimately still are, you just have a third-party gorilla involved. People were more attentive to their driving, though, because they didn't have the perception of buying off the responsibility for their actions.

You never come out well with auto insurance. You bet against yourself, and, if you "win" and don't need their service because you're a skillfull, responsible driver, you loose the money spent on your premiums. Money gone forever. And, if you loose, well, you're likely injured, and, those premiums didn't prevent that, so you continue to pay anyway. Yes, they cover some bills, fight over others, and, disallow still others, but, none of that can make up for enduring two weeks in traction or major surgery when responsible driving would likely have avoided all of that.

Not to mention that they never use all of that money to pay the real value of repairs. If you have a 20 year old vehicle that you depend on to get to work and that you have invested five grand into for restoration or upgrades, they'll still only give you a few hundred bucks for it when it gets a dented fender because the fender repair cost twice as much as they want to "value" your vehicle at. To hell with you and the other $4,500.00 investment. And the years of premiums that would have well covered the repairs. There went my freedom to choose how to manage my repair money. And, I'll get cheerfully fined by the State if I don't support this Ponzi scheme, adding to their coffers, but, still not preventing one dented fender. Ninety-seven percent of which could be inexpensively prevented by forcing drivers to be more responsible by stiff fines for lawless driving, and, making them PERSONALLY responsible for their own carelessness. For example, if someone backs over your wheelbarrow in your tulip bed behind your front fence while texting gibberish to giddy cohorts, you file a lean against their car, income, or other property for the value of the damages. They pay or else. "But, what of people who cause accidents who have no assets or means to pay," you say? Well, what about those ubiquitous scofflaws, the "uninsured motorists"?

One reason I keep my truck is that it DOESN'T have airbags. Seems it doesn't need them. Makes me feel kinda independent, like a biker. And, considering the deaths they've caused over the years, safer.

I've drifted off the main message, the one I wanted to convey to General Motors (or, Government Motors, or whatever.) Since I began my odysey with the red truck over eighteen years ago, and, while it celebrates it's forty-third year on the planet, it has cost me, maintenance, fuel, insurance, registration, and capital expenditure included, an average of $232.00 a month to operate in daily service. It has done that for me for 246,000 miles. On top of someone else's 98 thousand. And, I can put it into brand new condition with my skills and $4,500.00. You see, it doesn't know how old it is, it just reacts to how it's treated. God forbid that the Government finds out how well it's performed, they'll try to kill it. (Remember "Cash for Clunkers"?)

Let's see the local GMC dealer with a comparable new truck match that. I'd bet that I can buy a lot of gas for the difference. Or, parts.

Pride

Flipping through an old notepad from 1994, I happened upon an entry from May of that year that brought back a poignant memory which has a timeless relevance. My mission on that day was an errand trip for one of my employers (I often have two or more at a time) which lead me to a local hardware store to procure a couple of band saw blades. These were made into "bands" by pulling a measured strip of blade material off a stock roll, cutting it, and electrically welding it end to end to form a useable loop that would fit your machine. Not a special operation in and of its self.

What made such a mundane task so memorable was the person performing the task. An older gentleman, early 70's, probably retired from some other career, but, with that particular firm since I had begun doing business there a decade earlier. While there were many much younger people employed there who could have managed the chore, this gentleman still set himself apart from the "watching the timeclock, rather be somewhere else" demeanor of the 20-somethings with his attitude. He was always genuinely interested in helping me, and businesslike in his execution of the task. He proffessionally and meticulously did the cutting, welding, and buffing as though he intended those blades to be the finest products the store had ever offered, and company reputation depended on it. Sincerity and integrity seemed to fill the air around that man, and the exceptional job he did was manifest evidence of the pride in workmanship he enjoyed in not only a job well done, but, in being able to demonstrate that it could be well done - for me. And he had no trouble displaying the same qualities to subsequent customers ad infinitum. I took the liberty of asking about his attitude, and, after thanking me for noticing, he explained that he came by it "honestly" as an adolescent, mainly the result of working with his father.

Now, the value of instilling such a legacy in families is so important that it will get it's own space later. But, while pride can and does get a bad rap in these days of political correctness, (unless it's displayed by a social group with an agenda) I believe it of intrinsic value to society in the propagation of civility, the lack of which is so emphatically decried. If you're confident in your own situation, that confidence is often noticed and literally "rubs off" onto other people, just like the smile that often accompanies it.

Once again, to paraphrase my 1945 reference work, (which will henceforth be cited as often as necessary) pride shows its self as a consciousness of "upright conduct", noble actions, or the like; a noble self esteem resulting from an appreciation of one's own dignity, character, or position; in other words, self respect. With the parenthetical allusion in the last paragraph duly noted, pride under these definitions must originate with motivation and integrity. Like respect, it must be earned by deeds guided by morality to be genuine, and cannot be appreciated, or, even warranted, without that legitimacy. With the credibility of that legitimacy, however, and, displayed in the manner of the gentleman at the hardware store, pride can be a powerful motivator for civil interaction in society from which we all benefit. It can move one from a collectivized, initiative lacking, and amorphous "yes, we can" to a self determining "yes, I will" and, ultimately, to a ruggedly individualistic and self reliant "yes, I did."

Pride is indeed something to aspire to. And, for the personal benefit, if for no other reason, I highly reccommend we all do.

Taking for granted that not all of us have the luxury of being able to always manage a positive outlook at work, let it be noted that the gentleman at the hardware store was not subject to the turnover rate of the other younger employees.

I would think that many of you have had a similar experience to mine that day long ago, but, can you remember how often or when?