Why I would support the NEED Act

If you said “This shouldn’t be a responsibility of the Federal government”, you’d be correct about 99% of the time. If you went on to say “This shouldn’t be a responsibility of government”, you’d be right at least 95% of the time ... giving some credit to the state and local.

We certainly have ample and overwhelming evidence of the catastrophic failures resulting from central planning and concentrated government power. Furthermore, based on our experience with our own government, it’s understandable that we in the Liberty movement would have a reactionary “burnt child” response to virtually ANY proposal coming from Washington D.C.

I believe the new legislation authored by Dennis Kucinich (dubbed the NEED Act) is an exception, and an idea that the Liberty movement should strongly support.

http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/NEED_ACT.pdf

We’ll have to forgive the silly “National Emergency Employment Defense Act” (NEED) acronym which is a D.C. standard. However, unlike the typical DC strategy of making a bill with a nice title covering up 2000 pages of freedom destroying, government empowering crap, this bill is less than 50 pages in length, and actually has some worthwhile substance.

If you read the legislation, there’s a lot of the typical “welfare state” language which we’ve come to recognize as the pretext for more government intrusion. Note however that most of these socialistic platitudes are in the “findings” (i.e. why we’re in this current economic mess) and at the end (i.e. explaining all of the good things that MIGHT be possible with the new law in place) The actual legislative content is in the middle and is generally very positive.

Primarily, the bill ends the Federal Reserve system, returning control of monetary policy to the Treasury, and ends fractional reserve banking, taking the money creation power away from the big banks. Opponents will argue that this amounts to a “government takeover” of the banks, but there is no truth to the argument. The bill just creates a fundamentally different business model for banks, based on the apparently radical concept that they should only be able to lend money that they actually have.

A potential flaw (this is my reactionary government mistrust) is that it still leaves government with the arbitrary power to manipulate the money supply. However, the specific mandate in the bill is for money supply governance that causes neither price inflation nor deflation. A good argument in favor of commodity backed money is that NOBODY should be entrusted with this power. However, Congress (with Fed enablement) ALREADY seems to spend whatever they want, far above and beyond their means, but borrows the money at interest. Furthermore, the Fed’s mandate already calls for “stable prices”, yet it has embarked on a renegade inflationary policy since its inception, with a secret balance sheet and NO accountability. A government panel with the same mandate and additional transparency could hardly be any WORSE.

Add to this bill some additional provisions which would overturn the sections of title 18 of the U.S. Code which criminalize the creation and use of alternative currencies (you can almost count on Ron Paul to propose that), and we could have a real winner.

The Liberty movement is full of those who advocate a gold standard or commodity backed money. If we ever established this sort of system without simultaneously eliminating the scourge of fractional reserve banking, it would accomplish very little. Even with the Fed out of the picture, the huge private banks and the international banking cartel would have the power to manipulate the money supply and perpetuate the boom and bust cycle. Furthermore, this immense “money creation” power, concentrated in private hands would continue to enable the undue influence of the banking cartel over our elected officials and appointed regulators.

A cursory glance at our current economic situation reveals that the millions of hard working people and small businesses which actually contribute to society by providing REAL tangible value are slaves to their debt and the debt-based monetary system. Meanwhile, the bankers who provide relatively little value, facilitating transactions and loaning money are prospering like never before. The big financial firms are taking in hundreds of billions of dollars in profits and paying record bonuses amounting to untold billions. I’m not making the typical class warfare argument which argues that the disparity must be addressed with government taxation and redistribution. It’s merely a strong indicator of a broken economic system where the people producing the real wealth of society struggle, and those that merely shuffle paper grow fabulously wealthy. It’s not a problem of too little government and insufficient taxation, it is a problem of a distorted economic landscape.

In contemporary politics, we serfs have our political differences, but we are arguing against each other in a world where we are all waist deep in the mire of debt and economic instability. Meanwhile, the bankers and political elites look down upon us from their mountains of wealth and laugh at our petty conflicts. If there is ONE issue upon which the average working class people should unite, it is the issue of monetary reform. In a fair monetary system, even based on a so-called “fiat currency”, we would at least be on a firm economic playing field. Of course our political differences wouldn’t instantly vanish. We in the liberty movement would still be focused on reducing government influence in our lives, maximizing individual liberty and advocating for non-interventionist foreign policy. With the real “den of vipers” rooted out however, the venom in the current false dichotomy “blame game” would be diluted as many of the problems to which we try to assign blame would slowly but surely evaporate.

Merry Christmas and Happy Festivus!

A couple of years ago my family spent some time during the Christmas season with my sisters, one of whom actually owns a Festivus pole. For those of you who don’t know, Festivus is a made-up holiday which was introduced to “the rest of us” on the television show Seinfeld. In addition to easily explainable events being labeled as "Festivus miracles,” traditions include the “Airing of Grievances,” during which participants hold an unadorned aluminum Festivus pole and gripe about everything from obnoxious drivers and inconsiderate shoppers to slimy politicians.

Having participated in such a gripe session I can assure you it is hysterically funny as well as extremely therapeutic. This year I have a few suppressed diatribes just waiting to be released so I thought I would grab the Festivus pole right now. Here goes:

My first grievance is with the political correctness surrounding Christmas. If anyone had peeked in my kitchen window the weekend after Thanksgiving they would have been privy to a private performance of Handel’s Messiah, with several encores of the Hallelujah Chorus (I sing all four parts, too.) Christmas always makes me nostalgic for this magnificent musical work, which I performed along with the other member of my public high school chorus three out of the four years we attended. Yes, that was a public high school, back before diversity and sensitivity relegated all things western and religious verboten. What a great loss this has been to our American culture, which, as much as we hate to admit, derived primarily from religious and western influences. What a personal loss it would have been to me had I not been introduced to the works of Handel and instead been allowed only the paltry, secularized musical diet of Frosty the Snowman and Winter Wonderland today’s public school choirs are confined to. True inclusion and tolerance would include all members of a society, even the majority.

Along those lines I give you my second gripe – the labelling of crimes as “hate crimes.” A few weeks ago a red-haired student at my local middle school was kicked by some of her classmates because it was “Kick a Ginger Day.” As a “ginger” myself, and the mother and sister of several others, I recognized this instantly for what it - a crime based on a physical characteristic, or a “hate crime.”

Though around the same time letters were pouring into the newspaper regarding allegations of racial taunts on the Career Development Center bus, no one spoke up on behalf of this girl, who had actually been physically assaulted. Not much happened to the kickers but few seemed to notice. Unfortunately for this student, she was not a member of a protected minority. If she had been, this assault would have carried stiffer penalties.

As we read in George Orwell’s Animal Farm, some animals are more equal than others and “hate crime” legislation is a perfect example of this.It elevates one group over another based on physical or cultural characteristics and fosters inequality. In this nation we are supposed to be equal under the law. As Martin Luther King said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Hate crime legislation is not only unjust; it is insulting to the favored and unfavored alike.

My final gripe - and it’s a big one – is with British economist John Maynard Keynes, the man who, in my opinion, is most responsible for the current fiscal disaster that is our economy. Keynesian economic theory is obviously too complicated to cover in an newspaper column but, in short, Keynes advocated the use of governmental fiscal and monetary measures to mitigate the adverse effects of the economic recessions and depressions that naturally occur in free markets (therefore rendering them unfree.) We see Keynes’ handiwork in the destructive TARP and stimulus plans being foisted upon us today as well as “Quantitative Easing” and war as the new norm. Many Keynesians view military spending as stimulative and therefore desirable. In a nutshell, Keynes believed governments should spend money they do not have and most have been more than happy to test his theory out. Unfortunately, this philosophy has permeated all of society to the point where we are dependent on credit and consumption rather than savings and production. On both a national and personal level this has produced devastating results.

The only bright spot in all this is the re-emergence of the Austrian school of economic thought. Friedrich Von Hayek, the Austrian school’s foremost representative, was Keynes contemporary and intellectual rival in the depression-dominated 1930s. Hayek was a prolific writer and producer of economic theory so it is impossible to sum up his theory in a single sentence, but he believed savings and investment rather than credit led to a more stable business cycle. He also said order in the free market is the product "of human action but not human design" and governments could not possibly predict the independent actions of millions of individuals. Therefore, they could not control the overall consequences of those actions.

This seems reasonable to most laypeople, which may be why Hayek is getting a new hearing. Sound monetary principles bringing about a sound economy - why, it’s a Festivus miracle!

Washington in our pantries

With Thanksgiving leftover still filling our fridges, it’s hard to think of something that brings people together more than food. This is true even in the political arena, where a controversial food safety bill is making strange bedfellows of such disparate groups as free-spirited organic farmers and other localvores and buttoned-down free-market think tanks types.

At the center of debate is senate bill 510, the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, which is slated for a full senate vote as early as Monday of this week. While advocates say this act will streamline efforts by the FDA and other agencies to keep the United States’ food supply safe, opponents wonder why a food supply already described as “remarkably safe” by the Center for Disease Control needs federal agencies tinkering around with it. They also worry about the negative effects it will have on food prices in general and small farm, organic and artisan products in particular. These, of course, are the very food producers which power a large segment of Vermont’s local and state agricultural economy.

S. 510 re-emerged this fall after a salmonella outbreak this past summer resulted in the recall of half a billion eggs and at least a thousand ill. Fortunately the incidence of salmonella poisoning and most food-borne illnesses has steadily declined over the past few years; but we will never be able to eliminate all risk in life. This summer’s outbreak occurred despite the fact that the Food and Drug Administration already has broad powers of regulation over food safety and production. Funny how government agencies often reward themselves with more power when they screw up, while private companies lose customers and market share and are subjected to congressional hearings when they make mistakes.

Unfortunately, Vermont’s farmers and specialty food makers may feel the brunt of this latest power grab. Though an amendment has been added to this legislation to help relieve small food producers from the over-burdensome nature of the new regulation, it establishes arbitrary limits that make little difference in real terms. For instance, the Tester amendment allows small producers - those earning $500,000 or less in annual sales - to continue under state and local regulations. As soon as they exceed that amount the full force and cost of the legislation comes to bear. With the current economic policies being enacted by the federal reserve and widespread fear of inflation, especially in commodities, that $500,000 number may be reached quickly in the next few years.

Another feature of the Tester amendment - an exemption for those selling most of their food directly to consumers, local restaurants and retailers within a 275-mile radius - makes little sense in practice. Consider this: a cheesemaker from Middlebury could sell her wares to retail outlets in Rochester, New York, which is about 229 miles distant, but has to register with a new federal regulatory agency, submit to federal inspections, fill out a copious amount of paperwork and then keep track of regulation as it changes and becomes more demanding (as it always does) to sell the same cheese to stores in Buffalo, which is 293 miles away. Within large states like California and Texas federal regulations would apply to intrastate commerce.

Large food producers have sophisticated operations able to deal with government requirements. Small producers rarely have the extra financial or or personnel resources to keep up with the onerous burdens increased government regulation necessitates. A few years the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act was passed and the prohibitive costs associated with adhering to this legislation drove hundreds of small toy manufacturers out of business. Meanwhile, companies such as Mattel and Hasbro live on to stock the shelves for yet another Christmas buying season..

There is one important check on businesses both large and small - the free market. Consumers should be able to decide which risks they are willing to take and which they are willing to pay extra to avoid. In the case of eggs, for instance, pasteurized eggs are widely available in grocery stores, though at a higher price. For those who like to eat cookie dough or make Hollandaise sauce, the extra cost might be worth it. For the rest of us, maybe not so much. Are we not capable of assessing the level of risk without Washington imposing on us safety levels above and beyond what we decide we need?

Businesses have nothing to gain by sickening their customers. It is in the best interest of all companies, large and small, to produce high quality products and quickly remove those that do harm. The pressure of competition encourages businesses to provide the best products possible. Our nation’s food supply is the safest in the world not because of government agencies but because producers are held accountable to consumers.

Corporatism vs. Free Market Capitalism, (and a call to action)

The idea of central planning as the underpinning of an economic system, whether labeled “Socialist”, “Communist”, or “Fascist” is repugnant to those who support free markets, or what might be broadly referred to as “Capitalism”.

There is however an equally repugnant but more insidious system that has materialized without many open advocates or a genuine philosophical underpinning. For lack of a precise term, it might be known as “corporatism” or “crony capitalism”, mixed in with a few tablespoons of genuine fascism. Basically, this is the economic and political system that reigns supreme in the contemporary United States of America. This system is abhorrent to free market principles and its economic effects are disastrous to the vast majority of citizens. In addition, it makes a mockery of the rule of law and destroys individual liberty, initiative, and the entrepreneurial spirit. Perhaps even more diabolical however is the fact that this system persists while masquerading as genuine “capitalism” and a system of “free markets”.

Our entire education system (up to and including elite post-secondary and graduate schools) along with the big-named economists, pundits and mainstream media talking heads persistently emphasize the idea that the United States is a society based on capitalism and the concept of free markets. During our 200+ year history, there have been periods where the description was generally accurate. In the current economic environment, the bones of the free market have been picked clean by the corporatist vultures and only the pale ghost of capitalism remains. Yet, the so-called mainstream thinkers are remarkably successful in maintaining the illusion and allowing the widespread damage and economic injustices of rampant statism and central planning to be blamed on free market capitalism.

Under this guise, the so-called “financial crisis” of 2007 and 2008 led many to suggest that we were witnessing the great failure of free markets and the culmination of the Marxist prophecies predicting capitalism’s demise. Beyond the smoke and mirrors however, we were seeing the bright beacon of the free market’s potential and the bloody fingerprints of central planning on a grievously wounded economy. An edifice based on decades of interest rate manipulation (repugnant to the principles of a free market) combined with statist interference in the mortgage industry (a-la Fannie, Freddie, FHA, etc.) and a culture of widespread federally sanctioned fraud stood poised to come crashing down with a delicate wave of the invisible hand. Even after this prolonged period of rule bending and statist intervention, the force of the free market was being felt. The perpetrators of fraud and those whose greed had led them to massive mal-investment were about to be punished. The culprits at the Federal Reserve and the central planners in government were on the verge of having their meddling and mis-allocation of resources explode in their faces. Only a massive and unprecedented onslaught of government support and an insane money-printing spree were able to sustain the system. Temporarily.

Fraud is generally repugnant to any society or economic system, and especially so to the advocates of a free market. Though they cause temporary distortions, frauds and swindles are ultimately expunged by the fundamental nature of the free market. Thanks to massive statist intervention and active government participation in the perpetration, legitimization and obfuscation of fraud, this warped system of U.S.-style corporatism has been remarkably persistent. Monumental interventionism has granted the system a temporary stay of execution, and the spectre of the free market has been momentarily banished. Yet another layer has been added to the economic house of cards. Financial institutions remain bankrupt by any fair or accurate accounting standards. The Federal Reserve is single-minded in its focus to suck every last drop of blood from the productive economy to keep the parasites alive. Commodity prices increase in the presence of stagnant wages causing pain to the lowest income earners. Value-adding producers in the real economy see their operating margins compressed to oblivion as their input costs rise with zero ability to pass on price increases to the wealth-stripped customer. Massive government deficit spending (now accounting for nearly 10% of GDP), is necessary just to keep up the slightest fiction of economic recovery, and an incessant string of spurious (later revised) government statistics is seized upon by the mainstream media propaganda machine as evidence of progress.

Economic prognostication in this environment of statism and interventionism is a fool’s errand, but it is likewise foolish to suggest that any of the major economic trends are moving in a direction likely to yield improvement for the average U.S. citizen. The free market WILL ultimately prevail. Whether it triumphs by a sudden “return to sanity” in the current environment, gradually works through a period of prolonged economic misery, or arises from the ashes of a general societal meltdown is the only question. Regardless of how the end game plays out however, those who would champion liberty, sound monetary policy and free markets have a MISSION! It is our imperative to expose the doppleganger of corporatism and shatter the illusion that the economic malaise of the 21st century United States of America is due to shortcomings of the free market or capitalism. Whether we fix the problem now, or in years hence are left only to fix the blame, the economic misery of millions must be inextricably linked to the corrupt corporatist system and the miserable failure of central planning.

Thoughts on Green Mountain Communes

Green Mountain Communes: The Making of a Peoples’ Vermont

http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=7248


I found this article giving a brief history of Vermont communes to be a fascinating read which should be enlightening for people across the political spectrum. The examples are a microcosmic genesis of contemporary political tension. I was entirely enthused with the concepts up until the descriptions of militarism and the subsequent “Progressive Party” type ideas.

The spirits of local entrepreneurship, cooperation, sustainability, gender equality and voluntary social arrangements are all excellent. If the current crop of "Progressives" would take a little bit of individual (or collective) initiative and attempt to solve social problems by similarly creative and ambitious means, perhaps it could serve as a "model" for others to follow.

Perhaps the contemporary progressive movement has instead fallen prey to a certain intellectual laziness or collective myopia? Rather than working in a system of voluntary participation such as these early communes, the current "Progressive" ideal has been twisted into a belief system which advocates that resources be extracted from INvoluntary participants through the use of force. These resources are then reallocated by nonproductive central planners in an attempt to achieve an outcome which might represent an “idealized” version of these bygone communes. Such an outcome was never genuinely achieved by these systems, as indicated by the eventual dissolution of the groups, and such an outcome is definitely unachievable through coerced participation.

I fully support the local farmer's markets and food co-ops and buy from local producers as much as possible. I'll donate to local charities and lend a hand to my friends and neighbors in times of need. I make these choices willingly. If a group of my fellow Vermonters desire, by mutual agreement, to set up a communal living arrangement and behave in accordance with their own social norms, values and microeconomic systems, I would steadfastly defend their freedom to do so.

However, when such a group of people organize (i.e. politically) and decide that it is within their right to confiscate wealth from others by the use of force, and then attempt to re-shape all of society to conform to THEIR subjective ideals, I will resist. Mr. Houriet believes that future economic conditions will motivate people to adopt a more communal societal arrangement such as the early communes described. If that eventuality is indeed in our future, so be it. We will then choose freely to participate. As of now, economic necessity does not mandate this style of living and it is therefore immoral and unjust to use government as a mechanism to compel such arrangements on unwilling participants.

Have a cup of tea

The American people have just erected the largest and most important trade barrier in history - they said no to the importation of European democratic socialism and decided it’s time to support to the greatest product this nation has ever produced domestically - constitutional government based on the principles of economic and political freedom.

Oh, sure, there are still a few European wannabes holding out for their piece of France - our own beloved Vermont and much of New England, New York and California come to mind. But this election has shown the rest of the country is responding to messages of fiscal responsibility, limited government, free markets and individual liberty and responsibility. Not at all coincidentally, these are the very ideas that have been found on placards, heard in speeches and expounded upon in numerous opinions pieces since the Tea Party movement roared into existence eighteen months ago.

The people of the Tea Party have overcome tremendous opposition in their fight to restore accountability to American politics and policy. First they were dismissed, then mocked, then attacked. According to a famous quote from Mahatma Ghandi, that is the natural progression in any situation when a bunch of upstarts dares to take on authority.

But then, Ghandi said, you win.

The Tea Party has entered the “win” phase. In a relatively short time, it has evolved from scattered groups of citizens holding rallies marked by the singing of patriotic songs, recitations of the pledge of allegiance, opening and closing prayers, dissertations on American history and more than a few angry speeches and into a collection of politically savvy activists. For some months now the Tea Party has been defining the terms of our national debate.

This reality strikes fear in the hearts of established politicians, who rather enjoy spending their days figuring out ways to increase their own wealth, power and status. Having to work with people supported by country-class rubes is rather distasteful. Republicans already know this, having already been forced to rub shoulders with these candidates. Democrats are about to meet the riffraff.

Tea Party-backed candidates who are heading to Congress have a quaint but specific mandate from voters - they are expected to actually read and understand the Constitution of the United States and honor the spirit of the document that codifies the uniquely American political philosophy based on the concept of natural law and its byproducts - maximum individual liberty, state sovereignty and limited national government.

None of this fits the ruling class agenda so its contempt for those of us who still share the founders’ vision knows no bounds. But what really frustrates the Washington elite, politicians and pundits alike, is that the Tea Party is such a moving target. It provides no leader to besmirch and attack because it is composed of millions of motivated citizens working together in thousands of small groups for a common cause. The charge that the Tea Parties receive millions of dollars in funding from shady outside sources is patently untrue. As someone who heads a small group here in Bennington, is associated the larger Vermont liberty movement and counts many New York Tea Party members as friends, I know that every time we want to rent a fair booth or order a box of pocket-sized Constitutions we have to pass the hat.

I also know the liberty movement’s motto, “Don’t Tread on Me,” applies to politicians and fellow travelers alike. Media pundits who only understand centralized power cannot accept this new paradigm and keep trying to make the members of the liberty movement fit into their Washington box of consensus building and compromise. But trying to control this movement is like herding cats. Each town, county and state organization is different from each other and from their counterparts across the country. We’ve agreed to disagree on many issues and remain civil and cooperative as we stand committed to those political values on which we can unite. The Tea Party may be the embodiment of the form of government our founders envisioned for this country, one truly organized by and for the people.

The American people understand bigger isn’t necessarily better when it comes to most things, especially government. They understand the solutions to our difficulties can be found within the American people and the communities they comprise. They are willing to do what needs to be done but they are no longer willing to beg for Washington’s permission to govern themselves and their communities as they see fit. Increasingly they realize that what D.C. does or doesn’t do should be irrelevant in American lives.

Their challenge, now that they have reached this new understanding, is to make sure their representatives also understand and respect the new American paradigm and, when it comes to government, keep buying American

A September 12th Do-over

Sometimes I fantasize about what I wish George W. Bush had said and done following the 9/11 attacks. My alternative version goes something like this:

My Fellow Americans;

My heart goes out to the victims of yesterday’s horrific attack at the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon in Washington D.C. It swells with deep admiration and gratitude for the courage and determination of the passengers of Flight 93, whose heroism defies description. It also mourns the death of the innocence of the American people, whose security and confidence have been so severely shaken.

I have spent the night in solemn prayer on behalf of the victims and their families, whose shock and anger I share and whose grief I can only begin to comprehend. Please know that the American people stand - and kneel –in complete sympathy and solidarity with you. This attack on Americans on American soil will not go unanswered and we promise your loved ones have not died in vain.

Over the past twenty-four hours I have consulted my foreign policy team as well as my own understanding of this event and my feelings about it. I have spent much time in deep reflection about what this tragedy means to the United States today and her many tomorrows. I humbly acknowledge that how we respond to this attack will have serious consequences for our nation and the world. Because of the gravity of this situation, and its potential to influence American policy for many years to come, I will use the utmost care in my response.

There is a temptation in such circumstances to respond in kind, quickly and fiercely. A people in as much pain as the American people naturally desire the satisfaction of striking back and exacting revenge. Yet we must think as well as feel if we are to truly avenge this despicable act. Though the deaths of three thousand innocent Americans cries out for vengeance, we must be sure that our response ultimately makes us stronger as a nation and ensures the continuation of our role as a leader in the cause of human liberty.

With that being said I would like to announce at this time the withdrawal of all foreign monetary aid to nations that do now or have in the past harbored or supported terrorists such as those ones behind yesterday’s attack and many other attacks against American citizens and service men and women over the past three decades. We are beginning to comprehend this killing of military personnel, as well as innocents, has been sanctioned, even ordered, by the leaders of these terrorist organizations. Men such as Osama Bin Laden, in fact, claim the murder of American citizens is a religious duty. As recently as May of this year Bin Laden said “Allah ordered us in this religion to purify Muslim land of all non-believers.” It is insulting to the American people that their tax dollars may help prop up the very people who want to kill them. Therefore, we will honor Mr. Bin Laden’s desire that the United States stop meddling in the Islamic world by stopping all non-trade related financial interference in that region.

As for a military response, let me say now that we will not be provoked into a response that will ultimately hurt the United States more than the enemy. I have too much respect for the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States to use them thoughtlessly and recklessly and so I promise you any future military action we might take will be carefully planned and then swiftly and effectively executed. The full wrath of the United States is an awesome and terrible thing and we will do all we can to make sure it is demonstrated against our true enemies.

At the same time, it has been said that war is the health of the state so we hope to resolve this situation decisively and then return to a secure and certain peace as quickly as possible. I would like to also assure the American people that the United States’ government will not use this event as an excuse to grow and take more power unto itself. Past wars have provided despotic leaders the opportunities to infringe upon and restrict civil liberties – I make a firm commitment to you now that this will not happen. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus said “The best way of avenging thyself is not to become like the wrong-doer” and I pledge that the document which has made America a great and open society, the Constitution, will not be sacrificed to this cause.

I thank you, my fellow Americans, for your examples of courage and compassion, for your prayers on my behalf and your willingness to stand together as a nation. May we always remember and display the unity and love of country we feel today. God bless you. And God bless America.

Vermont Campaign for Liberty's Core Principles: Limited Constitutional Government

Surprisingly one of the hardest plank in the VTC4L's "platform" to get across to people is the idea of limited Constitutional Government. Whenever it is mentioned, the average Joe's eyes glaze over and a hint of fear washes over their faces. This reaction is understandable given that we live in an age of Santa Claus politicians, entitlements, and the ubiquity of the Statist attitude. However, in each exchange with our fellow Vermonters there is hope that minds are changing.

An old friend of the family stopped by the fair booth last night. Though he knew about my work with the Campaign, he was never really interested to learn more. After taking the World's Smallest Quiz, and scoring exactly like I thought he would (conservative statist), we started to talk about the conditions our nations finds itself.

In his seventies, my friend grew up in a world of ever-growing entitlement programs and expansive government. For most of his lifetime, he had been told that all of the troubles in the world could be solved by governmental action. However, since his birth during the Roosevelt administration until the era of "Hope and change", these problems seemed to have never gone away and still more problems were caused by the very entity that was to cure them. He honestly admitted a sense of hopelessness and impotence in the face of this growing wave of troubles. "If the government can't fix it, how can we?" He asked. I replied, "did it occur to you that many of the problems we face today has been the result of governmental attempts to fix everything?" He was taken aback by my observation, but the thought clearly struck a chord deep within him.

The Vermont Campaign for Liberty honors and cherishes the Constitutions of this State and the Nation. We believe that they were well-crafted and deliberate documents which were created with great care and forethought. Looking at contemporaneous documents (among them the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights), we find that the spirit and the philosophy of a limited government is readily apparent.

The founders created a Federal Government with a complex system of checks and balances. The three branches curbing the impulses toward power in each other. The power of the Federal Government restrained by the sovereignty of the several states. The people being the ultimate check on all government, intervening when any of them becomes destructive to their liberty.

Looking specifically at the Federal Constitution, we know that the document envisioned a limit on its power through the enumeration of its authority in Article One, Section Eight. Under the traditional protocols of legal interpretation, whenever there is such an enumeration, it is assumed that such a list of powers serves as a limitation of authority. For if it were otherwise, then the enumeration would be rendered meaningless. Therefore, faced with this guide to interpretation, one would have to wonder why the Founders included such a list if it was not meant to act as a restraint upon the powers of the Federal Government.

Turning to the Bill of Rights, we have further evidence of this intent to limit the power of the Federal Government in the provisions found there, especially in Amendments IX and X. It has long been established that the Bill of Rights is not a statement of what rights you have. In fact, this document clearly set further limits on the Federal Government regarding what they can do while interacting with the average citizen. The Government can not restrict your rights to speak as you wish, pray or not as you wish, publish what you like, and gather together. The government can not prevent you from defending yourself. Your home is your castle, a domain which the government can't invade without just cause. The evils of a darker age in the law are abolished and the State must try you in open court, before a jury of your peers, and must find you guilty before punishing you. And when punishing you, the government can not use methods which are inhumane or bizarre. Finally, this document concludes with two reminders that the power of government is limited and the rights of the people are absolute. The Ninth Amendment clearly indicates that nothing mentioned before, either in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, serve as a limit on the unnumerated rights that all people are born with. The Tenth Amendment further holds that those powers not specifically granted the Federal Government belong to the States and the people.

These fine-crafted documents created a government meant to perform specific things and to do so in a manner that is not destructive of the liberties of its people. Government was to be the referee in the game of society and commerce. It was to serve as the foundation and framework for our activities. It was to be the defender of our safety and liberty in the face of dangers both domestic and foreign. Government was to be the necessary evil that allowed civil society to function. However, time, ignorance, greed, covetousness, and apathy has lead us to this age of mega-government.

We, as a nation, have forgotten that the very wealth and opportunities we enjoy today came from the individual initiative of our fellow citizens, and not the government. We have been condition to consider every problem we face in the world around us as something government is best able to address. "There outta be a law!" has been the mantra of the people for way too long.

Long ago, it was observed that the government which governs least, governs best. With all of the failures, mishaps, waste, and fraud that plagues this nation due to the bloated bureaucracy of our governments, both state and national, this axiom has been proven true over and over again. Our government races to intrude more and more upon our daily lives, creating poorly thought out and financially unsustainable programs, all of which endanger our liberties, our labors, and our futures. The tidal wave of debt, regulations, and economic mismanagement must be stopped before it washes away all for which we have worked.

Our system, which no longer has the confidence of the average American, is out of balance. It no longer serves the long term interest of our nation and its people. The States, once sovereign and proud, are little more than financial junkies pitifully begging for another hit of stimulus dollars just to get by. Citizens of this great republic have become pliant servants of the grand scheme of the elites.

It is up to us to restore the balance. We must work to return our government to its constitutional foundations. It will not be done by protest or voting alone, but by the consistent effort of those who see the danger and can no longer standby and do nothing.

During the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the Founders assumed that the American people would be the ultimate restraint on the government they were creating. They feared the power and the passion of the average person. They knew that the American was jealous of his liberties and would take on anyone who sought to infringe upon them. It is time to fulfill that assumption and restore our Republic. It is time to return our government to its limited, constitutional role.

P Stands for Pravda in VPR

Pravda  
By Deborah T. Bucknam

Recently I read a story about a young American who stayed with a family in Leningrad during the Soviet era. The family would gather around the TV set every night to watch the news. The young man reported that the news was unvarying: great news from the Soviet Union, good news from Eastern Europe, and bad news from the West. 


Vermont Public Radio follows the Soviet era model. A review of its morning and evening news broadcasts over the last several months reveals that VPR reports great news about Democrats and particularly our Democratic congressional delegation, good news from the Progressive party, and in the rare instances it reports on Republican candidates, bad news. 


Now that the campaign season is in full swing, VPR has ramped up its congressional happy talk. VPR broadcasts stories directly from Sen. Leahy, Sanders and Rep. Welch’s press offices, with quotes from our congressional leaders, including almost daily "news" about federal funds coming into Vermont, complete with a member of our Congressional delegation praising the worthiness of the funded programs. Other stories showcase Leahy, Sanders and Welch as fighters against greedy capitalists and gargantuan oil polluters. There were several "news" stories about Sen. Leahy in the "spotlight" as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and two glowing articles about Leahy’s nearly 15 year unsuccessful "fight" for a landmine treaty. Another favorite VPR technique is to approvingly broadcast "news" about a member of our congressional delegation introducing bills in Congress. Never mind that introducing a bill is a non-event and the bill may never get past a subcommittee. 


None of these "stories" are newsworthy. They are merely congressional news releases dutifully re-broadcast by VPR. 


Stories about Republican campaigns are usually either negative or non-existent. For example, recently, after broadcasting stories about government stimulus funds coming to Vermont, thanks to Sanders and Welch, VPR broadcast a story that the largest campaign war chest in Vermont was funded by donors who were not aware that it was operated by a Republican Governor’s committee. The only comment VPR broadcast about the matter was from VPIRG, a far left advocacy organization (although VPR never names it as such) complaining that the fund should be "transparent". VPR also recently broadcast a Democrat’s criticism of Republican Auditor of Account’s campaign finance filing; negative remarks between Republican Secretary of State candidates, and two mistakes on Sarah Palin’s Facebook page when she endorsed a New Hampshire Republican candidate. Negative stories about Republicans are never too insignificant for the VPR news team. 


VPR has instituted a virtual news blackout of the U.S. Senate and House races here in Vermont. Thanks to VPR’s news embargo, for example, many Vermonters have not heard of the sole Republican Senate Candidate Len Britton, an attractive young Vermont businessman whose political views more closely mirror Vermonters’ opinions than do those of the antediluvian Sen. Leahy. Britton’s clever Youtube videos about our burgeoning national debt have caught national attention, including CBS news, but VPR has refused to broadcast any stories about this phenomenon. 


With Sen. Leahy’s campaign war chest at almost $3.5 million, the chances of Len Britton being heard above the Leahy din in the paid media are small. Similarly, Rep. Welch’s campaign war chest is also substantial, unlike his opponents. Because of Leahy’s and Welch’s rich store of campaign funds coupled with the their nearly daily free broadcasts from VPR, and VPR’s news blackout of Leahy’s and Welch’s opponents, Vermonters, like Soviet era citizens, have practically no opportunity to hear dissenting voices or to meaningfully participate in Vermont’s U.S. Congressional races.


VPR has become a well-behaved appendage of the Vermont Democratic political establishment instead of a vigorous First Amendment practitioner. Our Vermont democratic process suffers as a result. 

Deborah T. Bucknam, Esq.
Law Offices of Deborah T. Bucknam & Associates, PC

The Battle of Bennington and why it mattered

On a foggy morning in August of 1777 about 2,000 men broke camp and prepared for battle. These members of the New Hampshire, Vermont and Massachusetts militias were mostly farmers, not trained soldiers. The enemy they went to meet was a combination of regulars from the British Army, hired German soldiers, Native Americans, and even some of their own neighbors who remained loyal to the British crown. By mid-afternoon they would be fighting what we now call the Battle of Bennington.

This group of novice soldiers was led by two men who had in the past few years learned and practiced the art of war – Seth Warner and John Stark. Warner, whose home stood not far from the Henry Bridge that now straddles the Walloomsac between Bennington and North Bennington, had been an active member of the Green Mountain Boys. The military skirmishes the Green Mountain Boys engaged in while defending their land from New York and British authorities provided valuable training for these citizen soldiers. Warner was respected for his military experience and leadership, having also taken part in Ethan Allen’s successful capture of Fort Ticonderoga in 1775. In July of 1777 Warner had solidified his reputation as a courageous leader in the Battle of Hubbardton.

New Hampshire’s John Stark was a committed patriot and a veteran of the French and Indian War who had more recently distinguished himself at the Battle of Breed’s Hill. If Warner was a soldier’s soldier, Stark was a rebel’s rebel. When the New Hampshire legislature, having been warned by Ira Allen of an impending British invasion of New England via Vermont, called him out of retirement to lead its militia in the upcoming battle, Stark placed one important condition on his acceptance of the command – that it be independent of the Continental Army. Still smarting from the insult of being passed over for promotion in that army, Stark said he would report directly to the legislature.

Immediately Stark began gathering volunteers and soon commanded nearly 1,500 troops. They arrived in Vermont in early August and met up with Warner in Manchester on the seventh. Warner’s intimate knowledge of the area where the battle would eventually take place helped these men plan what would be a winning strategy.

General Benjamin Lincoln of the Continental Army was also in Manchester, having been sent there to bring the New Englanders to New York’s Hudson Valley, where the American and British were preparing for battle. Stark, confident in his independent command, refused; he instead planned to march south. He reasoned, correctly it turned out, that the British would be after the supplies and ammunition stored in Bennington. He and his men aimed to deny them.

The Battle of Bennington started around 3 p.m. on August 16 in Walloomsac, where British Lieutenant Colonel Friedrich Baum and some 600 troops had set up their defenses. The multi-pronged attack Stark and Warner had planned worked perfectly and an American victory seemed certain. Then the German reinforcements Baum had been waiting for arrived and the battle began to turn.

Just as it seemed the Americans would be defeated after all, Warner arrived with the reinforcements he had marched down from Manchester the day before. These fresh and eager soldiers beat back the Germans and secured victory. The Battle of Bennington was a resounding success for the Americans, who lost 30 men and suffered 40 wounded. The British saw 200 killed with 700 captured, almost their entire force. As Stark wrote in his report to the New Hampshire legislature “Had sunlight lasted another hour we would have beat them all.”

Thomas Jefferson later visited the Catamount Tavern in Bennington where much of the last-minute planning for the battle had taken place. He wrote “This success was the first link in the chain of events which opened a new scene in America.” British historian G.M. Trevelyan observed the Battle of Bennington “…proved to be the turning point of the Saratoga campaign, which was the turning point of the Revolutionary War.”

The question remains why these men fought. As the British approached New England many of their neighbors had accepted protection, some turning from patriots to loyalists in a matter of hours. The American forces had suffered mostly defeat at the hands of the British up to that point and with the recent loss of Fort Ticonderoga there was little cause of future optimism. What kept these men, these citizen soldiers, fighting for what appeared to be a lost cause?
Perhaps the answer is found in the New Hampshire state motto, which is itself a product of the Battle of Bennington. Poor health forced General Stark to decline an invitation to an anniversary reunion of the battle but he sent this toast: “Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils.”

Liberty Trivia

Q: Who is known as "The Father of Liberalism'?

Answers:  

A. Thomas Hobbes

B. John Locke

C. Karl Marx

D. Jean-Jacques Rousseau

E. Some other dead white guy

An Evening at Bernie's

I attended one of Bernie's Town Hall Meetings in Woodstock the other night. Here's my report:

Bernie's 'Town Hall' meeting was a bit one-sided. There was one conservative vs. 100+ plus sycophants in the audience. The usual parade of 'gimme groups' was represented. At the table were 5 or 6 talking heads from the Windsor County Poverty Center (needs more funding) , Head Start (needs more funding), Insufferable Woodstock (needs more funding), Health Care is a Human RIght (needs Single Payer system), etc. They gave a short spiel which basically centered around the government being parsimonious, especially at a time when so many people need help during the recession. Bernie would cap their presentations with his normal well-honed spiel. Jerry from the Senior Center was on the panel, he wasn't too bad, and seemed a little uncomfortable being up there with the rest of the gimme girls. 

Questions were asked from the crowd which were basically half plants from people who were with Bernie's travelling road show (most of whom were wearing the red Health Care is a Human Right tee-shirts); and half from Woodstock. 

Our townspayer's questions were generally good and interesting, the stooge questions the regular soft-ball pablum. Bob Williamson asked Bernie to join his anti-gun violence group, one person (Ola) suggested we support the troops, then asked Bernie if it was time to bring back the draft. This brought on a lot of sucked-in breaths and muttered under the breath comments "She must be a Republican". I don't know, is she?

I wish I had started to record how many times Bernie brought up the word 'Bush". It was at least 12 times, Cheney even got mentioned. Obama's name came up a couple of times. He ragged on free-trade, on how the US buys goods manufactured by Bangladeshis for 11¢ an hour and bemoaned the loss of union jobs. He extolled Keynesian economics and generally denigrated capitalism. 

Amazingly I heard something new: he actually said that the deficit is something to be concerned about. But that didn't stop he and the crowd from seeking to increase spending on every pet project or special interest they could possibly think of settling their thoughts on. 

A few interesting comments I jotted down:

Bernie called the Democratic party 'centrist' as opposed to the extremely right-wing GOP. I laughed out loud at that one. 

He spoke long and often on the decline of the middle class. Not seeming to realize that high taxation and loss of small business jobs is the primary reason for this economic shift.

He warned that there would be a lot of out-of-state money coming in to fight off the Single Payer plan that leftists in Vermont are fighting for. I found that pretty ironic, considering the audience was stacked with mysteriously funded and organized out-of-state Health Care is Human Right activists.

There was a moment of levity when Bernie called Harry Reid, 'the least charismatic guy' in the Senate.

An alarming occurrence was the number of people who were seeking the Senate to change it's rules to change from a 60 vote majority for passage of bills to a simple majority. They complained about the Republican filibusters blocking their very important legislation. Seemingly oblivious to the fact that they might not have a majority in Congress come November when they'll surely be filibustering the bejeesus out of everything and declaiming the horror of the Tyrannical Rule of the Majority.... but of course, they're not known for long range thinking. 

Bernie complained about some conservative's plan for raising the Social Security retirement age to 70, a move I've personally believed in for the last 30 years, and asked if anyone thought it was a good idea. I chickened out and didn't raise my hand. Considering I was within choking distance of ten or twenty seasoned citizens, it didn't seem too 'politic'. It was not my finest hour.

There were many calls from the crowd to 'ration and sacrifice' in the cause of global warming. Many comparisons on how we won World War Two in two years by a national effort, and why can't we do the same thing to save the planet? Bernie pointed out how the world's scientists were all agreed on the threat to the earth from rising temperatures, and how the opposition was only represented by arch-conservative talk show hosts like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh. The crowd jeered and booed at those references, as you might expect, but they seemingly never heard of the Midland scandals of false science that came out to discredit their position last fall. Much easier to ignore reality for these deluded souls. Oh, there was much talk of the coming utopia of green jobs, a seemingly surefire way to save the Vermont economy if only we would open the taps and pour in enough government money. I couldn't help but think as I watched the optimistic, wide-eyed true believer faces, 'Hey if it's such a good idea, why don't you people go invest in windmills and photocells down in the Arizona deserts'? With all this untapped free power all around us, why is it that the government has the only keys to unlock the natural nirvana? 

There were the usual rallying cries of rolling back the estate tax breaks, and to increase taxes to even higher levels upon the 'rich'. Not much talk about how to make people rich. Same old same old.

The night was capped for me when one of the red shirts stood up and asked Bernie when he was going to get a government waiver (whatever that is) since he has a very rare form of undiagnosed depression that prevents him from doing anything constructive. (Other than following Bernie around). He said he came from Michigan and now lives in Rutland, where I guess someone gave him a shirt. I chickened out again when I didn't stand up and tell him I had the simple prescription for his mental problem: a job.

Don't Treat the Symptoms, Cure the Cause!- part 2: A friend visits

The door to Bo DePaulotic's apartment slowly opened and in trudged Bo. His face was empty of emotion and his eyes a blank stare. However, inside his head, his mind was a racing as it tried to deal with the news that he just heard. While his mind was thus occupied, his body went into auto pilot and the habits of so many years just took over.

His keys found their usual place on the entry way table. His coat was hung on the coat rack without thought or attention from its owner. His feet walked the oft travel path through his apartment, first to the kitchen and then to the living room. His body positioned himself on the couch located there and flopped into it. His right hand did as it always did in such a position and grabbed the remote, turning on the television. His eyes, seeing, but not perceiving, looked toward the images before him. In some distant corner of his occupied brain, the thought "this is my favorite show", floated up for a second or two and then died in the maelstrom around it.

For what could have been several minutes or hours, Bo sat deep in thought while his electronic companion attempted to distract him with trivialities and non-sense. Yet, through his deep meditations, something before him finally caught Bo's attention.

"New, improved, give it a try!"

These words led Bo out of his contemplations and caused him to focus on the image on his television. On the screen was a tall, thin man with an usually huge grin. His large hands emphasizing the words uttered by his dark, sonorous voice. "You have tried Change!" he said with a big smile, "for the original trial offer, but you want it to work better. Well, I am Dr. Ohamamama, and though I am not a real doctor, I play one on the campaign trail, and have I got the thing for you. It's the new and improved Change with Extra Benefits!!! That's right, with Change with Extra Benefits all you do is take it, nothing more, and let me do the rest. Soon, your problems will all be gone. All of your responsibilities and worries will be a thing of the past. Just select Change with Extra Benefits and your life will be changed forever! So take it today! Here's how......"

Bo heard a loud, different voice from behind him. "Bo? Bo? Can I come in?" The voice, familiar but not heard in a long time, broke the spell casted by the television and brought Bo back to his apartment. He turned to look in the direction of the voice and found the smiling face of an old friend.

"Doctor Ben!" Bo cried as the friendly old man entered his living room and sat on the chair across from the couch.

"I hope you don't mind me coming over uninvited?" The silver haired man said with a small smile.

"Of course not, you are always welcomed." Bo said. Doctor Ben had helped give birth to him and saw him through his first few years in life. The Doctor then retired, which was many years ago. Yet despite his age, his mind, if not his body, was as sharp and as engaged as always.

"What brings you here?" Bo asked.

"Well, I know that you had an appointment today and I came to talk to you about it." The old man said in a pleasant voice.

Bo started to relate what happened at the doctor's office and his recommendations. Old Doctor Ben stopped him in mid explanation, "I know what the doctor found and what he prescribed."

Bo was startled, "You do!?!?"

"Of course I do," Ben replied. "It is obvious what is the problem and what is solution."

Just then the pseudo-doctor Ohamamama came back on the television. Dr. Ben turned to look at the tv and gave it a look of disgust. Bo, seeing the reaction of his guest, immediately turned off the television.

"That is exactly what you don't need!" the Doctor said with some irritation.

Turning toward Bo, the Doctor leaned in, "But you tried it, didn't you? Of course you did and all the other lame-brained promises of other false prophets. So many others too, I am sure. Did you understand what it was all about? Did you ask any questions? Did you think about what would be the consequences?"

The Doctor looked sternly at his friend and for several seconds let the weight of his questions sink into his companions head. Slowly, his severe expression mellowed and his pleasant smile returned to its rightful place.

"Listen my son, to change your ways is hard. But so are good habits, at first. It requires consistency and practice to make them part of your life. After a while, they become second nature and requires little to engage in them." The Doctor got up and sat down next to Bo.

"When you were born, your mother asked me would you live and be happy. I told her that you would, if she could keep you that way. But her job is over and it is your turn to fend for yourself." Ben placed a reassuring hand on Bo's shoulder.

"The best way to change is to become involved in your health. Ask questions, learn more, demand better of those who wish to serve you. Don't just take their recommendations and words for it. Make sure you know what it is that they are suggesting and think about the long term consequences of their actions and ideas." The Doctor straightened out his posture and his voice lowered a little.

"It has been a long time since I have practiced my art and offered advice. I am only fondly remembered as of late, but rarely listened to. You want everything to be all right, but you leave it to others to make it right. Never questioning, never wondering, never trying to be involved, even when it is your health that they were playing with."

For the next several minutes, Old Doctor Ben delivered an impassioned lecture to his young patient. He told Bo that to change his ways means first he must get educated about his health and the ways to maintain it. The Doctor emphasized that Bo needed to learn about how things worked. How plans and ideas were applied by his servants and how to monitor, guide and evaluate them. He urged Bo to go where his servants work, understand the work they do, and be intimately involved in their workings. The good Doctor words drove home the point that to improve his health, Bo had to understand the process and involve himself.

"Knowledge is power. If your servant acts with such knowledge withheld from his master or the master acts in ignorance, then it will not be long before their roles are reversed." The Doctor concluded.

The old man stared for a minute at his young charge observing the effect of his lecture and then let his eyes roam the apartment. As his eyes settled on the clock hanging on the wall, he bolted up right.

"Oh my! It's late! I have to go." Doctor Ben arose. "I have a date and I don't want to make her wait." Dr. Ben moved quickly toward the door, Bo followed with a thinly veiled smile. Dr. Ben had the reputation of being a ladies man despite his age. Bo wasn't able to suppress the urge to ask, "But Dr. Ben, you are a man of retiring age, isn't your dating age a little behind you?"

The Doctor stopped his rush to the door, turned on his companion, and said, "Sir, I am retired, but not dead. As for being too old, you are never too old nor is it ever too late to see to your needs and wants, regardless of whether it is the love life or the health of Bo DePaulotic."

The old man turned and stepped out of the door with a wave of good-bye. Bo returned to the living room and by habit more than volition, turned on the television again. A fat, ruddy face popped into existence and filled the screen. "I told you that change wouldn't work, but you didn't listen to me." The face said with a small scowl. "I'm Rushford Limpbomb, and have I got an answer to all of your problems!"

Bo reached out with his remote and turned off the television. As he did so, Bo said, "We'll see about that!"

To be continued.

A Bad Week for Liberty

I thought this article from Glenn Greenwald at salon.com was worth sharing.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/07/29/change/index.html

It's titled "this week in change" summarizing a few news items from the week which provide yet more evidence that nothing has really changed. In brief:

1. Congress passes legislation to provide billions of dollars in new War funding

2. The treatment of the Wikileaks story by the MSM basically ignores the horrific revelations of the Afghanistan war, and instead focuses the discussion on how evil and unpatriotic it is to publish such information.

3. President Obama pushes for expanded government power to use the so-called "National Security Letters"(NSLs) to enable warrantless access to citizens' Internet records.

Unfortunately, Mr. Greenwald's article only touches on the bad news of the week for those of us who love our civil liberties. To add to the pile:

Another U.S. citizen, "Imam Awlaki" is added to the Administration's assassination list ... with no criminal conviction or even charges being filed. Just another un-proven accusation "you're a terrorist" that brings a death sentence on a U.S. citizen, due process be damned.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128831726

More unearthed land mines in the 2000+ page so-called "Financial Reform" bill. A provision which:

" . . . exempts the SEC from disclosing records or information derived from surveillance, risk assessments, or other regulatory and oversight activities." ( i.e. from FOIA requests).

I love the part about "other regulatory and oversight activities". Terms so vague that the entire agency and all of its activities might as well be exempt from any public scrutiny.

http://market-ticker.org/archives/2533-Oh,-They-DO-Intend-To-Steal-From-You.html

From 'antiwar.com': Our Congress debates "H.Res 1553" basically declaring that we give our full support to Israel should they decide to use military force to “eliminate nuclear threats” from Iran.

http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2010/07/24/stop-congress-from-green-lighting-attack-on-iran/

AND, as every C4L member has no doubt heard, the U.S. Senate is holding debates and cloture votes on the DISCLOSE Act.

The vast majority of "We, The People" work hard to support ourselves and our families, pay taxes, and possibly engage in some part-time political activism. Meanwhile, our tax dollars fund a gangster-government that's working FULL TIME to erode our freedom and further involve us in imperialistic military crusades.

Don't Treat the Symptoms, Cure the Cause!

Bo DePaulitic rushed into the room. "Doctor!" he said in a panicked voice, "you got to help me!"

Bo took a seat across from his physician. "I am desperate, you see."

"What's the matter?" his doctor inquired.

"Look" Bo stood up and showed his arms and chest to the doctor. They were covered in horrific sores. "You see," Bo said as he pointed to each sore, "I am covered in corruption, cronyism, profligates, and waste."

The doctor approached Bo and looked over his sores. After a second or so, he returned to his desk while asking, "Do you also suffer from inflation, intrusions on your freedom, wasting of your hard earn money, and loss of control over your property?"

"Why yes!" Bo gasped.

The Doctor went on, "and this condition started over twenty years or so ago?"

Bo nodded vigorously.

The Doctor continued, "and it has been growing worse."

Bo was startled. "How did you know?"

The doctor ignored the question. Instead, he asked "Mr. De Paulitic what have you done to get rid of these sores?"

Bo thought for a moment and replied, "Well, I tried everything. First I tried throwing the bums out. Then I used caring and compassionate. Next, I tried hope followed by compassionate conservatism, and finally, in desperation I tried change. But nothing worked. It has only grown worse."

"Of course it has Bo!" Said the Doctor, "You have been treating only the symptoms, but the cause remains untouched."

The Doctor approached Bo DePaulitic and placed his hand on his shoulder. "You see" he said, "you have within a horrible cancer which is slowly spreading throughout your body. It is destroying you. This cancer interferes with your thinking, making you believe that you can have something for nothing, that wealth can be unearned, that you can swap safety for liberty, and that you can fix all the ills of the world solely through governmental action."

"What will happen to me Doctor?" Bo's voice wavered and a look of fear crossed his face.

The Doctor looked grimly at his patient, "Well, at first you will not feel anything. Over time, you will being to feel pinched, restricted, and finally hopeless. Toward the end, you will simply act out of fear. You will follow the herd like sheep, and pray that your masters will let you have a crumb. In the end, you will be inert, apathetic, and ignorant."

"OH MY GOD DOCTOR!" Bo jumped from his seat, "I already am starting to be apathetic and ignorant. What can I do? Can you give me something!"

The Doctor stared hard at his companion and in a level voice said, "Bo DePaulitic, the only way to cure this disease is to address the cause. It is systemic, that is its within you, and the only answer lies there as well. To purge this evil will require you to be active, get involved, and clear your head. You want to get rid of the sores, cure the cancer. You want to cure the cancer, change your ways!"

TO BE CONTINUED.........

Musings on this Bastille Day.

Today is Bastille Day in France, the equivalent of Independence Day in the United States. Since I am part French (which explains the constant use of my hands while talking and the frequent tears in my eyes), I find myself contemplating the nation of my roots and its history.
This morning I found myself thinking on a particular event that happened just 94 years ago in the hills of eastern France. Tucked away near the Ardenne Forest, is the little city of Verdun. The city itself is hardly remarkable. Yet, historically, it holds a special place in the history of France and the honor roll of courage.
During the First World War, Verdun became, by accident or design, the linchpin of the French Lines. To its south, the French clung to a series of fortifications and earthworks. To the North, the Armies of France, Belgium, and England were spread in a line of trenches extending to the English Channel. Verdun connected the two lines. At the beginning of 1916, Verdun was the apex of an angle sticking into the German Lines. In February, 1916, realizing the importance of Verdun, the Germans threw three army corps, 1,400 artillery pieces firing over one million shells, and newly formed shock troops, called “storm troopers” specially trained in trench warfare at this critical juncture. Hills were literally reduced to level ground and vast craters, some thirty feet deep, were created by the shelling. The tidal wave of men, nearly overwhelmed the outnumbered French.
Over the next month, the Germans pushed in the French lines and closed in on Verdun from three sides. All roads into the city were cut, save one, the “Voie Sacree”, the Sacred Way. Along this lone, single lane road rolled the only supplies and reinforcements that Verdun would receive for almost a year. In Late February, 1916, as the French lines slowly fell back, General Philippe Petain was appointed commander of the city. Gen. Petain looked over the battle field and returned to his headquarters. He then drew a line the battle map outlining the new French positions and directed that this line must be held.
For the next two months the Germans pressed in on all sides, but the French Lines held. With the coming of Summer, the Germans changed their tactics and proceeded to strike from one sector of the line and then another, but each time the French fought them off. In June, 1916 the Germans threw 60,000 men against the critical fort of Souville. Fort Souville was the final line of fortifications between the Germans and the Voie Sacree. In command was a young general by the name of Robert Nivelle. As the attack was launched upon his fort, a cable came from headquarters, “Can you hold?” Gen. Nivelle’s simple reply was “Il ne passant pas!” (They Shall Not Pass.) For a solid month, the French stood their ground within Fort Souville as the Germans pummeled them with bombs and wave upon wave of men. By July 12, 1916, the Germans had exhausted themselves upon the walls of Fort Souville, but did not take it. The French held. The tide had turned.
Over the next year, the French slowly and surely pushed the Germans back. First by opening up additional roads to allow manpower and supplies to flow. Then a step at a time the French advanced, returning their lines to where they were at the start of 1916. By August, 1917, the Germans were thrown out of the last trenches originally held by the French. The Battle of Verdun ended. Over 700,000 men were killed, wounded or captured during the course of this fight. The city and its surroundings were devastated.
Verdun was the last bastion, the final stronghold of the people of France during that trying time. Sometimes it feels like we face something similar here in Vermont. There are so few of us who strive for liberty in this State. We look around and see on all sides those who seek to expand the state and limit the freedom to choose for all. Their march seems relentless. But now is not the time to despair. We must continue our struggle to get our message out to our fellow citizens. We must carry on the struggle to be the change we seek in our society. We must hold the line and insist on limited government, personal/economic liberty, and fiscal sanity. We must not give up and concede this ground. “This far and no further.” must be the watch word of the day. We must inscribe on our hearts and in our minds, “Il ne passant pas!”
Happy Bastille Day.
Steven J. Howard

Word Play

As I settle into the cantankerous, contrary and curmudgeonly second

half of my life the following words or phrases make me smile - or

wince. You hear them all the time by serious, well meaning and awfully

earnest people.

"Fair Trade"

Isn't trade fair by definition unless there is a monopoly or cartel in

operation which should be dealt with? What they really mean is

preferential or even unfair trade to benefit an individual or group

that can't otherwise compete in an open market. It might be for very

good reasons and greatly benefit deserving recipients but the

implication of the phrase is that simple "Trade" is something bad.

"Social Justice"

Implies that simple "Justice" isn't good enough and that she should

lift her blindfold and tilt the outcome in favor a particular and

favored group - which is really tending towards injustice. If there is

something wrong with "justice" it should be fixed and not supplemented

with a prefixed variant.

And I heard "Environmental Justice" the other day too.

"Sustainable"

Why would any sane individual not want the results of their actions be

sustainable? What they really mean is static or unchanging - as in why

aren't we all still sitting in the mouth of our cave watching the

world go by. Amazingly these same Luddites seem to favor economically

unsustainable proposals and programs.

"Organic"

I must have been eating "inorganic" food all my life up until now. OK

that one is a bit facetious - and besides who would deny hard up

farmers and small holders the opportunity of charging more for their

tomatoes and corn while keeping a straight face and getting away with

it.

All things "Green" - economy - jobs - energy - monsters, etc - well

perhaps not monsters :)

Green is a nice color. It makes us feel good but it is also one of

nature's danger signs - as in green eggs and other green things

lurking in the back of the fridge.

I had the good fortune to visit the Farnborough and Paris air shows

during the past two summers as part of my job. They are the premier

trade shows for the global aerospace industry and the big engine

manufacturers had their latest and greatest on display. Millions of

market driven man hours of science and creativity all aimed at

squeezing the most passenger miles out of a gallon of fuel for their

customers benefit - and therefore with as little waste and pollution

as thermodynamically possible. They were objects of great power,

beauty and the most elegant efficiency possible to date - OK I'm an

engineer - but much to my amusement the marketers had literally turfed

the display booths and mounting pedestals to emphasize their "green"

credentials. Stainless steel is so passe.

As part of the trip I traveled on Easy Jet, a low cost UK airline and

was asked if I wanted to pay extra to offset the "carbon footprint" of

my flight from Glasgow to Paris. Apparently the money would go towards

planting a tree by someone, somewhere, eventually - yeah sure! I

politely declined saying that I lived in the middle of giant forest

and grew a vegetable garden every year - the poor girl must have

though that I was a demented overgrown Hobbit dressed in a coat an tie

and let out for the day. Soon however such "indulgencies" might not be

an option. They did stick me for 5 quid for a checked bag but that's

their business model and the basic flight only cost around $30 thanks

to these wonderful engines made efficient - and therefore clean - by

the economic demands of the market.

People don't use resources for the hell of it as some imply. They do

so for benefits such as staying warm in the winter and expanding their

experience through travel and leisure pursuits. They always want to do

so as cheaply and therefore as efficiently as possible. If scarcity

increases the price of the benefit they will cut back until eventually

someone finds a cheaper and therefore more efficient way of providing

it - and I hope that when they do it is purple, or orange or puce -

anything but !@#$, worn out, knackered green:)

"Hate Crime" - sounds too much like Orwell's Thought Crime - a crime

is a crime, is a crime. Categorizing a "hate" version is really meant

to elevate, reinforce or otherwise legitimize a particular class of

victim and by definition demote everyone else. So much for equality

under the law.

"Laws Named after Victims" - good law shouldn't play on ephemeral

emotions tied to a particular victim.

And I'm not too sure about "allergies". I don't remember lots of

people dropping dead from exposure to peanuts when I was growing up -

mind you we only seemed to eat them at Halloween in Scotland :)

Just musing on some pet peeves and how language influences the debate.

Perhaps you can think of others.

Jim Sharkey