Balance

Light cannot exist without dark.
Cold cannot exist without heat.
Courage cannot exist without fear.
Love cannot exist without hate.
Our ability to perceive the difference between these things is based on the contrast between the two.

If I had to summarize my philosophy about life and how the world works, it would be balance.  There will never be equal outcomes because people are not automatons.  People have different feelings, desires, motivations, beliefs and abilities.  No redistributive policy will ever change the fact that people are inherently different.

However, people must be valued as an end in and of themselves because of their humanity (natural rights).  Liberal ideas and "feel good" measures ignore this issue completely, and have the "elites know best" attitude.  People must be allowed to fail, because without failure there is no success.  One cannot exist without the other.  We cannot fix all of the problems in the world or guarantee success in any way.  We can only help to create a society in which those who want to succeed have the opportunity to do so.

Monday Tidbit

"A government policy to rob Peter to pay Paul can be assured of the support of Paul."
-- George Bernard Shaw

Monday Tidbit

"You cannot bring prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
You cannot further brotherhood of men by inciting class hatred.
You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves."
-- Rev. William J. H. Boetcker

Guns

Though this story is fiction, the point is a valid one.

People who are equipped with something that has the potential to be twisted or abused, are not necessarily abusers.

I was listening to the radio the other day, and I heard one of the all-time best comeback lines in my life. Note: This is an exact replication of National Public Radio (NPR) interview between a female broadcaster, and US Army General Reinwald who was about to sponsor a Boy Scout Troop visiting his military installation.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: So, General Reinwald, what things are you going to teach these young boys when they visit your base?"
GENERAL REINWALD: We're going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery, and shooting."
FEMALE INTERVIEWER: "Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible, isn't it?"
GENERAL REINWALD: "I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the rifle range."
FEMALE INTERVIEWER: "Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?"
GENERAL REINWALD: "I don't see how. We will be teaching them proper rifle discipline before they even touch a firearm. "
FEMALE INTERVIEWER: "But you're equipping them to become violent killers."

GENERAL REINWALD: "Well, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one, are you? "

http://www.snopes.com/military/reinwald.asp

Literature Highlight - Propaganda by Edward Bernays

Published in 1928, Bernays' Propaganda is a fascinating book.  Rather than give you a summary, I'll just include the opening passage.  It was enough to peak my interest, whether I agree with the book or not.

"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. 

We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized.  Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society.

Our invisible governors are, in many cases, unaware of the identity of their fellow members in the inner cabinet.

They govern us by their qualities of natural leadership, their ability to supply needed ideas and by their key position in the social structure. Whatever attitude one chooses to take toward this condition, it remains a fact that in almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons— a trifling fraction of our hundred and twenty million—who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind, who harness old social forces and contrive new ways to bind and guide the world."

http://sandiego.indymedia.org/media/2006/10/119695.pdf

Enduring Strength

Well said, Sarah!  Well said.


Sarah Palin: "America's Enduring Strength" from Sarah Palin on Vimeo.

Sanity

"We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions."
- Ronald Reagan

Legislation Cannot Prevent Tragedies

It seems there is a fresh threat to the Second Amendment following the recent national tragedy. 
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47338.html

I still have yet to understand the logic behind "Gun Control" legislation.  Guns are the great equalizer in my opinion.  They allow people of all shapes and sizes to prevent abuses by more powerful entities.  People can defend themselves and their neighbors against muggers in whatever form they may be, whether a random act of violence on an individual level or the corruption and abuse of a government.

No amount of legislation can prevent tragedies.  
No legislation would have prevented the "Tragedy in Tuscon."  A single-minded, delusional, twisted person can get a hold of some form of weapon regardless of the government's efforts. In fact, if someone in the vivacity had be carrying a concealed weapon maybe the tragedy would have ended differently.

Yes, children die as a result of mishandled firearms.  People are murdered (note: a higher rate of murders occur in "gun controlled" areas like Washington D.C.)  However, there are an infinite number of ways that people can harm themselves and others.  Very "safe" activities, sports, vehicles, and even medicines can all can take a life if something goes wrong.  Are we to outlaw all of these things?  To focus on gun control and take guns from law-abiding citizens empowers those who seek to create tragedies. 

The government cannot create complete safety, and should not try.  Until action is taken to harm someone and due process carried out, no punishment can be dealt out.  Should baseball bats be licensed, specially taxed, and buried in bureaucracy just because they have the potential to do harm when misused?  That's absurd, of course.

Rather than limiting guns we should be educate people about them so that rather than becoming the tool of criminals, they can be used to defend freedom as the Founders intended.

Monday Tidbit

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.
-- Winston Churchill

Omission of the Three-Fifths Clause: Wisdom or Folly?

I admire the 112th Congress for their effort to emphasize the importance of our founding document and its limitations on the powers of the federal government.  However, giving into the cries of "racism!" from the Left and omitting the three-fifths clause is a questionable course of action. Yes, the Constitution has been amended to

I think the Three-Fifths Compromise is one of the most misunderstood and misused elements of the original U.S. Constitution.  Liberals use it to discredit the Founding Fathers, erroneously using the 3/5ths clause as evidence of their racism.  Therefore, in the eyes of the Left, there was a racist tinge to the document, and the entire Constitution must then be discarded as outdated and invalid.

Maybe most Americans just aren't taught the true purpose and reasoning behind the Compromise.
In A Patriot's History of the United States, Schweikard and Allen say this about the topic (excerpt):

"The competition posed by slave labor to free labor, combined with the large plantations guaranteed by primogeniture, made it a surety that immigration to southern states would consistently fall behind that of the North. Fewer immigrants meant fewer representatives. So the House was in jeopardy in the foreseeable future. To ensure a continued strong presence in the House, southern delegates proposed to count slaves for the purposes of representation -- a suggestion that outraged anti-slavery New Englanders, who wanted only to count slaves toward national taxes levied on the states by the new government."

... On June 11, 1787, Pennsylvanian James Wilson who personally opposed slavery, introduced a compromise in which, for purposes of establishing apportionment and for taxation, a slave would be counted as three fifths of a free inhabitant. ... At any rate, Wilson's phrase referred obliquely to 'free inhabitants' and all other persons not comprehended in the foregoing description, and therefore 'slavery' does not appear in the founding document."

...

The likelihood that the southerners would cause the convention to collapse meant that the delegates had to adopt the three-fifths provision and deal with the consequences later.  Realistically, it was the best they could do, although it would take seventy-eight years, a civil war, and three constitutional amendments to reverse the three-fifths compromise."

Abolitionists wanted the slaves not to be counted AT ALL!  Now that's true bigotry right? 
Wrong.  The slave population was not allowed to vote, but the South wanted to use them to gain greater power in Congress for their Pro-Slavery platform.  In order to get the South to ratify the Constitution, they were permitted to partially claim the slaves as population for census purposes.  This left the Abolitionist with the hope of ending slavery in the future.

Unfortunately, I think there will continue to be general misunderstanding about the Three-Fifths Clause and its purpose.  Fredrick Douglass was even duped by the racist label applied to the clause, before he realized its actual virtue.   Is trying to explain merits of the Three-Fifths Clause worth the fight?  I don't know, but I just can't stand by and let revisionist history continue.

Read more:
Article Referencing Fredrick Douglass' view on the Constitution: "A Glorious Liberty Document"
Article in the Baltimore Sun: Cummings Questions House Reading of Constitution

What's In a Name?

Are bill "names" ever truly honest about what they contain or how they'll impact Americans?
In my opinion, probably not.  The name assigned to a bill can have a huge effect on how the bill is perceived.  Bill names tend to be either outright deceptive, or simply vague and non-committal.  If they were named for what they really contained, instead of the "Sunshine and Puppies Act of 2011" we might not be crumbling under the mountains of legislation our government seems to feel obligated to impose every year. 


Here are a few recent examples.
1) Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (2010) - Commonly known as "ObamaCare" 

Who would vote against protecting patients and making medicine affordable?  It really should be titled "The Government Knows Best How to Take Care of Your Health Act."  Nevermind that the bill is simply a 2000 page stomping on inidividual American freedoms and responsibilities. It also ignores the fact that none of the other public health care experiments (UK and Canada) have been remotely successful in  protecting patients, making care affordable or more accessible.  In fact, things have gotten worse.  But, "Patient Protection and Affordable Care" sounds so awesome right?


2) H.R.847 - James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010 - aka The 9-11 First Responders Bill
Maybe this wasn't a major bill, but I think it still makes my point.  This bill committed federal money to take care of I victims associated with the 2001 terrorist attack, adding to the large stack of entitlements that already contribute to the ridiculous national debt.  I think the place for taking care of 9/11 First Responders is a job for private charity.  
Here is my argument against the bill:

There are few Americans that don’t have a place in their hearts for the 9/11 First Responders. Every single American was affected that day and most would have been there on the ground trying to help if they could have been. However, it is not reasonable to expect the government to foot the bill for every tragedy. How about appealing to the American people directly and asking for donations to such a worthy cause? I believe Americans would give generously when they don’t have more money taken forcibly from their paycheck. Just like the Wounded Warrior Project and the Special Operations Warrior Foundation support veterans of the current wars and their families, there should be a non-profit set up to take care of 9/11 First Responders, if there isn’t one already. We can’t expect the Federal Government to add another burden to taxpayers when private organizations can do a much better job serving those in need.

My point is, the content of the bill, regardless of it's flashy or ambiguous name is supremely important.  Congress and the American people need to know what is inside the bill in fine print, not the large font title on the front.

Keep track for yourself and confront your Congressmen about the content of what they're voting for.  Don't let the November turnover in congress be for nothing.  

Stay informed. Check out non-profit OpenCongress.org.

Time for Our Next Silent Cal

I find it interesting that Glenn Beck frequently claims to be looking for the next George Washington.  I too am admirer of the First President who humbly refused to become our first monarch.  However, I think who we really need is the next Calvin Coolidge.  Silent Cal is, in my opinion, one of the most underrated Presidents this country has had in our highest office.

A recent USA Today article recognizes Silent Cal's appeal:
"'There are no Calvin Coolidges on the national political stage today,' Douglas wrote. 'Quiet doesn't muster votes. It is a different time. Still, we would be lucky to have leaders who understand the Coolidge idea, who don't have all the answers, who understand how to listen, who keep some opinions private, who are unwilling to become a public spectacle, who are humble and patient and thoughtful.'" 
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-12-31-Raasch-on-Coolidge_N.htm

Calvin Coolidge assumed the Presidency after the death of President Warren Harding and was sworn in by his own father, a notary public.  Such a humble beginning set the tone for his administration.  He was willing trust the American people to create prosperity, rather than allowing the government to negatively manipulate the economy.

Coolidge had vast experience as a subtle but strong leader, working his way up in the state government of Massachusetts, which he applied to the Federal government.  He was known for not wasting words, the source of his nickname and quality from which many modern politicians should learn.  He spoke out in favor of civil rights for African Americans and Catholics and appointed no known members of the KKK to office. 

I encourage all to do a little more research into Coolidge's administration.  Why were the "Roaring Twenties" so prosperous?  How did he and Andrew Mellon reduce the number of people paying taxes* and the percentages paid by those who did, while simultaneously reducing the national debt (an impossible feat according to 21st century politicians)?
*Only the top 2% of earners paid any income tax by 1927.

I admire Coolidge most because of his trust in the American people.  Through his actions as President, he demonstrated his belief that individual Americans should be responsible for their own destinies, not the U.S. government.  If only we could get our current Federal politicians to recognize Coolidge's wisdom and follow suit.

Monday Tidbit

“The best thing about the future is that it comes only one day at a time.”

-Abraham Lincoln