Peasant – Our Banana Republic – Part II

May 9, 2016

The question is simple. Does the Left have any real interest in solving the problem they claim to want to solve. Or do they have another agenda? I first began to question their motives regarding the gun control debate.

More Guns Less CrimeThe pro Second Amendment crowd points out, often, statistics such as how few “assault weapons” are used in crimes, and that the term “assault weapon” does not apply to civilian guns, and how no proposed gun law would have prevented whatever shouting is in the headlines or how murderers and terrorists break multiple laws committing their crimes so why would we think a new law would deter them, etc. etc. Additionally, the pro-gun folks cite research showing that more guns equal less crime,  gun-free zones are killing fields and the most dangerous cities have the most onerous gun laws.

None of these arguments cause the Leftist to even pause. Worse, none of these arguments cause the Leftist to tone down their hateful rhetoric even slightly. After many years of observing this immunity to fact I had to wonder if the Left really cared about protecting people from crime or if they were just pretending.  If you really cared about something wouldn’t you care if your prescriptions worked? Not if you are a Leftist.

After years of petty debates with Lefties, I had to come to the inevitable conclusion that the Left has absolutely no concern about gun crime. Their concern is a ploy to mask a different agenda, that is, to disarm the public. So it does not matter what other solutions are offered. Those will all be rejected no matter how effective. That’s why the Left reacts strongest against the best alternative ideas.

So even though the President’s children and the children of other elites in DC are protected at the Sidwell Friends School by armed guards plus the Secret Service it’s a stupid idea to put armed guards in schools if the NRA suggests it. Politicians, such as former mayor Bloomberg, lecture us on the evil of guns, especially ones with lots of bullets while surrounded, like a potentate, by armed guards and a total number of guns and bullets than most of us could not afford while advocating that his constituents are banned from owning even one gun or one bullet.

If you have ever seen the President traveling through Washington, you were stunned by the parade of armored cars surrounding him, carrying machine guns, speeding through red lights, while you and the rest of the peasants are held back by police foot soldiers reacting to the distant signal that the President, the most high holy, may piece be upon him, is coming.

One is forced to come to only one, unavoidable conclusion: The Left, despite their claims, are NOT interested in our welfare, NOT interested in our safety, NOT interested in our well being nor our happiness. They are only interested in a statist, collectivist utopia where they are in charge and where we labor day and night only to fund their privileges and power over us. An armed public stands in their way so disarming the public is their highest priority.

In other words, the goal of the “progressives” is to push back the clock to before the Enlightenment and the Founding, to even before the Magna Carta, to push back the clock to when there were kings and dukes and everyone else was, effectively, a serf.


Our Banana Republic – Part I

April 4, 2016

I’ve been an advocate of free markets and political liberty based on individual rights for many years. I always assumed that my intellectual opponents had a different set of values and a different way of reasoning than I did. So I felt my mission was to persuade them of the superiority of individual rights and free market Capitalism over Socialism.

But, over the years I began to wonder if there wasn’t something else motivating the movers and shakers of Socialism in America. They compromised on nothing. No graph, no statistic, no analysis seemed to persuade them or make them reconsider their ideology. Yet, the utter failure of central economic planning and social engineering historically and around the world was manifest. What could they be thinking?

Ayn Rand famously said that in the face of a seeming contradiction such as this, we should “check our premises” because contradictions are impossible in the real world. So let’s check our premises. Do the Democrats, Leftists, Socialists and others in that camp have, as a goal, social justice, or justice of any kind? Or is something else going on? This is the first of a series where I intend to construct a case against the notion of the well meaning Socialist. To get things started here I present, for your consideration, this video that lists the Clinton scandals:

Global Warming

February 12, 2014

The advocates of man-made global warming are fond of claiming science as their ally. But the science is almost immaterial since global warming is a thin disguise for what is a very dangerous political movement, one that would subjugate all of us to a tyranny that claims our lives and values are inconsequential compared to what authorities assert is best for the planet.

But, if we wish to pretend this is about science, the warmers have a few challenges.

Snow Covered MailboxHow do we measure Global Temperature?

We usually take if for granted, but how do we get a number, one number, for the temperature of the Earth? Terrestrial measurements are fraught with error as the environment around many measurement stations has changed. The most extreme examples are of rural stations ending up in the outskirts of cities where temperatures are normally warmer than in the rural location. There are also maintenance issues and other problems with terrestrial measurements.

Satellite measurements are more controlled but don’t go back very far, historically. Balloons provide great atmospheric profile data but weather balloons haven’t been around that long and they are not launched uniformly around the world. Ice core samples provide thousands of years of data but don’t help us know what the temperature was in places that don’t have ice.

So getting a single number for the temperature of the Earth today or historically is a problem. We either have long-term data or global data but not both. Still, we can at least look at something like ice core data and get information about the temperature record at one place on earth (let’s forget for now that the continents and their ice don’t stay put but move around over time.)

And even if we decide which measurements are the most meaningful, how does one integrate all the measurements to achieve one number, one, grand, global temperature?  These are not minor scientific problems.

Is the Earth Warming?

The second problem, after determining one temperature number, is to ascertain whether the earth is cooling or warming or staying the same.  In other words, are the measurement uncertainties small enough to allow us to predict a trend? The Earth’s temperature is certainly not staying the same over time, with or without people on board. (My preference is warming. Cooling would result in mass extinctions.)

Why is the Earth Warming?

Third, if we can get past that hurdles of measuring temperature and determining a trend, we are confronted with proving WHY the temperature is changing and not just qualitatively but quantitatively, to the fraction of a degree. A computer model is NOT A PROOF. A computer model is a hypothesis that must be proven by observation, experiment and testing. This is no different than what is required of any mathematical description of reality be it Newton’s laws or quantum mechanics.

How Do We Change the Temperature Trend?

Fourth, if we decide we can measure the temperature and that the temperature is changing and that people are the cause, we must now propose a solution. And, again, scientific necessity requires that we PROVE the hypothesis, that is, prove the cure we propose. Even advocates of warming have not found a solution tyrannical, oppressive and inhuman enough to make much of a difference in their temperature trend claims. By their own calculations “cap and trade” and other policy proposals make a difference of only a couple tenths of a degree C per century.

Is the Cure Worst Than The Disease?

Fifth, and finally, if we are to be humane, and the warmists show no signs of being humane, we should determine if our cure is worse than the disease. I say it is. The warmists predict oceans rising, cities being flooded and a host of disasters. (But, of course, it’s also true that more carbon dioxide means more plant growth and warmer climates have longer growing seasons.)

The warmists’ cure is an end to individual rights, freedom, capitalism and, frankly, humanity. Is living in a gulag run by enviro-nazis preferable to putting your home on stilts, moving inland or to a more Northern latitude?

Just to cap this off, what do we do if 1) we can measure the Earth’s temperature and 2) we can detect a trend and 3) the trend is caused by people and 4) we have a political cure but 5) our cure goes too far and we reverse the warming trend instead of stopping it? Would you prefer Cleveland is in the tropics or that Orlando is under ice?

More research and information can be found at the Junk Science web site.

Income Inequality

December 18, 2013

President Obama gave a speech on Dec 4th and he spoke about income inequality. The Washington Times reports on the speech here. On Dec 15 Paul Krugman wrote about the subject in the NY Times.

Steel MillIncome inequality is a recurrent bugaboo of the Left. On the surface, the concern seems to have merit. But worry over income inequality has, at it’s root, Marxist presuppositions. If, as Marx believed, workers are exploited, getting an incomplete share of what they produce for a business, then comparing the income of workers and business owners makes sense.

However, if one understands more completely the workings of a free market economy, that not just labor but also capital provide value, then there is no reason to be offended by what capitalists or management earns anymore than there is reason to be offended by what a bricklayer earns compared to a teacher or engineer.

As a rebuttal to the notion that inequality isn’t some sinister byproduct of Capitalism, modern Progressives have come up with arguments claiming that societies with greater income inequality have lower economic growth and other societal ailments.

At the root of the debate is a false premise, the premise of income inequality itself. As Thomas Sowell explains, an abstract discussion of income categories leaves out a very important component, people. If, instead of comparing income categories you compare individual people you find out some interesting things. The biggest income inequality is between the old and the young. Not only do people move up the income scale throughout their lives, individuals move in and out of income categories constantly as their income varies. Better to hear his explanation first hand:

And here is Margaret Thatcher’s more dramatic exposure of Leftist fallacy:

The Amazing Dollar a Year Healthcare Plan

December 15, 2013

Yes friends. Step right up. With all the hoopla over Obamacare and how cheap medicine is in every other country but the US I have, after months of consultation with industry experts, come up with the ideal medical plan for Amerika.

Invetors Business Daily Poll

Invetors Business Daily Poll

Do you say your insurance is too expensive? Fear not. LibertyPhysics healthcare is $1 a year. Do you say that other countries spend much less money on healthcare than we do in the USA? No problem. Tell your friends to sign up for the LibertyPhysics $1/year plan and before you know it our average healthcare costs will be billions less than the competition in other countries.

How do we do it you ask? Well, I’ll be proud to tell you. Our plan was researched thoroughly by the top lawyers, politicians and homeless people in the country. After months of deliberation, the finely crafted contract appears below:

Your Uber-Wonderful LibertyPhysics All-Encompassing and Affordable Heath Care Contract

1) Cost: $1 per year payable to LibertyPhysics

2) Deductible: Everything you spend

3) What’s Covered: Nothing. Zero. Zip. Nada. For the good of Amerika and for bragging rights about how little we spend on healthcare we don’t cover anything – not doctor visits, emergency rooms, dental, eye, or prescriptions. Moreover, so we can control costs, you are forbidden from paying for your own stuff. So you can’t pay your doctor. You can’t pay for the emergency room. You can’t pay for surgery. Yes Sandra, that includes abortions, hysterectomies, tubal legations, and anything else you can think of.

4) Self Medication: Just to make sure we don’t get the blame for costs you run up on your own, you are legally forbidden from growing a medicinal herb garden, doing self surgery, including appendectomies, arterial stents and anything else you might think you can cleverly get away with because of your home shop. And don’t even think about running away to Costa Rica or Hungary. We will track you down.

So see. Wasn’t that easy – and in far fewer than 3,000 pages.

Why is Big Brother Watching?

December 4, 2013

Perhaps you are having trouble keeping up, as I am, with the Obama scandals, from the Black Panthers to Fast and Furious to Benghazi to the IRS targeting of conservative groups and the crony relationships and failures of Obamacare.

Obama-big-brother2 copyThis may seem like old news but of particular interest to me is the NSA surveillance program, the one exposed by Edward Snowden. I’ve been wanting to write about it for some time but we were so awash in scandals I couldn’t fit this in before. The most recent revelation came Dec 4th with the report that the NSA is capturing cell phone locations worldwide. That piles on to the story about the NSA spying on foreign allies including the accusation that Obama knew about the spying.

In the last couple months we’ve learned about the security flaws that compromise personal data at and a rumor that data gathering engine behind that Obamacare web site starts collecting data off your computer as soon as you go to the site, before you even sign up.

Conservatives, including Republican Senators and others, such as Larry Kudlow and the editorial staff of the Wall Street Journal have defended the NSA program as a necessary part of the War on Terror. The Wall Street Journal editorial reads:

“The regulatory agencies claim—and use—the power to seize property and control individual conduct. The very administration of the entitlement state depends on tracking (Social Security numbers), data-processing (Medicare benefits) and individual scrutiny (tax audits). The IRS knows far more about American citizens than the NSA does…”

They go on to say,

“The Fourth Amendment restricts unreasonable searches on individuals but imposes few limits on collection and analysis, and technologies have no privacy rights. The NSA is screening the data system in general for conduct that threatens the security of the system, not targeting any particular individual or group using the system. The right comparison is a cop on a beat who patrols public spaces. He’s not investigating a crime or enforcing a law; he’s watching for suspicious behavior. “

This is completely and utterly wrong-headed. First of all, The Wall Street Journal has NO idea about how the NSA program works. They base their editorial on the text of the Patriot Act and the claims of NSA and other Administration officials. But, from Fast and Furious to Benghazi to the State Department prostitution scandals and HHS insider trading and IRS misdeeds we know the Administration is filled with liars and cheats. So why would we take their word on the NHS data collection activities?

Second, the Patriot Act authorized cell phone monitoring only when a known foreign agent was being contacted. What law, what act of Congress authorizes wide-spread data-mining of domestic phone records and credit-card transactions? Larry Kudlow, on his radio show, repeated the claim that the NSA data-mining operation didn’t identify us as individuals or listen to our phone calls. Instead, they simply looked at phone numbers and call durations for suspicious patterns of behavior. And, it is claimed, that this surveillance stopped terror attacks.

How can any of that be true? What computer algorithm identifies suspicious behavior unless the parties in the conversation are identified and cross correlated with another data base containing names of known terrorists or other criminals? What pattern of phone calls is suspicious? Is it that I called the same number every evening for a week? Is it that my call lasted an hour and a half? Is it that I did a lot of conference calling? I call the “suspicious behavior” claim baloney! Moreover, my phone number, especially my cell phone number, IS my identity.  So the claim that individuals are not being identified is false on the face of it. They might as well say, “We are not identifying you as an individual. We are just looking at Social Security Numbers.”

Third, because the Administration has made the claim that they are just looking at phone records for suspicious behavior, we see they have at least admitted that there is wide-spread domestic data mining. But since the claim that they are looking at phone numbers and not identifying individuals is a self-contradiction, we know they are also lying about the program. So why should I believe the claim that they are not eavesdropping on conversations or anything else they say? What is the purpose of the NSA data center project in Utah if they are only looking at meta-data? And if they cut 90 per cent of administrators to assure us that their spy system was secure, isn’t that an admission that your confidential information has been potentially compromised already?

Fourth, The Wall Street Journal, Larry Kudlow and the rest of the Conservative gang gloss over one, very important, detail of the NHS program. They just assume the NHS has the right to run your phone records and credit card transactions through some super computer. But your records are the property of your phone company and your credit card company. What gives any government the right to analyze them any more than your neighbor down the street has a right to analyze them? You might say that your records are already being analyzed by marketing wizards and sold to third parties so they can spam you with offers for kitchen appliances. But Amazon and eBay and and AT&T do not have armies and they can’t put you in jail. The Federal Government can make your life a living hell because you made an anti-Muslim video or spoke out against Obama. Just as there is supposed to be a separation between church and State, there should be a wall of separation between our private transactions and law enforcement.

Fifth, it’s claimed that the NHS program has stopped terror plots. I know that the original Bush program has stopped terror plots because it linked domestic phone calls with known overseas terrorists.  But, the Obama program did not stop the Boston bombers. In fact, Russia warned us about these guys and we still didn’t stop them. I would give the program a pass except for that part about the Russian warnings. I’m told there are 12 million illegal immigrants “operating in the shadows” that we have to identify by legalizing them. Why can’t we identify them through this sophisticated phone surveillance system?

Finally, The Wall Street Journal point out, quite correctly, that the Federal Government already has a ton of information about you thanks to the IRS, the Social Security Administration the Post Office and on and on. And so, this NHS program is only a slightly larger intrusion.

And THAT observation key. But not in the way The Wall Street Journal intends. Let’s add all this together, accepting that some of our assumptions or facts may be mistaken. Here we go:

  1. The Obama Administration is not bound by law (see GM bailout, Black Panthers, interim appointments etc.)
  2. The Obama Administration uses the power of the State to punish political enemies (see IRS, EPA that waived fees from Freedom of Information Act requests by Leftist groups but not for Conservative ones).
  3. The Obama Administration considers their agenda more important than the lives of Americans (see Fast and Furious, Benghazi).
  4. The Obama Administration lies (see Benghazi coverup and all of the above, etc.).
  5. The Obama Administration security analysis failed multiple times (Ft. Hood, Benghazi, Boston, Egypt, etc.) (A debatable point, admittedly.)
  6. Obamacare will add all of your medical records to the existing data dossier on you and may collect non-medical data on you as well.
  7. US agents have been told to cover up the sources of their information and the extent of their spying.
  8. Obama continues to fund-raise even though he is not running for office.

What can we conclude? First and foremost, the Administration can’t be trusted to tell us the truth about domestic spying nor can they be trusted to confine themselves to legal and Constitutional activities. There is enough suspicious behavior, such as denying there is spying and then admitting it and then admitting it is bigger than they said at first and building data center facilities much larger than necessary if they were telling the truth.

My second conclusion is more of a hypothesis or a thought experiment. What if all this spying and data collection by the NSA, IRS, Obamacare and the rest isn’t about terrorism at all? What if it’s about political power? That would explain the ineffectiveness in stopping the Boston bombers or the Ft. Hood attack. What if this is the real purpose?:

When Takers Are In Charge

December 3, 2013

On Oct 1st the Great Utopia was rolled out. The Obamacare website,, opened for business. Well, it opened. Doing any business was another thing. Two months have gone by since the roll out and the list of ObamaCare Chartproblems disclosed continues to grow.   Mark Steyn on NRO give his take on the debacle here, and reveals that the Obamacare website is exempt from the HIPAA privacy requirement for medical information. In other words, if you go there your information is not kept private or secret.

A sober look at the problems was done by betanews: “If you wanted to build a case study in the perfect recipe for IT project disaster, you wouldn’t have to look any further than the new official Obamacare website,” And now we are hearing reports that the programming for Obamacare was awarded through a no-bid contract to a Michelle Obama crony and that the same company was awarded $1.7 B in Sandy relief.

Even reliable Leftie Jon Stewart got into the act, “You can’t spin this turd.”

More recently, evaluations by experts conclude that the site is full of flaws and still a security nightmare, as CNBC reports here. The same expert speaks with Greta van Susteren here.

But, is not plagued by glitches. It is plagued by takers.  The Democrat Party and, in particular, the Obama Administration represent the “business” of big government, of taxes and bureaucrats, and so they best represent the takers in our society. They are the party of parasites. Very few Democrat politicians have a private sector background compared to Republicans who, much more often, have had careers outside of politics.

As a result, Leftist projects are plagued by the lack of practical experience of their politically appointed managers. They are more interested in hidden agendas, political positioning and perception management than results that meet their alleged goals. The media and voters who cheer-lead Leftist projects are stricken by a hero worship of their leaders and an apparent lack of critical thinking skills when it comes to talking points versus performance.

Note how little concern the Obama Administration and the Democrat Party have for the security issues. Note how the site is designed to prevent comparative shopping until after a user has entered a great deal of very private information. Note how the proponents of Obamacare continue to sell the talking points without any reference to what is actually in the law. That’s why they could deny, for months, what was apparent to the rest of us, that Obamacare would force us to give up our private insurance. Even now, while it is obvious that corporate insurance policies will be cancelled in mass next year so companies can cost-shift their, now unaffordable, benefits to the Federal Government, Obamacare supporters ignore or deny the possibility.

Government idolaters believe that, somehow, replacing competing insurance companies with a single payer government run system will make healthcare affordable. They believe that with no evidence and with much evidence to the contrary even in their personal experience. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and even AmTrak are all insolvent. And their websites and systems were designed when Democrats were still reasonable. But, somehow, Obamacare will be an economic miracle.

Or maybe they don’t believe any of that. Maybe that’s just one of the many rationalizations they hope will convince normal people to go along with their folly. I suspect what most of them really believe is that government run health care will make it easier for them to live at the expense of others. And isn’t that the real goal. They don’t care if Obmacare costs others more or even bankrupts families so long as they get theirs.

As I see it, the Left is divided into three broad groups, those who are naively well meaning, those that want something for nothing and even resent having to work for their necessities, and, finally, those that have an insatiable need to boss other people around, who seek unlimited physical power over others. That is, they are the naive, the moochers and the tyrants. Obamacare is the perfect metaphor for all three and the Obamacare failures are what you get when any of the three groups is in charge.

Opting Out of Utopia

October 6, 2013

I’ve had running arguments with people in person, on Facebook and Twitter about Obamacare. Most recently I was accused of wanting people to die in the streets from want of health care. Was that person born last week? Were people dying in the streets in 1950, 1960, 1970, before the great savior of all mankind gave us Obamacare? Are people dying in the streets today, before Obamacare is fully implemented?

Karl Marx

Karl Marx

Of course, we were told that the whole reason we needed Obmacare is because there are 30 million uninsured Americans. That number was always fraudulent because it included many people who could afford insurance but declined to purchase it and many people who were uninsured for only a couple months between jobs. At least President Obama has changed that. Now people are years between jobs, not just months. Nevertheless, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that under Obamacare there will still be 30 million uninsured Americans.

Obamacare is more expensive, more coercive, has fewer choices and doesn’t reduce the number of uninsured. But the defenders are rabid and unrepentant. They have argued that, indeed, it is flawed, but when we finally get to a single payer system we will see great improvements in the affordability and accessibility of health care. Neither graphs, nor statistics nor anecdotes about death and suffering under single payer systems cause the Obamacare supporters to pause one little bit and check their facts or premises. These individuals are not moved by the documented history of suffering wrought by state-run medicine from Bismark to Lenin to Castro to England, Canada or Sweden. They are True Believing Leftists (TBL). And despite their self-image, they are cold and heartless, unmoved by human suffering.

My graphs, data and anecdotes are met with accusations of being a TEA Party #Kochsucker who uses made up statistics. I’m told to “PLZ TAKE HEAD OUT OF ASS” and I’m treated to other, unassailable, and scientific arguments along those same lines.

So I have one last question for all the Obamacare TBLs, zealots, zombies and aging communists: Where do I go to opt-out of your Utopia? Certainly, such a brilliant bit of social engineering as is Obamacare can stand on it’s own merits. Certainly it has features and benefits so attractive that it will sell itself. But, if for now, I’m unconvinced, where do I go to opt-out? And when you get your single-payer-paradise, where do I go to opt-out of that brainstorm by your wizards of smart?

Of course, the answer is I can’t opt-out. I probably haven’t heard all the rationalizations about how it’s imperative to include all 300 million Americans in this scheme but the arguments I have heard so far include, “You can’t opt out of police and fire protection” and “It only works if everyone is included.” The first is false, depending on where you live.

I like that second one in particular. Supposedly single payer, government medicine works in Sweden, Great Britain and Canada. Those populations aren’t EVERYONE, are they? If success depends on everyone being included, does that mean they depend on some mythical rich people who will just hang out and get fleeced rather than move themselves and their money to Belize or Taiwan? Does that mean that doctors, nurses and other medical professionals need to be owned by the government?

In a free society, those who believe in collectivism could simply start their own collective, pool their resources, and have whatever social arrangement they wanted short of human sacrifice. But they almost never want that. The TBLs always, always, always need to force others into bondage for there supposed “greater good.” Sometimes they need to steal from the rich and other times they need to enslave the doctors. But they always need to coerce us all into participating.

Why can’t the TBLs just open one, huge, joint checking account and have all their wages direct-deposited there. They would each get a checkbook and could write checks against the account for their modest needs. It would be the perfect Leftist Utopia, from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. I would support a Federal Law, exempting participants in that Utopia from having to pay any Federal, State or local taxes so long as the Utopia operated along true Marxist-Lenninist principles. Of course, they would lose the right to vote in MY elections. But, then, I wouldn’t be able to vote in theirs either.

So, go out among us and ask your Leftie friends why we can’t just opt-out of their brilliant social engineering concoctions. I would love to collect and document the answers and their explanations of why they think they own us.

The Failing Republican ObamaCare Strategy

August 14, 2013

I listened to Carl Rove being interviewed the other day about his ObmaCare strategy. The plan he is advocating, and the Republican establishment is agreeing to, is to let ObamaCare “collapse of its own weight.” He, and the establishment, are terrified that if Republicans oppose ObmaCare now, by trying to block funding, for instance, they will precipitate a Federal Government shut down and the media and President will blame them for that.

Karl RoveInstead, Rove advocates that Republicans lay low until 2016 because only after we have elected a Republican President and Senate can we undo ObmaCare.

I agree with Mark Levin: The claim that ObamaCare will collapse of its own weight, and the associated do-nothing strategy are deeply flawed. What does it mean for a law to collapse of its own weight? Did Medicare or Medicaid or Social Security collapse even though they are also deeply flawed? Is the NSA surveillance program collapsing of its own weight even though a majority of Americans oppose it?

I’ll admit that the Soviet Union collapsed of its own weight, with a little shove by Ronald Reagan. But how long did that take and how much misery created from 1917 to the collapse?

ObamaCare is the law of the land and as long as it remains the ObamaCare Chartlaw it will do serious damage to our medical care, our insurance systems and our economic growth. Care Rove wants us to sit back and wait till 2016 when we have elected a Republican president. Well, 2012 didn’t work out so well for us and if Republicans don’t show some initiative now no one will vote for them in 2016. What would be the point? If we can’t beat someone with Obama’s record in 2012 what makes Rove think we can beat Hillary or whoever?

Regarding shutting down the government, I already wrote about that here, somewhat tongue in cheek.

Moreover, the propaganda war never ends. If Republicans think they can avoid being demonized by hiding under the covers until 2016 they can forget it. My Leftist friends and acquaintances blame all our problems on Republicans, despite Obama controlling both houses of the legislature in his first term. They claim Republicans filibuster all of Obama’s good ideas for saving the economy and they hold Republicans responsible for unemployment, foreign disasters and domestic unrest with minorities and women. They blame Republicans for student loan interest rate increases despite that the rate change was a Democrat idea. They believe Republicans ruined the economy on purpose to, somehow, help the rich. They believe Republicans want to deny people medical care because Republicans are mean. They believe Republicans want to undo the civil rights laws and women’s suffrage. And when ObamaCare destroys our economy and our medical care, Democrats and their media allies will blame Republicans and over half the voters will believe them. Time and time again I’ve pointed out how destructive the national media are and how they are now active propagandists for extreme left-wing Democrats.  The Republican establishment better get that message.

If Republicans don’t get as mean and aggressive in the propaganda war as the collectivist, statist Democrats, they will cease to exist, much less win elected office. Any strategy that delays the fight will only make us weaker. That is a fundamental rule of war.

Fighting Back Part IV – The Liberty Amendments

August 13, 2013

The Liberty AmendmentsToday, Mark Levin has released his long awaited book, “The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic.” Of course, I haven’t completed reading the book yet but Levin has been discussing the book on his radio show and on interviews. Plus, he pre-released the first chapter as a pdf document here: Chapter 1, The Liberty Amendments.

Here’s what I glean about the book, reading between the lines of the Mark Levin Show and my initial reading of the book. “The Liberty Amendments” was motivated by the observation that the game is rigged. Federal power continues to grow unabated, contrary to efforts by citizens to elect politicians who will bring it under control. This growth is despite our risk of national bankruptcy and the collapse of our economy and despite the growing Federal tyranny that impacts more and more of us.

Levin’s proposal rests on the text of Article V of the Constitution, which reads:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

See the text I put in bold, above. Mark Levin calls this the “second amendment process.” His opponents say he is calling for  a Constitutional Convention. I have vociferously opposed a Constitutional Convention, feeling it could run-away from us and we would end up with a Constitution more resembling the Soviet one than the document we now have. However, Levin points out that this process is NOT the same as calling for a Constitutional Convention because the State legislatures can restrict the process to one or only a few amendments.

This is a breakthrough idea and, even though the process has never been used before, my frustration with the political elite, who vote time after time against their constituents, makes me very receptive.  For instance, in 2010 the TEA Party movement was able to make a difference in the election process. I should have expected the backlash from politicians but even I wasn’t cynical enough. By 2012 both Democrats and Republicans and their media allies were on a non-stop binge of TEA Party demonization. Meanwhile, the Obama Administration was having the IRS harass Conservative organizations to blunt their impact. Today, the political class and the media have an effective ground game that makes opposing the entrenched interests even more difficult. As evidence, I offer that Republicans, who were elected thanks to TEA Party activists, are constantly surrendering before the fight even begins. The Republican establishment oppose any attempt to de-fund ObamaCare and their investigations of Benghazi, the IRS and the NSA are weak at best. They seem far more interested in maintaining the status-quo than making a difference or representing the American people.

Levin’s proposal to use the alternate amendment process allows us to move the debate to the state level and our state representatives, who are much more sensitive to our concerns, even if not perfect. The number of states with Republican or Conservative legislatures and governors is growing and we may be able to go back to basics to make the changes we need to make to preserve the Republic.

Remember, the Federal Government is a creation of the States. The Constitution was written and ratified by the States, and their representatives, to create the Federal Government. Modifying the Constitution at the State level is fundamental to our form of government.

In chapter I of the book, Levin presents historical context for his proposal and makes the case for it. In subsequent chapters, he goes further, he proposes a set of amendments for us to consider that allow, among other things, for Supreme Court rulings to be overturned by States, limiting taxes and spending, term limits and more. Along with each suggested amendment he makes a case for its adoption.

The book is available at Barns and Noble, Amazon and other retailers. I recommend it highly. If Levin’s proposals have a positive impact he will be known as the “21st Century Founding Father.”