Quote of the Day - liberty and ignorance

A quote of the day from one of my favorite Founding Fathers while I read the latest Toledo Public Schools audit and management letter which, surprisingly, got very little local news coverage:

"No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffusd and Virtue is preservd. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauchd in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders." ~ Samuel Adams

Quote of the Day - defending our liberties

As we celebrate the birth of our nation this week, it seemed appropriate to feature this quote:

"The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men." ~ Samuel Adams

Happy Birthday to a most unique and well-founded United States of America!

Quotes of the Day vs Ohio laws and regulations

As part of my writing for Ohio Watchdog, I cover a lot of the proposed laws and regulations coming out of Columbus, primarily from Republicans because they're in the majority.

I'm working on a story now about the proposed revisions to the precious metals dealer license. Apparently, criminals used to use pawn shops to liquidate their stolen goods and now they're using businesses that buy and sell gold and other precious metals to do the same.

Of course, that means TOTBAL ... there ought to be a law.

With this on my mind, I opened my daily email from Liberty Tree and find these two quotes which seemed so very appropriate.

"After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd." ~ Alexis de Tocqueville

"It used to be the boast of free men that, so long as they kept within the bounds of the known law, there was no need to ask anybody's permission or to obey anybody's orders. It is doubtful whether any of us can make this claim today." ~ Friedrich August von Hayek

I can't help but wonder how we got to this point and whether or not we even realize how much freedom we've actually lost.

Quote of the Day - we were warned about perpetual debt

"We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debt, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our calling and our creeds... [we will] have no time to think, no means of calling our miss-managers to account but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers... And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for [another ]... till the bulk of society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery... And the fore-horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression." ~ Thomas Jefferson

Quote of the Day - liberty vs. security

From Jacob Hornberger talking about gun control:

"But the illusion -- the pipe dream -- is that bad acts can be prevented by the deprivation of liberty. They cannot be! Life is always insecure. The only choice is between liberty and insecurity, on the one hand, and insecurity and enslavement on the other. The true patriot scrutinizes the actions of his own government with unceasing vigilance. And when his government violates the morality and rightness associated with principles of individual freedom and private property, he immediately rises in opposition to his government."

Quote of the Day - how liberty dies

With all that is going on in Washington - a President who is applauded for doing an end-run around Congress, agencies that have no accountability to our elected representatives or even subject to judicial review, and the endless spending that our representatives have no willpower to stop - I thought this quote from Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith highly appropriate.

In case you've never seen the movie, the Galactic Senate decides to elevate the evil Sith Lord Chancellor Palpatine to the position of Emperor. Padme, a representative, is appalled and, as the members of the Senate all clap, says:

"So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause."

I can't help but wonder if we won't look back on this one day and recognize this as the beginning of the end of our "grand experiment" - though I hope not.

President Reagan's 1980 Labor Day Address

I wanted to print this speech from President Ronald Reagan, given on September 1, 1980, when he was still a candidate. Many of the circumstances he describes (unemployment, recession vs. depression, debt) are with us again today - with some of the number much, much worse. There are also similarities between his description of President Jimmy Carter and many of the actions of President Barack Obama - especially in terms of promises made, but not kept.

What I found particularly interesting is his rebuke of Carter's claims. Carter claimed that we were only in a recession then. Pres. Obama and his administration keep telling us that things are getting better, despite clear evidence to the contrary.

Three years into his term, Carter came up with an economic plan. Here is what Reagan had to say about it:

Last week -- Last week more than three years after be became President, he finally came up with what he calls a new economic program. It is his fifth new economic program in three and a half years. And you know listening to him, he talks as if someone else has been in charge for these last three and a half years. Now with two months to go until the election he rides to the rescue with a crazy-quilt of obvious election year promises which he’ll ask Congress for next year. After three years of neglect, the misery of unemployment, inflation, high taxes, dwindling earning power and inability to save, after all this, American workers have now been discovered by the Administration.

Well it won't work. It's cynical. It's political. And it's too late. The damage is done and every American family knows who did it.

Sounds very much like this president with his latest 'jobs plan.'

Reagan also believed that the economy wasn't a zero-sum gain. He didn't believe that rich were rich because they took from the poor - or that the poor would be better off if the rich weren't as rich.

"We can have a bigger pie and that'll mean bigger slices for everyone of us. And I believe that together -- together you and I can bake that bigger pie. We can make that dream that brought so many of us or our parents and grandparents to this land, we can make that dream live once more."

He also didn't demonize the job producers like our current president does:

We'll work -- We'll work to strengthen the small business sector which creates most of the new jobs we need for our people. Small business, the shopkeeper, needs relief from government paperwork, relief from over-regulation, relief from a host of governmentally created problems that defeat the effort of creative men and women. A chance to invest, build, and produce new wealth is part of that dream.

On this Labor Day, it's good to remember Reagan's words. Here is the complete text of that speech, courtesy of American Rehtoric:

I've been asked by some of my friends in the press why we picked Hudson County for this kind of kick off of the campaign. Now I'm sure they asked because Hudson County is the home of Democrats in such great numbers…. No -- No and I hope a lot are here. As a matter of fact, I'm the first Republican candidate to come here since 1968.

But the answer to their question is, I'm here because it is the home of Democrats, because I believe today, that in this country there are millions of Democrats who are just as unhappy with the way things are as all the rest of us are.

It's fitting that on Labor Day, we meet beside the harbors, the waters I should say of New York harbor, with the eyes of Miss Liberty on our gathering and in the words of the poet whose lines are inscribed at her feet, "On the air bridged harbor that twin cities frame."

Through this "Golden Door," under the gaze of that "Mother of Exiles," has come millions of men and women, who first set foot on American soil right there, on Ellis Island, so close to the Statue of Liberty.

These families came here to work. They came to build. Others came to America in different ways, from other lands, under different, and often harrowing conditions. But this place symbolizes what they all managed to build, no matter where they came from or how they came or how much they suffered.

They helped to build that magnificent city across the river. They spread across the land building other cities and other towns and incredibly productive farms.

They came to make America work. They didn’t ask what this country could do for them but what they could do to make this -- this refuge the greatest home of freedom in history.

They brought with them courage, ambition and the values of family, neighborhood, work, peace, and freedom. We all came from different lands but we share the same values, the same dream.

Today a President of the United States would have us believe that dream is over or at least in need of change. Jimmy Carter’s Administration tells us that the descendants of those who sacrificed to start again in this land of freedom may have to abandon the dream that drew their ancestors to a new life in a new land.

You're right. The Carter record is a litany of despair, of broken promises, of sacred trusts abandoned and forgotten. Eight million -- eight million out of work. Inflation running at 18 percent in the first quarter of this year. Black unemployment at 14 percent, higher than any single year since the government began keeping separate statistics. Four straight major deficits run up by Carter and his friends in Congress. The highest interest rates since the Civil War, reaching at times close to 20 percent, lately they're down to more than 11 percent but now they've begun to go up again. Productivity falling for six straight quarters among the most productive people in the world.

Through his inflation he has raised taxes on the American people by 30 percent, while their real income has risen only 20 percent. The Lady standing there in the harbor has never betrayed us once. But this Administration in Washington has betrayed the working men and women of this country.

The President promised that he would not increase taxes for the low and middle-income people, the workers of America. Then he imposed on American families the largest single tax increase in our nation's history. His answer to all this misery? He tries to tell us that we're “only” in a recession, not a depression, as if definitions, words, relieve our suffering.

Let it show on the record that when the American people cried out for economic help, Jimmy Carter took refuge behind a dictionary. Well if it’s a definition -- if it's a definition he wants, I’ll give him one. A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours. And recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his.

[Crowd chants.]

Thank you. Thank you. Well, all right, thank you. Maybe I should quit right now, but I'll go on for a few more minutes.

I have talked with unemployed workers all across this country. I've heard their views on what Jimmy Carter has done to them and their families. They aren’t interested in semantic quibbles. They're out of work and they know who put them out of work. And they know the difference between a recession and a depression.

Let Mr. Carter go to their homes, look their children in the eye and argue with them that it's “only” a recession that put Dad or Mom out of work. Let him go to the unemployment lines and lecture those workers who have been betrayed on what is the proper definition for their widespread economic misery. Human tragedy, human misery, the crushing of the human spirit; they do not need defining, they need action. And it's action, in the form of jobs, to lower taxes, and an expanded economy that as President, I intend to provide.

Now, call this human tragedy whatever you want. Whatever it is, it's Jimmy Carter's. He caused it. He tolerates it. And he's going to answer to the American people for it.

Last week -- Last week more than three years after be became President, he finally came up with what he calls a new economic program. It is his fifth new economic program in three and a half years. And you know listening to him, he talks as if someone else has been in charge for these last three and a half years. Now with two months to go until the election he rides to the rescue with a crazy-quilt of obvious election year promises which he’ll ask Congress for next year. After three years of neglect, the misery of unemployment, inflation, high taxes, dwindling earning power and inability to save, after all this, American workers have now been discovered by the Administration.

Well it won't work. It's cynical. It's political. And it's too late. The damage is done and every American family knows who did it.

In 1976 he said he would never use unemployment as an economic tool to fight inflation. In 1980, this year, he's called for an increase in unemployment to fight inflation. In 1976 he said four years ago that he would bring unemployment and inflation both down to three percent. Well, who can believe him? Unemployment is now around eight percent, inflation is twelve and a half percent. And most of us have begun to realize that so long as Carter policies are in effect, the next four years are going to be just as bad as the last four have been.

But here, beside that torch that many times before in our nation’s history has cast a golden light in times of gloom, I pledge to you I’ll bring new hope to America.

[Chanting from crowd]

Thank you. I'm… well, you know, thanks. I'm -- I'm looking forward to meeting Mr. Carter in debate, confronting him with the whole sorry record of his Administration. The record he prefers not to mention. If he ever finally agrees to the kind of first debate the American people want, which I’m beginning to doubt, he’ll answer to them and to me.

This country needs a new Administration, with a renewed dedication to the dream of an America, an Administration that will give that dream new life and make America great again! Restoring and revitalizing that dream will take bold action.

On this day, dedicated to American working men and women, may I tell you the vision that I have of a new Administration and of a new Congress, filled with new members dedicated to the values that we honor today?

Beginning in January of 1981, American workers will once again be heeded. Their needs and values will be acted upon in Washington. I will consult with representatives of organized labor on those matters concerning the welfare of working people of this nation.

I happen to be the only president of a union ever to be a candidate for President of the United States. As president -- as president of my union, the Screen Actors Guild, I spent many hours with the late George Meany, whose love of this country and whose belief in a strong defense against all totalitarians is one of labor’s greatest legacies. One year ago today on Labor Day George Meany told the American people, "As American workers and their families return from their summer vacations, they face growing unemployment and inflation, a climate of economic anxiety and uncertainty.” One year ago, George Meany predicted just exactly what has happened to us.

Well I pledge to you in his memory, that the voice of the American worker will once again be heard and heeded in Washington and that the climate of fear that he spoke of will no longer threaten workers and their families.

When -- When we talk about tax reduction, when we talk about ending inflation by stopping it where it starts, in Washington, we're talking about a way to bring labor and management together for America. We're talking about jobs and productivity and wages. We're talking about doing away with Jimmy Carter’s view of a no-growth policy, and ever-shrinking economic pie which means smaller slices for everyone of us.

That’s no answer. We can have a bigger pie and that'll mean bigger slices for everyone of us. And I believe that together -- together you and I can bake that bigger pie. We can make that dream that brought so many of us or our parents and grandparents to this land, we can make that dream live once more. Let us work to protect the human right to acquire and own a home, make sure that right is extended to as many Americans as possible. A home is part of the dream.

I'm going to work in Washington to roll back the crushing burden of taxation that limits investment, production, and the generation of real wealth for our people. A job and savings and hope for our children is part of that dream. I want to help Americans of every race, creed, and heritage keep and build that sense of community which is at the heart of America, for a decent neighborhood is part of that dream.

We'll work -- We'll work to strengthen the small business sector which creates most of the new jobs we need for our people. Small business, the shopkeeper, needs relief from government paperwork, relief from over-regulation, relief from a host of governmentally created problems that defeat the effort of creative men and women. A chance to invest, build, and produce new wealth is part of that dream.

But restoring the American dream requires more than restoring a sound, productive economy, vitally important as that is. It requires a return to spiritual and moral values. Values so deeply held by those who came here to build a new life. We need to restore those values in our daily life, in our neighborhoods, and in our government’s dealings with other nations of the world.

These are the values inspiring those brave workers in Poland. The values that have inspired other dissidents under Communist domination who have been willing to go into the Gulag and suffer the torture of imprisonment because of their dissidence. They remind us that where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost. They remind us that freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. You and I must protect and preserve freedom here or it will not be passed on to our children and it would disappear everywhere in the world. Today the workers in Poland are showing a new generation how high is the price of freedom but also how much it is worth that price.

I want more than anything I’ve ever wanted, to have an Administration that will, through its actions, at home and in the international arena, let millions of people know that Miss Liberty still, “Lifts her lamp beside the golden door.” Through our international broadcasting stations, the Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, and the others; let us send, loud and clear, the message that this generation of Americans intends to keep that lamp shining. That this dream -- that this dream, this last best hope of man on earth, this nation under God, shall not perish from the earth. We will instead carry on the building of an American economy that once again holds forth real opportunity for all. We shall continue to be a symbol of freedom and guardian of the eternal values that so inspired those who came to this port of entry.

Let us pledge to each other, with this Great Lady looking on, that we can, and so help us God, we will make America great again.

Thank you very much.

Core philosophies shape our paths

I enjoy getting a 'founders quote daily' in my email inbox from The Patriot Post every morning. More often than not, it makes me stop and think about what the wise men who bequeathed to us this great nation were thinking.

Today's quote made me stop to think about a core difference between those who value freedom above government and those who value government above freedom.

"As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust: So there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us, faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self-government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another." ~ James Madison, Federalist No. 55, 1788

This is a core philosophical perspective and, depending on where you stand, will lead to completely opposite decisions.

If you believe that man will care for his neighbor in times of trouble, you don't seek to have a government program to do just that. If you believe that man is capable of making good decisions, you don't seek to make them for him. If you believe man will do what is right, you don't seek to mandate that of him.

Now, obviously, I'm talking about generalities for we are all human and certainly aren't perfect - and we know there are bad apples in every bunch. But we also know that making mistakes allows us to learn lessons that prevent similar mistakes in the future - thus we develop the skills and knowledge to survive better. And Madison acknowledged such when he explains that our republic presupposes the better qualities exist at a higher degree than other forms of governance - not that the worst of qualities don't exist at all.

Those who don't believe in such things - or who believe the worst of man outweighs the good - will seek a larger role for the government to, as Madison explains, 'restrain' us from devouring each other. But this is a fundamental difference in what is thought to be the role of government.

Our founders believed they were instituting a government to protect our individual liberties. That means a government would have the authority to establish laws dealing with the infringement upon those liberties, imposing penalties for such infringements - laws against theft, harm, etc. At the core of their thought was the individual's inherent (not given by government) right to life, liberty and the pursuit (not the attainment) of happiness.

They didn't establish a government to protect us from all harm because such protection is impossible, especially when done by our own hand. They didn't establish a government to do for us what we should do for ourselves and each other - only to do the things we could not do individually - like protect the nation from invasion by others.

Contrary to the perspective some would have you believe, our founders (and those who support their positions today) are not anti-government as they - and we - believe there is a proper role for the government. But determining that proper role depends upon your view as Madison describes it: one of trust in one's fellow man or one where you believe a government of despotism is the only thing that can give us a 'proper' society.

This goes right along with Benjamin Franklin's quote: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Too many Americans today believe that their own security, temporary as it is, is something to be traded for their individual liberty - and it's not just with the Transportation Security Agency.

Some today are willing to give up economic liberty for the promise of future care. That's what Social Security is - every person mandated to pay to the government an amount that is, in most upcoming cases, not going to result in being paid back out to us in the future - or, if it is, paid out at less than what we could have accumulated for ourselves individually.

Many gladly give up their medical liberty for the promise of 'all bills being paid' by the government. Of course, that also means that government gets to make the decisions about what costs you can incur, requiring you to cede your freedom to make such decisions to the bureaucrats hundreds of miles away.

The list goes on: intellectual freedom, educational freedom, freedom to make mistakes...all among the growing numbers of liberties too many are trading for not even a temporary safety, but just an often empty promise of safety.

And it all goes back to what you believe, as typified by Madison's quote.

I cannot help but wonder where men like are founders are today. If we had to establish a new country, would we have the wisdom and fortitude to create one as successful as what we have? Or are we too far gone down the road to despotism?

Quotes of the Day

A decision every person must make:

"How bad do things have to get before you do something? Do they have to take away all your property? Do they have to license every activity that you want to engage in? Do they have to start throwing you on cattle cars before you say “now wait a minute, I don’t think this is a good idea.” How long is it going to be before you finally resist and say “No, I will not comply. Period!” Ask yourself now because sooner or later you are going to come to that line, and when they cross it, you’re going to say well now cross this line; ok now cross that line; ok now cross this line. Pretty soon you’re in a corner. Sooner or later you’ve got to stand your ground whether anybody else does or not. That is what liberty is all about." ~ Michael Badnarik


Important points to remember about what our founders intended in terms of the separation of power and checks and balances:

"This balance between the National and State governments ought to be dwelt on with peculiar attention, as it is of the utmost importance. It forms a double security to the people. If one encroaches on their rights they will find a powerful protection in the other. Indeed, they will both be prevented from overpassing their constitutional limits by a certain rivalship, which will ever subsist between them." ~ Alexander Hamilton


And in light of the expiration of the Bush tax cuts in January, when EVERY income tax bracket will see an increase in the amount of money they are forced to pay to the federal government:

"One of the most insidious consequences of the present burden of personal income tax is that it strips many middle class families of financial reserves & seems to lend support to campaigns for socialized medicine, socialized housing, socialized food, socialized every thing. The personal income tax has made the individual vastly more dependent on the State & more avid for state hand-outs. It has shifted the balance in America from an individual-centered to a State-centered economic & social system." ~ W. H. Chamberlin

Things I don't want to think about on a summer Saturday

My postings have been a bit light lately, due to a number of things. I have work (yes, that thing that earns me money to help pay the bills) - and that's a good thing.

But I also have disgust at what I see going on in the political realm - and that's a bad thing.

I know exactly how so many people feel when they see what counts for 'action' by our governments at all levels and it is eerily reminiscent of the feelings I felt while in office .... that efforts are for naught.

Don't get me wrong - I'm very encouraged by a lot of things: good candidates with firm philosophies and not various 'positions' on issues; a growing awareness of the impact political decisions being made have on individual freedom; the enthusiastic embrace of limited government/low spending approaches by many individuals regardless of political party, etc...

But sometimes, the idiocy or 'stuck on stupid' things just really get to me.

We've seen Toledo City Council and the Lucas County Commissioners spending time on non-binding 'statements' opposing a state for a law greatly supported not only by their own residents but by a majority of Americans as well.

Considering all the polls on the issue, I can't help but think these elected officials are violating the wishes of their own constituents, but that's nothing new. They were catering to a specific small-but-vocal group of interests that they believe they need to placate.

We've seen the news that Ohio is facing huge budget deficits for the next year and that our governor is again hoping one-time money from the feds (actually from all of us) will get him by. State Auditor Mary Taylor warned everyone in the last budget go-round that relying upon one-time 'stimulus' funds was a recipe for bigger problems in the future - and she was absolutely right. Why the idiots in Columbus cannot see that, I don't know.

And then I heard on the news yesterday that Gov. Strickland has asked his departments and agencies to let him know the negative impacts a 10% budget cut would have. That's the most WRONG question to ask! You ask them how they can cut their budget, not how bad things could be if they are forced to do so.

I don't know why it is that politicians never want to ask the questions that will actually give them the answers they need. They always ask 'what don't you want cut,' knowing full well that every little group that benefits from the spending will show up to say 'don't cut my program.' We see that in Toledo and Lucas County, too.

Instead, they should be asking 'what can you live without'? With that type of question, you'll at least get a listing of programs, projects, etc...that people can do without as opposed to the ones they don't want to give up, regardless of priority.

So what will Strickland get as a response to his request? He'll get a bunch of doom-and-gloom scenarios as bureaucrats list the most dire consequences of a cut in funds. He'll then end up in a no-win situation if he and the state legislature make the cuts that we all know need to be made.

We've seen President Barack Obama give 'stimulus' funds to a foreign company that is setting up shop in Michigan. Where is the outrage from all the 'buy America' people?

I despise the idea of any 'stimulus' coming from the government in terms of handouts to companies while that same government simultaneously increases taxes and regulatory compliances. Talk about contradictory! We're supposed to be ever so grateful for the meager government largess while ignoring that they're making us less profitable by requirements/fees/rules/taxes/etc... that add much, much more to the cost of doing business. That's not the way to 'stimulate' the economy.

And while that is a huge thing, it's nowhere near the double standard so evident in the action. If providing subsidies to foreign companies is a bad thing, then it's a bad thing even when Democrats or Pres. Obama do it. If groups are pushing a 'buy American' approach, they need to be vocal when American tax dollars are going to a foreign company in Michigan. And if they're not going to object to this particular expenditure, they cannot object to others.

Most people can live with either position - or at least agree to disagree. But when the criteria for comments or outrage is not the principle, but whichever political party is engaged in the act, the American people see it for what it is and reject the hypocrisy. (I hope.)

We've also seen the slippery slope in full effect. Many people have rightly complained that when government pays for things, it insists upon making decisions relating to those monies. We see it with the states: impose certain laws or forgo the money we're planning to give you.

As the federal government moved into the realm of health care, they made promises about us still being in control, but many of us knew it was only a matter of time. If government is paying for your medical care, it won't be long until they're dictating your eating and exercise habits under the guise of 'containing costs' for your care.

The White House chef is now a 'senior policy advisor' to the White House so he can advise us on an 'epidemic' of obesity. I always thought an epidemic was some sort of infectious disease that spreads among the populace. Who knew that your own actions (or lack thereof) could qualify?!? So now obesity is a matter of 'national security' and legislatures are trying to figure out how to control things you eat like salt and trans-fats and junk food.

Oh - let me clarify. They're not yet trying to make YOU stop eating things that are bad for you (though they are requiring a reporting of your Body Mass Index to them by 2014). They realize that if they tell you that you can no longer eat too much salt (even though 'too much' is a large range that varies from person to person), you'll rebel. So they're telling food manufacturers that THEY can't include salt in their products - and they're doing so through force of law.

It is a slippery slope and we are gliding down it at a very fast pace, approaching an even steeper incline.

So with all these things going on it's easy to just bury oneself in work, family and things like mowing the lawn. But, as Wendell Phillips once said:

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty — power is ever stealing from the many to the few…. The hand entrusted with power becomes … the necessary enemy of the people. Only by continual oversight can the democrat in office be prevented from hardening into a despot: only by unintermitted Agitation can a people be kept sufficiently awake to principle not to let liberty be smothered in material prosperity.

I am not a child!

"Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it." ~ George Bernard Shaw

I was reading through headlines today and came across this article about the plans for the Food and Drug Administration to begin regulating salt.

Apparently, according to the article, we're just too stupid to know what's good for us and continue to do things in our private lives that the government and 'experts' just don't approve of.

"Until now, the government has pushed the food industry to voluntarily reduce salt and tried to educate consumers about the dangers of excessive sodium. But in a study to be released Wednesday, an expert panel convened by the Institute of Medicine concludes that those measures have failed. The panel will recommend that the government take action, according to sources familiar with the findings."

See? They've tried to tell us that salt is bad but we just don't listen.

They've tried to get companies to reduce salt in their food products, but apparently, we, as consumers, don't happen to like those kinds of changes and won't purchase those reduced-salt products in enough volume to make them profitable.

But the arrogance of these 'experts' continues to astound me.

"We can't just rely on the individual to do something," said Cheryl Anderson, an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health who served on the Institute of Medicine committee.

You cannot be trusted to behave in a manner that someone else thinks is right, so you must be forced into conformity through government regulations on suppliers.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised as this is the standard route for 'advocates' to take. Failing to win the 'hearts and minds' of the individuals they seek to influence, groups turn to government to force their opinions/beliefs on others through laws and regulations.

But these 'experts' and the government know they can't just outlaw salt because there would be significant backlash. So they're going to gradually modify our behavior.

"This is a 10-year program," one source said. "This is not rolling off a log. We're talking about a comprehensive phase-down of a widely used ingredient. We're talking about embedded tastes in a whole generation of people."

I cannot help but be reminded of the boiling frog scenario.

I used to love McDonald's french fries. I know they aren't good for me, but I didn't eat them every day. However, between the changes in the types of oils they use for frying them and the reduction in salt they put on them, I don't like them anymore. Even putting extra salt on them to make up for what they no longer use isn't enough. So I don't eat them at all anymore.

The consumer is smarter than the government and the experts.

Is salt bad for you? Not always. Too much salt can cause health problems in some people. A lack of salt in your system can also cause health problems. Government's one-size-fits-all approach certainly doesn't work for everyone and each of us should be responsible for our own bodies and our own health.

But that's not government's idea of how things should go. They obviously believe they exist to keep us from making bad decisions. They justify such action by saying that government incurs the cost for the consequences of poor health choices. But that's easily solved by having government STOP such actions that absolve the individual from the consequences of their decisions.

But just like with the bailouts, government uses the funding they've provided to dictate the terms and behaviors. Our government is telling companies what type of products to make because they own a significant stake in the company. And now that government health care is the law (for the time being, hopefully) why should we expect anything less than control over what we eat, how much we exercise and other behaviors that might result in health issues the government (actually taxpayers) will be paying for? They'll justify this with the phrase of the 'common good.' As everyone is paying for your health care, it's in everyone's best interest that you be forced to behave in a way that leads to your own good health.

Sounds like communist China to me. Though the government stops short of regulating food purchases of people who receive food stamps, even though many of those individuals are the very ones most in need of 'education' about healthy eating choices. But government, in its warped sense of fairness, can't let some people make their own choices because they make good ones while seeking to control the decisions of people who make bad choices - so everyone must be regulated.

These people who seek to control us know that they really can't control our eating or our choices. So, in the plan detailed in the article, they're going to control the products we purchase by regulating what food manufacturers can and cannot do within the free market.

I know how I'll respond: I won't purchase those products. And if all product choices have new regulations that cut out something I like, I'll just add it after the fact.

I am not a child whose eating habits need to be regulated by people who think they know better than me. I have a doctor whose opinion I trust infinitely more than some bureaucrat in Washington - or some epidemiologist who gets appointed to serve on some panel.

I am a free individual - or so I thought - who is responsible for myself and willing to abide by the consequences if I choose to eat salt - or any other product some do-gooders think I should avoid.

And this sentiment of freedom - liberty to live a life of one's own choosing - is what led our founders to establish this great nation. I cannot help but believe they would be appalled at what we have become.

"In a free society the state does not administer the affairs of men. It administers justice among men who conduct their own affairs." ~ Walter Lippmann

Futility, thy name is 'security'

After a failed attempt to blow up an airplane on approach to Detroit Metro, the Department of Homeland Security decided to ramp up security measures at airports across the nation, telling travelers to arrive four hours ahead of time.

The problem is that increased screening of Americans isn't going to address the problem.

Every time the government sees a potential way to do harm to people on an airplane, they institute some new restriction or screening measure. Of course, people who really want to do harm will quickly find out about the new procedure/process and promptly begin to develop another method to get around it.

We're not allowed to bring more than three ounces of liquids on a plane. That didn't stop the idiot on Christmas Day from finding a way to get more than that amount on board - he just figured out a way around the screening.

The issue is not - and never has been - the materials. It's the behavior.

Anyone who has paid attention to security matters when traveling since 2001 will know that one-way tickets, paid with cash, and no luggage are huge warnings that should set off alarms all across the airport. Add to those tell-tale signs the fact that the man's father warned the U.S. about his son's radical ideas and you can see that the problem isn't the 'rules' but how the government failed to do anything with key facts that should have at least led to further questioning of an individual prior to getting on a plane, or having his name on a no-fly list.

Instead, we're all going to be subject to further intrusion in our lives, long delays in travel and the erosion of our liberties so the government can look like it's doing something to help keep us safe. Of course, no government can ever 'keep us safe' when they're more interested in little old ladies and how much shampoo they've got than in actually evaluating intelligence data that is pertinent to the safety issue.

Our government creates new laws or rules for travel and then goes about enforcing them. (The most recent ones are that you can't have a coat or blanket in your lap or go to the restroom one hour before landing.) That's a much different process than preventing terrorist attacks. Law enforcement focuses on catching a criminal after a crime has been committed. Stopping terrorism depends upon noticing, and then stopping, harmful intentions before they occur.

The travel security measures all look for the 'bomb' ... not the 'bomber.'

The Israelis have it right when it comes to screening for potential terrorists: they look for behavior, not supplies. They look for 'threats,' not 'risk.'

For instance, knives, scissors and other sharp objects are prohibited from carry-on luggage. If I happened to be traveling with said items, I would be a risk. But I'm not a threat. I have no intention of hurting myself or others or of committing an act of terrorism. So while those items would be 'safe' in my possession, they wouldn't be if in the possession of a terrorist.

Ah, but detecting who is and isn't a terrorist is much harder work than just forbidding everyone from carrying scissors on board a plane. And that's why terrorists will continue to find a way around the rules created to avert 'risk' and why we'll continue to have attempts from people who pose a 'threat.'

Our approach is futile. It won't stop terrorism, but does infringe upon everyone in the process. It reminds me of Benjamin Franklin's famous quote:

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."

If you don't understand the problem, your solutions make things worse

I don't know if you saw this, but if not, you need to! It's a graph comparing the private sector experience of presidential cabinet appointments since 1900 - and it shows that President Barack Obama's cabinet has significantly less business experience than his predecessors.

It's probably no surprise that Republican presidents drew heavily from the private sector, while just under 30% of President John F. Kennedy's cabinet had such experience. But Pres. Obama doesn't even reach 10% - and that lack of experience and understanding of what it takes to create jobs and wealth clearly shows in his policies and actions.

As this post on RedState.com explains:

This ignorance of what drives the private sector was proven by Barack Obama himself this week, at his so-called “Jobs Summit,” where the POTUS stated:

Despite the progress we’ve made, many businesses are still skittish about hiring. Some are still digging themselves out of the losses they incurred over the past year. Many have figured out how to squeeze more productivity out of fewer workers. And that cost-cutting has become embedded in their operations and in their culture. That may result in good profits, but it’s not translating into hiring and so that’s the question that we have to ask ourselves today: How do we get businesses to start hiring again?

Heaven forbid! Productivity? Profits? Does Mr. Obama believe that businesses exist to hire people? I’m sorry, sir, but it is ALL about the profits. Productivity, and in turn, profitability, is improved either by enabling a constant number of people to produce more, or by reducing the number of people and maintaining constant production. New hiring may improve producTION, but not necessarily producTIVITY. Obama’s ideology, like that of his staffies, is disconnected from the realities of a capitalistic economy. And the policies he supports are similarly disconnected.

And now we come to the by-product of the Administration’s disconnect on private sector economics. If the policies of Barack Obama are truly damaging to business, we would expect to see that demonstrated in the marketplace. And indeed we’ve seen it.

The author then details three strikes against the Obama administration, including comments and statements from various CEOs that prove the damage the policies are doing to our job market.

And now the President thinks that the only way to address the economy is to spend our way out of the problem - failing, again, to recognize that government spending is a primary part of the problem and that more spending won't make it better.

But what do you expect from someone who's never had a 'real' job, had to make a payroll, show a profit for shareholders or meet the demands of a market?

We've 'hired' a man to run an organization without acknowledging that he'd never run an organization before - and in fact didn't know how. Now we're dealing with the consequences of putting in charge someone who thinks the economic system which brought us so much prosperity is evil and needs to be destroyed. We should not be surprised that the outcome is less jobs, more government intrusion and control, more taxes for us and the end of our liberty as we know it.

***Side Note: Pres. Obama's statement above reminded me instantly of some students I once met.

As a commissioner, I attended the first and last class in a special program for high school students - students who were having so much trouble that this program was a sort of last resort. In the first class, they were asked why companies exist. Their answers were 'to give back to the community,' 'to give to charity,' and 'to give me a job.'

I was astounded by the basic lack of understanding that a company exists to make a profit for the owner/investors. Of course, these students with this attitude were not going to make good employees and, eventually, get ahead, because they had no understanding of the economic system and how being valuable to the bottom line would advance them.

Fortunately, by the end of the class, these students were highly impressive. They expressed and demonstrated an understanding of the free market system and how they could use that system to better themselves. They were able to greet me professionally and make a very good impression - something they would have thought was ridiculous at the start of the class.

I bring all this up because the problem starts in childhood when we do not teach the basics of how our free market works - and how it can help people achieve their goals.

Perhaps Pres. Obama should take the class.
***

The Chicago Way and the shooting at Ft. Hood

I'm a big fan of Chuck Muth and his latest column gives us a lot to think about. But there are two messages from his column we ought to heed.

What Hollywood Can Teach Us About the Fort Hood Massacre

Most Americans have this whole Fort Hood massacre all wrong. Maj. Nidal M. Hassan was not a terrorist. And he wasn’t a mass murderer. And he may not even have been a coward.

Maj. Hassan was an enemy combatant.

And until we come to grips with that reality, as well as the fact that we are still a nation at war, the United States will continue to suffer such needless and unnecessary losses.

Since so many Americans have been undereducated by our government-run public schools, let’s refer to a system of education which most of us can readily relate to in order to understand what’s really going on here: Hollywood movies.

In The Patriot starring Mel Gibson, we learned that under-trained and under-armed American militia hid behind trees in the woods and waited for the British troops to ride up. They would then open fire without warning, attempting to take out the officers first in order to instill chaos among the remaining soldiers, thereby making it easier to pick them off and wipe them out.

In that sense, American militiamen were the colonial version of IEDs (improvised explosive devices).

A rather unsettling thought, is it not?

For their part, the British thought such tactics by the militia were as cowardly and ungentlemanly as we do now about Taliban roadside attacks on U.S. military convoys in Afghanistan. But both the militia and the Taliban used/use what little military tactics in war they had/have at their disposal against a superior enemy military force. As they say, all’s fair.

And what red-blooded American can ever forget the 1967 World War II classic The Dirty Dozen starring Lee Marvin? And who did we root for in that story, the Americans or the Germans? And what was the plot of that movie again? Oh, yeah: “A U.S. Army Major is assigned a dozen convicted murderers to train and lead them into a mass assassination mission…”

Gulp.

This is why I say Hassan wasn’t a terrorist. He didn’t attack a subway train or a nightclub or a shopping mall populated by civilians. No, he attacked enemy soldiers on an enemy military base. And he used what he had at his disposal – a surprise attack on unarmed soldiers which gave him a tactical advantage.

Most of us probably consider this attack cowardly, but it was right out of Sun Tzu’s Art of War textbook:

“You can be sure of succeeding in your attacks if you only attack places that are undefended. . . .He who is skilled in attack flashes forth from the topmost heights of heaven, making it impossible for the enemy to guard against him. This being so, the places that he shall attack are precisely those that the enemy cannot defend.”

Like the Soldiers Readiness Processing Center at Fort Hood, Texas.

Not that we Americans shouldn’t be outraged by the attack. We should. But part of our outrage should be directed against the idiots who decided that American military personnel need not be armed and protected at all times on a military installation during a time of war, even on American soil.

Maj. Nidal Hassan was an enemy infiltrator. Or maybe he was a modern-day version of Benedict Arnold…a traitor. Either way, his was an act of war. And a very successful one. Read more....

Muth then connects these thoughts with one of my favorite quotes from the movie "The Untouchables":

“You said you wanted to get Capone. Do you really wanna get him? You see what I’m saying is, what are you prepared to do? . . . If you open the can on these worms you must be prepared to go all the way. Because they’re not gonna give up the fight, until one of you is dead. You wanna know how to get Capone? They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. THAT’S the Chicago way! And that’s how you get Capone. Now do you want to do that?”

And Muth is right in his premise. Our enemies are fighting a war. As Muth says, "They can’t be reasoned with. They can’t be negotiated with. Like a rabid dog, they won’t give up until one of us is dead." We need to not only accept this, but understand it and react accordingly.

But there is also a political message in this quote that we should heed. President Barack Obama and many of the people who advise him adhere to this 'Chicago way' in a political sense, if not in a military one. Their actions in pushing their socialist-leaning agenda proves this point.

And just like in the military lesson, if Americans are going to be effective in defeating the policies and laws that turn us away from the freedoms our founders guaranteed for us, we need to understand that it is a war - and they aren't going to give up until they win.

So the question 'Now do you want to do that?' is applicable to those who say they want freedom and liberty and/or just want the government to 'leave them alone'.

Are you willing to do what it takes? What are you prepared to do?

Quote of the Day

While we work today on the set-up of the live auction of fine wines for the Mobile Meals Wine Gala, and then attend the event to help raise money for a terrific organization and cause, here is a quote we all should remember:

"To suppress minority thinking and minority expression would tend to freeze society and prevent progress… Now more than ever, we must keep in the forefront of our minds the fact that whenever we take away the liberties of those we hate, we are opening the way to loss of liberty for those we love." ~ Wendell L. Willkie

The goal is liberty

"I am commonly opposed to those who modestly assume the rank of champions of liberty, and make a very patriotic noise about the people. It is the stale artifice which has duped the world a thousand times, and yet, though detected, it is still successful. I love liberty as well as anybody. I am proud of it, as the true title of our people to distinction above others; but ... I would guard it by making the laws strong enough to protect it."(emphasis added) ~ Fisher Ames, letter to George Richard Minot, 1789

One of they key questions we should ask about any bill, measure, policy, etc... coming from our governments is this: Does it increase liberty?

Just think about the myriad of laws we have on the books that destroy liberty and individual responsibility: smoking bans, seat belts, texting while driving, income taxes, housing inspections, vacant house registries, zoning requirements for trees and driveways, and on and on and on and on...

Do any of those requirements and mandates increase our personal liberty - that precious thing fought and died for over the years?

No - they do not. They 'protect' us from ourselves. They 'protect' us from what government fears we will do to ourselves. They are 'justified' by their proponents because government foots the bill for the outcomes, destroying personal responsibility.

In actuality, they destroy our liberties - even our liberty to do something stupid...and we all know there is no way any government can create enough laws to save some people from that!

The next time any politician or do-gooder says 'we ought to have a law' - demand to know how such a law increases the liberty of all people affected. Perhaps if we start holding people accountable to this ideal, we'll have more of it instead of less.

A nation of slaves

In February, I did a post called "Another form of slavery?" in which I questioned whether or not Americans were trading freedom and liberty for slavery to government through dependence upon various programs.

At the time, I linked a column by Star Parker asking similar questions. There is now another one, this time by Nathan Tabor, called "The De Facto Slavery of the American People."

"Unfortunately,too many citizens do not recognize the revival of slavery, albeit more refined and less obvious enslavement. And, sadly, today more and more Americans are willing to give up certain freedoms in return for the promise of government largesse. And most of these citizens don't even realize what they're doing, because the news media are failing to perform their role as purveyors of truth and accuracy.

Enslavement will not come with a bang, but with a slow, relentless whimper. Each day, each week, each month, each year brings us closer to a state of de facto slavery as a result of greed disguised as "civil rights."

Ask most Americans and they will tell you that food, clothing, shelter and other necessities are "rights." Surely, they are necessities, but they are not rights that need to be provided by an omnipotent government.

And even when warranted, government charity has a way of morphing into government nightmares."

He applies the slavery concept to President Obama's health care plan:

"Dressed up with flowery language and high-sounding platitudes, it is nothing more than a grand power grab of life-and-death decision-making.

A friend asked me rhetorically: Why would Americans turn over their health and welfare -- their very lives -- to a bunch of crooked politicians who spend most of their time covering up, lying, cajoling and cheating, all in the name of power?

Why are Americans so quick to turn life-and-death decisions to a government that continues to have a problem covering up its sex scandals? Could it be they want to be enslaved?"

It's a good question and one I wonder about regularly - do people really want to be enslaved by government and told where to live, where to go to school, where to 'work' (as in Lucas County Commissioner's scholarship program that would require recipients to perform service in exchange for the money to pay for college), where to put their kids in daycare, which agencies can help them, what programs to enroll in, etc...?

Are people so afraid of doing things on their own that they would trade their freedom for the security of government care? Do they even realize that they have lost their freedoms as a result? Do they care?

It is the thought that so many of our fellow citizens think slavery to government is a good thing that has me worried for the future of our nation.

Quote of the Day

Why whom you associate with matters when it comes to presidential politics:

"Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right, from the frame of their nature, to knowledge, as their great Creator, who does nothing in vain, has given them understandings, and a desire to know; but besides this, they have a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge; I mean, of the characters and conduct of their rulers."

~ John Adams (Dissertation on Canon and Feudal Law, 1765)

Quote of the Day

From The Patriot Post's Founders' Quote Daily

"Is the relinquishment of the trial by jury and the liberty of the press necessary for your liberty? Will the abandonment of your most sacred rights tend to the security of your liberty? Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessings - give us that precious jewel, and you may take every things else! Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel."

~ Patrick Henry (Speech to the Virginia Convention, 5 June 1788)

Don't need no education - I got gummit

In catching up with several of my favorite bloggers, as well as the news, I came across an interesting article linked by Brian at One Oar in the Water. This article on "Infantile America," coupled with a proposed law on land contracts, got me thinking about the lack of knowledge and understanding needed to be independent AND responsible members of society.

The article postulates that, today, many believe "it is their right to indulge to any extent and rely upon the Federal government to bail them out." The newly proposed law carries the 'bail out' to another extreme, requiring inspections and 'minimum levels of habitability' and fines if such conditions are not met. It's described as 'consumer protection,' conveniently forgetting that some people choose to buy a less-than-habitable home and fix it up, using their own sweat to build equity.

What society seems to be saying is that I don't need to have the ability to take care of myself because the 'gummit' will do it for me. We've seen this mentality for years in the old welfare system: I don't need to understand that having a child is expensive and that I should be able to support said child before engaging in actions designed to produce offspring. After all - if I have a kid I can't support, I can turn to the 'gummit' for pre-natal care, food, cribs, you name it...

With terms like sub-prime lending, adjustable rate mortgages, interest-only loans and predatory lending, I no longer need to have the finances to own a home. I can buy a house I can't afford, pay interest only - or a low adjustable rate - and not have to worry if interest rates go up or if I have a balloon payment due sometime in the future. And if I get into trouble with this kind of financing, I'll just turn to the 'gummit' to make me whole.

And I don't need to read the fine print and understand what it means - the 'gummit' will just make more laws to protect me from my ignorance. I don't need to understand budgeting - the 'gummit' will bail me out by giving me subsidies for my car, my gas, my home if I can't afford it on my own.

With this new law, I don't need to be responsible for inspecting any home I'm about to buy - the 'gummit' will just create a law for those 'evil predators' who are going to take advantage of my stupidity.

And in all of this, it won't be my fault for any failure or shortcoming - I'm a victim of others. Caveat emptor? Is that some kind of foreign language?

Sadly, the skills that are necessary for successful survival in today's world seem to be lacking in so many. And our 'gummit' seems all too ready to step in and 'provide' or solve all the problems. Those of us who scrimp and save to be able to afford minor luxuries - or even necessities - are finding that others who don't have the knowledge or the willpower are benefiting at our expense. Remember - any 'gummit' bailout of the sub-prime industry means that you and I are paying for those mortgages - in addition to our own. Eventually, some will wonder why they bother, figuring that if others can be irresponsible, they can too.

And then those of us "with" will be criticized as being greedy, selfish, or worse, for not wanting to "help" our fellow man...because certainly we should sacrifice our wants and needs for those who don't share our values of thrift, savings, budgeting or planning.

The solution to this problem is not 'gummit.' It's education and individual responsibility. Education so that individuals can understand the complicated dealings and contracts - or know enough to know what they don't know and hire someone who can help. Individual responsibility so that if they make a bad decision, they accept the consequences and don't expect to place blame anywhere other than upon themselves - "fool me once, shame on you...fool me twice, shame on me."

And therein lies the problem. If we're smart, or educated, enough to take care of ourselves - and we're able to assume responsibility for our own actions - what will all those 'gummit' officials do? They won't have anyone to take care of...and their campaign promises will fall on deaf ears. We can't have that, now can we?

They need dependency upon government, so they can promise more programs and services, creating more dependency, resulting in the need for more programs and services. It's a vicious and never-ending cycle, counting on the ignorance of the masses for perpetuation.

John Adams said, "Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people..." But Lord Acton said, "Liberty is the prevention of control by others. This requires self-control and, therefore, religious and spiritual influences; education, knowledge, well-being."

As 'gummit' continues to expand their benevolence toward us, I can't help but wonder if we're headed in the wrong direction.