The Death of Democracy, Part Two

Edmund Burke was an 18th century politician and philosopher. He stated brilliantly why democracies, ultimately, will fail:

"What is liberty without wisdom and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice, and madness, without restraint.

"Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites; in proportion as they are disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good in preference to the flattery of knaves.

"Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without.

"It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters."

Folks, "self-government" is not Washington, D.C. Self-government is you governing yourself, you controlling yourself, you disciplining yourself to act in harmony with moral law and that which is good--to live virtuously and wisely. If men will not control themselves inwardly, then some force, from outside (government) will step in and do it for them. There must be order for a civilized society to exist. Democracy, without morality, simply cannot survive. Tyranny will be the result.

It is no surprise, to anyone who understands moral law and the nature of man, that since there has been a decline in religion in this country, there has been an expanse in the size of government. This is, of course, good for government and politicians; and it is why you NEVER hear politicians today talk about virtue and self-discipline. If people were virtuous and self-governing, politicians would be superfluous. If all men were angels, James Madison said, we wouldn't need government. But it is in the interest of government to encourage vice and immmorality, creating disorder in society, thus necessitating government to step in and use the power at its disposal to provide (force) order upon society--an order which could exist if men would freely choose to live virtuous, restrained lives. But again, it is in government's interest that men not do that. Support immorality and buy votes, thereby, as Sir Alexander Tyler wrote (see "The Death of Democracy, Part One"), democracies will fail over loose financial policy. Immorality cannot be financially supported forever.

How does it work in this country? A few examples. An unwed woman gives herself to some cur and gets pregnant; Hollywood certainly endorses that. Since the father, too often, is irresponsible (or he wouldn't have gotten her pregnant in the first place), government tells her, "It's ok. If you want to abort the baby, that's fine, we'll even pay for it if you can't. Or if you want to have the baby, we'll provide you the financial assistance through welfare." So virtuous people, those who live godly, decent, disciplined, hard-working lives, are forced to pay for some woman who fornicated--who lived promiscuously rather than virtuously. Folks, if you are forced to support something you would not support of your own voluntary will, don't call it freedom!

The current health care situation is another example. "I don't have health insurance," some poor soul cries. So let's force somebody else to pay for it for you. "But I don't have the money to pay for health insurance!" Do you have a cell phone? An Internet connection? Cable television? Booze and cigarettes? There are plenty of low-cost health insurance programs available out there (check some of the ads on this blog) that can tide people through until they get into a situation where they can afford their own or obtain a job where it is provided. But, it's a whole lot easier to vote for politicians who will use somebody else's money to dispense medical coverage to those who don't want to pay for it themselves by giving up luxuries they don't need. Now there are people who require help--the "needy" poor, those who are in desperate circumstances through no fault of their own and have done all they can to relieve themselves. Nobody objects to helping them, and nearly all of it can be done through private assistance (those who have wealth should be virtuous as well, and help take care of those who are truly in need). But that isn't what politicians are going to say. Government is necessary because people refuse to govern themselves. And the more government we have, the less freedom we have, because it is our tax dollars that go to pay for that government. And every dime government takes out of my pocket is one dime less free I am. Government has legitimate purposes, though again, it wouldn't be necessary if all people would live godly lives. I don't mind paying for those services I get--police, fire protection, military protection, to name a few. But when I'm forced to pay for things I don't believe in or would not pay for voluntarily, I am no longer truly free, for government can then take whatever it wishes of mine and use it how it desires rather than as I desire. As Burke wrote, "It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." And, unfortunately, their intemperance means others cannot be free, either.

John Adams wrote, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." Democracy always fails when religion falls. And without some major conversion, this country is headed for tyranny. Our Founding Fathers would say we were already there.

One last anecdote. In I Samuel 8, the prophet warned Israel that the king they demanded would be a tyrant because he would tax them at 10% of their belongings. The average American today pays almost 40% of his earning in taxes. Which is the true tyranny here?

Individual Responsibility

(See a video of this post in the left side column.)

Thomas Sowell, an economist and syndicated columnist, makes a brilliant point in an article he released today entitled "The Great Escape":

"No small part of the current confusion between "health care" and medical care comes from failing to recognize that Americans can have the best medical care in the world without having the best health or longevity because so many people choose to live in ways that shorten their lives....Americans can end up ruining the best medical care in the world in the vain hope that a government takeover will give us better health."

We just don't hear many politicians today talking about individual responsibility, people taking responsibility for their own lives and accepting the consequences of their lifestyle choices. No, people want to live as they please and then expect somebody else to pay the bill.

As Sowell so rightly says, government cannot give us better health. That can only be done by people taking care of themselves--and being required to pay for the consequences of improper choices.

If you want to eat junk, get fat, and die young, that's your business. Just don't expect me to pay for it.

From FDR to LBJ to Oh, Bummer

About 100 years ago, the Chicago Cubs had a double play combination--Tinkers to Evers to Chance. Very famous to baseball fans. In the last 100 years, the United States has elected a double play combination of presidents--FDR to LBJ to Barack Obama--that will mean the end of the game for this country.

The United States government has put our people into a debt of 11 trillion dollars (of course, ultimate blame belongs to voters who put such irresponsible curs in office in the first place). 11 trillion is a mind-boggling figure which none of us can truly comprehend. Let me see if I can put it into perspective for you. Count to 1,000. Go ahead, I'll wait....................................Finished? Now, do it 1,000 times. You'll have counted to 1 million. Count to 1 million 1,000 times. You'll have reached a billion. Count to 1 billion 1,000 times. Now you have 1 trillion. Do that 11 times....and I'm sorry, I'm not going to wait for you. It only took the U.S. government about 50 years to reach that figure; it would probably take you longer.

But, again, that number is really too large for us to grasp, even the way I've broken it down. The $11 trillion debt will never be paid off. It will exist until China (who holds most of it) realizes they will never be reimbursed. Then they'll dump all our bonds onto the world market, hoping to get something for all they hold. At that time, the United States will descend into hyperinflation, which will destroy the dollar and everything you own. Let's hope we who are reading (and writing) this die before that happens (though I confess I'd like to be around and tell every liberal "I told you so").

Where did this massive debt come from? It wasn't military spending, which is today about one-fifth of the federal budget and will probably become smaller under Mr. Obama. No, the debt comes from social welfare programs, mostly started under the New Deal (Franklin Roosevelt) and the Great Society (Lyndon Johnson). And now Mr. Obama, with his medical care proposals and stimulus plans (and who knows what else), will usher in a new wave of massive government spending which will only exacerbate the black hole of economic decadence this country is mired in. To be fair, the Republicans haven't helped a whole lot, but the huge increases of government commitments came under Democratic administrations. It feels good to live in such luxury; feels good until the bill comes due. The day of reckoning will come and it will not be pretty.

Mr. Obama thinks he can provide medical care for all Americans without increasing the debt. Only a fool believes that. Well, he could do it, by extreme rationing of services (dare I say it?--death panels...arrrrggh, I couldn't help it...). But Lyndon Johnson said that Medicare would be cheap, too. Go see how "cheap" Medicare became after Johnson (look it up yourself, I'm not going to do all your work for you.) Nothing the government does is "cheap."

We have given a teenager a credit card. He maxed it out. We gave him another one and told him to pay off the first one (as if that makes any sense). And, lo and behold, instead of doing that, he maxed out the second one, too. Surprise, surprise. Any competent (read: not liberal) historian could have told you that was going to happen.

But we have no one to blame for ourselves. Because it was the American people who elected Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson...and Barack Obama.

Keeping Insurance Companies Honest

Part of Mr. Obama's stated desire for a "public option" in health care is to "keep insurance companies honest."

What a hoot. Can you see the irony of politicians trying to keep other people honest?

This isn't about honesty, folks, this is about power--taking the freedom of medical decisions away from you and your doctor and giving it to some uncaring bureaucrat in Washington. And it isn't about "insuring the uninsured." Why does it take 1,000 pages of legislation to provide insurance for those who don't have it?

And another question. Why are so many people "uninsured"? How many of those people, such as those who are young and healthy, could pay for health insurance but simply choose to spend their money on other things? Why should I pay for their health insurance?

And is anybody in this country really uninsured? The poor have Medicaid; the elderly have Medicare. Federal law requires emergency rooms to treat anyone who comes in, whether they can pay or not. Nobody--including people who have no legal right to be in this country--is denied medical care. What's the big stink?

Yes, costs need to be brought down. And the best way to do that is get government and lawyers out of it and let the free market work.

Isn't Evolution a Marvelous Thing?

Some facts about the DNA in your body.

1. You have 46 segments of DNA in most of the 100,000,000,000,000 (that's 100 trillion) cells in your body. You got 23 segments from your mother, and 23 from your father. DNA contains the unique information that determines what you look like, much of your personality, and how every cell in your body is to function as long as you live.

2. If the DNA in just one of your cells were uncoiled, connected, and stretched out, it would be about 7 feet long. It would be so thin that it could not be seen even under an electron microscope. If all this coded infromation from just one cell in your body were written in books, it would fill a library of about 4,000 books of 500 pages with 300 words per page. If all the DNA in your body were placed end-to-end, it would stretch from here to the moon more than 500,000 times. In book form, the information would completely fill the Grand Canyon more than 75 times. If one set of DNA (one cell's worth) from every person who ever lived were placed in a pile, it would weigh less than an aspirin.

And evolution did all of that by chance. Isn't evolution a wonderful thing?

Just in case you can't tell, I'm being extremely sarcastic about what "evolution" can do. I cannot explain the utter comtempt I have for the "intelligence" of people who believe that absurd theory. "I am fearfully and wonderfully made," the Bible says. We ought to be in awe of a Creator who has the unlimited knowledge and ability to create DNA. And that's just one simple part of the human body, which is just one simple structure in this universe.

Is there no end to the foolishness men will invent to avoid obeying the God of heaven and earth?

(The above information on DNA came from Walt Brown, In the Beginning, who got much of his information from Carl Pagan, er, Sagan.)

Yes, Let's Turn Our Health Care System Over to These People

The following is from a Washington, D.C., airport ticket agent:

1. I had a New Hampshire Congresswoman ask for an aisle seat on an airplane so that her hair wouldn't get messed up by being near the window.

2. I got a call from a candidate's staffer who wanted to go to Cape Town. While I started to explain the length of the flight and the passport information, she interrupted with, "I'm not trying to make you look stupid, but Cape Town is in Massachusetts." Without trying to make her look stupid, I calmly explained, "Cape Cod is in Massachusetts. Cape Town is in Africa." Her response--click.

3. A senior Vermont Congressman called, furious about a Florida package we did. I asked what was wrong with the vacation in Orlando. He said he was expecting an ocean view room. I tried to explain that is not possible since Orlando is in the middle of the state. He replied, "Don't lie to me. I looked on the map and Florida is a very thin state."

4. I got a call from a lawmaker's wife who asked, "Is it possible to see England from Canada?" I said, "No." She said, "But they look so close on the map."

5. An aide for a cabinet member once called and asked if he could rent a car in Dallas. When I pulled up the reservation, I noticed he had only a 1-hour layover in Dallas. When I asked him why he wanted to rent a car, he said, "I heard Dallas was a big airport and we will need a car to drive between gates to save time."

6. An Illinois Congresswoman called last week. She needed to know how it was possible that her flight from Detroit left at 8:30 a.m. and got to Chicago at 8:33 a.m. I explained that Michigan was an hour ahead of Illimois, but she couldn't understand the concept of time zones. Finally, I told her the plane went fast and she bought that.

7. A New York lawmaker called and asked, "Do airlines put your physical description on your bag so they know whose luggage belongs to whom?" I said, "No, why do you ask?" She replied, "Well, when I checked in with the airline, they put a tag on my luggage that said (FAT), and I'm overweight. I think that's very rude!" After putting her on hold for a minute while I looked into it, I came back and explained the city code for Fresno, CA is FAT--Fresno Air Terminal and the airline was just putting a destination tag on her luggage.

8. A Senator's aide called to inquire about a trip package to Hawaii. After I went over all the cost info, she asked, "Would it be cheaper to fly to California and then take the train to Hawaii?"

9. I just got off the phone with a freshman Congressman who asked, "How do I know which plane to get on?" I asked him exactly what he meant, to which he replied, "I was told my flight number is 823, but none of these planes have numbers on them."

10. A lady Senator called and said, "I need to fly to Pepsi-Cola, Florida. Do I have to get on one of those little computer planes?" I asked if she meant fly to Pensacola, FL on a commuter plane. She said, "Yeah, whatever, smarty!"

11. A senior Senator called and had a question about the documents he needed in order to fly to China. After a lengthy discussion about passports, I reminded him that he needed a visa. "Oh, no I don't. I've been to China many times and never had to have one of those." I double checked and sure enough, his stay required a visa. When I told him this, he said, "Look, I've been to China four times and every time they have accepted my American Express."

12. A New Mexico Congresswoman called to make reservations. "I want to go from Chicago to Rhino, New York." I was at a loss for words. Finally, I said, "Are you sure that's the name of the town?" "Yes, what flights do you have?" replied the lady. After some searching, I came back with, "I'm sorry, ma'am, I've looked up every airport code in the country and can't find a Rhino anywhere." The lady retorted, "Oh, don't be silly! Everyone knows where it is. Check your map!" So I scoured a map of the state of New York and finally offered, "You don't mean Buffalo, do you?" The reply? "Whatever. I knew it was a big animal."

I hope this is all a joke. But I'm inclined to believe it's true. They walk among us, folks, and we elected them. And what's worse, they breed...

The Unseen Consequences of "Cash for Clunkers"

The Obama administration and the Democratic party has been hailing the "Cash for Clunkers" program as a huge success. Maybe. Some dealerships might take a different view. A recent study of 100 dealerships in Virginia reveals that less than 3% of the government rebate money has been paid out. Some dealers have threatened to quit the program if the government doesn't start re-imbursing them. Folks, these clowns in government can't even administer a $1 billion (now $3 billion) program, and we're being asked to turn one-sixth of the American economy over to them??

Incidentally, of the 10 highest selling models under the "Cash for Clunkers" program, 8 of them are Japanese or Korean cars. Of American cars, only the Ford Focus and Explorer made the top 10. No Obamamobiles--i.e., GM or Chrysler cars--made the list.

There is another facet of this program that hasn't gotten much, if any, notice (and it certainly won't by the Obama administration or the mainstream media). Ok, let's suppose that the program helps car dealerships. That's the visible results. But what about the invisible results (the "law of unintended consequences")? Who is being hurt by the program?........Do you have the answer? Think of it this way--what would consumers do with that money if they hadn't bought new cars with it? Well, some of it might have been saved, but some of it would have gone to buy other products--clothes, shoes, TVs, computers--whatever. In other words, car companies might have been helped by "Cash for Clunkers," but other retailers will be hurt because consumers no longer have the money to buy their products. But, of course, you never see that because that money is never spent. And so politicians can tout how they "helped" a certain industry because that can be seen; but they never talk about the industries/retailers that will be hurt for lack of consumer purchases. If I owned a clothing store, I'd be ticked off at the "Cash for Clunkers" program. "People go out and spend their money on new cars and now they won't have any money to come and buy my clothes. Why doesn't the government subsidize my business?"

And, as a sidelight, it might be worth asking, since this country is already $11 trillion in debt, where are we getting the $3 billion for this "clunker" program? Well, $3 billion is pocket change, I guess. Let our grandchildren pay for it. It's almost unbelievable how incredibly irresponsible the United States Congress, aided by the executive branch, has become.

Yes, of course, government subsidies, via cash rebates, protective tariffs, artifically low interest rates, etc., can (though not always) help certain elements of the economy. But always at the expense of others. Indeed, this was a major, major cause of the War for Southern Independence (euphemistically, and incorrectly, called the "Civil War")--the federal government was protecting (via a high tariff) Northern industry at the expense of Southern agriculture. The South, which had about one-fourth of the nation's population, was paying over 80% of federal taxes. Not surprisingly, Southerners got tired of it and decided to have a government of their own. Don't be too surprised, if things continue at their present pace, if they try to do it again.

All They Did Was Change Colors

New York and Chicago both had their coldest June in generations. Some places in the north said they haven't had any summer. Nashville, Al Gore's home, recently recorded its lowest temperature on record for that particular day.

In the late 1970s, I read a book, written by a scientist (I forget his name), that was a major selection of a scientific book club. The book was entitled Fire or Ice? In that book, the author predicted that we were headed for another ice age. There have been some scientists recently who are beginning to argue the same thing. The surface temperature of the earth has not risen in over a decade.

"Global warming" became an issue after the fall of the Soviet Union. Marxists, of course, hate industrial capitalism; that's the major thesis of the whole Marxist doctrine. It's also the major doctrine of today's "green" movement. Folks, when Marxism collapsed in the Soviet Union and most places around the world (even the Chicoms and Vietnamese have largely abandoned it), these people didn't admit defeat and announce that Marxism was an incoherent, unworkable philosophy. They simply shifted over to the Greenies.

The only thing the Reds did was change colors.

The Death of Democracy, Part One

The following quote is attributed to an historian, Sir Alexander Fraser Tyler, who lived over 200 years ago. He had studied ancient civilizations and this was his conclusion regarding democracy. Keep in mind, folks, this was written over 200 years ago:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with a result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence--
--From bondage to spiritual faith;
--From spiritual faith to great courage;
--From courage to liberty;
--From liberty to abundance;
--From abundance to selfishness;
--From selfishness to complacency;
--From complacency to apathy;
--From apathy to dependency;
--From dependency back into bondage."

Tyler's synopsis here is brilliant. There are legitimate reasons why some peoples (nations) rise to glory and power and others do not. They are basically the same for individuals. People who are honest, industrious, thrifty, virtuous, and responsible will succeed; those who are covetous, lazy, immoral, and shiftless will likely end up in poverty. No individual is perfect, nor are any peoples. But those who succeed must have certain qualities of character. And it is every bit as true--if not more so--for large bodies as it is for individuals.

We see in America today an almost classic case of the decline of a once great power, and it has largely happened in the last 100 years when we have become more "democratic." Keep in mind that women did not get the right to vote until 1920 (some states had given them the right earlier), and that the Voting Rights Act, opening the ballot to most minorities, was not passed until 1965. I'm not blaming women and blacks for the current economic disaster this country faces; I'm blaming democracy. Or better yet, the nature of man. There are too many people who, if given the option of either working or sponging off their neighbors, would rather do the latter. When was the last time you heard an American politician talk about a "virtuous, industrious, spiritual, frugal" citizenship? We do not hear such any more. What we hear are plans to "share the wealth," schemes to take from those who have earned and give to those who have not--"entitlements" they are euphemistically, and disgustingly, called, as if someone is "entitled" to the hard-earned money of somebody else.

But that's democracy, folks. Always has been. Sir Tyler nailed it because he knew history--the majority votes for the candidate(s) who will give them the most. A country will go bankrupt because of that. Can anyone NOT see modern America in this?

From bondage to spiritual faith to courage to liberty to abundance to selfishness to complacenty to apathy to dependency...back into bondage.

Where do you think America is now?

John Adams: "Remember, deomcracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a deomcracy yet that did not commit suicide." The United States is the strongest military power in the world. Like Rome, no outside nation will ever conquer us until we first destroy ourselves.

And we are awfully close to doing that.

A Little More on Welfare

Thomas Jefferson: "To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to share to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association--the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

Not any more, Tom.

John Adams: "The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If 'Thou shalt not covet' and 'Thou shalt not steal' were not commmandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free."

Folks, have you ever realized that the forced redistribution of income via government dictat is nothing more than legalized theft? That's exactly what thieves do--redistribute income from those who have earned it to those (themselves) who have not. The commandment does not say "Thou shalt not steal--unless a majority in Congress vote that you can."

James Madison, the "Father" of our Constitution: "[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."

Do you see why modern politicians hate the Constitution and LIE every time they swear to uphold it? Well, they may not be lying; they just may be too ignorant to know what it says or means. But if they are, they shouldn't be running for public office. It is possible they might be too corrupt to want to defend the document. My guess is most people in government haven't the foggiest what the Constitution says or means, and couldn't care less. Not as long as they can get elected and have power over others.

So we have our Founding Fathers view of property and "government charity." Then there is the modern Democratic party. Last year, Jim Moran, a Democratic Congressman from Virginia, made this statement: "We have been guided by a Republican administration who believes in the simplistic notion that people who have wealth are entitled to keep it and they have an antipathy towards means of redistrubuting wealth. And they may be able to sustain that for awhile, but it doesn't work in the long run."

How nice. It is "simplistic" to believe that people have a right to keep their own money. People who have wealth are not "entitled" to keep it; those who don't have the money are "entitled" to take it away from them. If that isn't turning the world upside down, I don't know what it. But there's a reason why it happens. Read the post on "The Death of Democracy" to understand why.

If anybody reading this is a Democrat, then what Jim Moran said is what your party believes. I happen to believe that precept is one of the most immoral, ungodly, despicable, heinous ideas ever to pass through the mind of man. And nothing I say will support the thievery and pillaging of the honest labor of men and women.

Incidentally--as you've already seen--the modern Democratic party's doctrine was not that of the men who founded this great country. "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." Thomas Jefferson.

And let's let the Father of our Constitution finish this post: "Government is instituted to protect property of every sort...This being the end [purpose] of government...[It] is NOT a just government...nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest."

Welfare is Unconstitutional

And all great American statesmen knew it until Franklin Roosevelt came along, ignored the Constitution, and set this country down the path of a debt we'll never repay and that will, sooner or later, destroy America economically. Our current public welfare system has no basis, warrant, nor authorization in our Constitution. Let's look at it.

In February, 1887, President Grover Cleveland (whom I believe to be one of our three greatest presidents, perhaps even the best), vetoed a bill that would have appropriated money for drought-stricken farmers in Texas. Upon vetoing the bill, Cleveland said, "I find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering, which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit."

He went on to say--and please read this very carefully, especially the part I have italicized--"The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood." Cleveland vetoed hundreds of congressional spending bills during his two terms as president, often saying, "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution."

Is there anything today that Congress won't appropriate money for?

Cleveland wasn't the only president who held the above view. In 1854, President Franklin Pierce vetoed a popular appropriation to assist the mentally ill. He said, "I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity." To approve such spending, Pierce wrote, "would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded." (emphasis mine). He's exactly write about that, too. More on that in a future post.

James Madison is known as the "Father of the Constitution." He played a major, perhaps the major role in writing the document, so if anybody ought to know what it meant, it would be Madison. In 1794, he was irate over a $15,000 congresssional appropriation to assist some French refugees. He wrote, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right of Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." Oh, but James. It no doubt bought the French-American vote...

Read the Constitution sometimes, folks. I promise you, it is NOT difficult to understand. The problem with the Constitution is not with its difficulty of comprehension. The problem is--it stands in the way of Congress and the President wasting our resources under the pretense of taking care of us.

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."--James Madison. Boy, did he call that one.

(With thanks to Walter Williams, from an article of whose I took much of this material. He has some great articles. Check out his website. I can't put links here but Google Walter Williams and he'll come up.)

The Intelligence of Barack Obama

Quite frankly, the man is an ignoramus. He knows nothing about history; I've heard him say, "History teaches us..." blah blah blah, when anyone with a gnat's nose worth of historical knowledge knows that history teaches the exact opposite of what he posited. He certainly knows nothing about economics. Again, the gnat's nose intellect--0r plain old common horse sense--is aware that you can't spend your way out of debt or tax your way to prosperity. But that's his plan. He knows nothing about human nature, as is evident from his foreign affairs schemes. One of the saddest truths of humankind (and a lesson that history DOES abundantly teach) is that "niceness" is interpreted by thugs, not as evidence of decency and moral worth, but of weakness and lack of strength. And they'll take advantage of it. The Vietnam debacle is solid evidence of this.

(Incidentally, speaking of foreign affairs, has anyone seen Hillary Clinton around anywhere? (aes2, have you seen her?) Obama has her buried in Africa and other useless Third World countries, and it's very obvious why--if she were over here in America, she'd probably outshine him, and that is one thing he cannot abide. So send her galavanting off to Mars or Alpha Centauri where she'll be a non-factor. Obama's not stupid; he's just an ignoramus.)

Anyway, back to Obummer's intelligence. He can make a great speech (that somebody else wrote), but get him away from his teleprompter and pat answers and he bumbles like a fool. He may have a high IQ; probably does. But, folks, having a high IQ is no guarantee of intelligence. I've spent much of my life in higher education (either as a student or teacher) and some of the dumbest people I know are college professors who (supposedly) have high IQs. Adolf Hitler had a high IQ. Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, Charles Darwin were probably geniuses, but the hundreds of millions of people butchered by Hitler, Marx, Lenin, and Darwin (whose theory was the foundation of Nazism and Marxist-Leninism) no doubt fail to appreciate the supreme "intelligence" of these men. No, a high IQ does not guarantee astuteness--or human decency. And Barack Obama's problem is the same that most leftist (and many rightist) "intellectuals" have: they don't know or understand the source of knowledge.

The Bible says, correctly, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge," and "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" (Proverbs 1:7; 9:10). Knowledge and wisdom start by understanding they come from God. If one begins his/her journey to "knowledge" or "wisdom" from a different launching place, they will end Vladimir Lenin, Adolf Hitler...Barack Obama (and, please, I'm not comparing Obama to those monsters, except in the principle of a false foundation for his "intelligence.") The apostle Peter puts it in perhaps an even better perspective: "...add to your faith virtue, and to virtue knowledge..." (II Peter 1:5). It is no coincidence that Peter put "virtue" before "knowledge." Without virtue, knowledge becomes power; and without virtue, power becomes tyranny.

The incredible increase in human knowledge over the last 200 years has not made man humble, as it should, leading him to recognize just how little he knows. What knowledge (without virtue) has done has made man arrogant, haughty, filled him with the belief that human reason, alone and unaided by God, can solve mankind's perpetual problems. The 20th century is a clear indication what that horrendous philosophy produced. Some day a wise man will write a history book entitled "The 20th Century: Atheism in Power," because that is exactly what it was. Divorced from God, unencumbered by any moral restraints other than his belief in his own infallibility, men experimented, time and again, on his fellow man. Liberal, secular intellectuals--"progressives," as they fancied and called themselves--thought that the answers could be found in human reason, and if only they controlled the state, the media, and education, they could create a utopia on earth. Folks, that's all Nazism and Communism were--attempts to create an earthy paradise because the heavenly one no longer existed. But it's also why these "intellectuals" so viciously attacked religion and the family--there can be no higher allegiance than to the state, and of course, people who believe in God and family might (and probably will) be more devoted to something than the exotic experiments of the new secular Messiahs. "You can't be a Jew and be a good German," Hitler offered, because Jews might be more loyal to Israel than to Germany (Hitler didn't like Catholics or Lutherans, either, but had more sense than to brazenly attack the Catholic or Lutheran churches). To those who truly understand history, and the mindset of the liberal, secular intellectual, it is absolutely no surprise that religion and the family have been under attack, openly and privily, in America for over a generation now. And here also we will find one of the main reasons for the left's mindless hatred of George W. Bush and Sarah Palin--people of faith are the worst enemies of modern, "progressive" thinking. Thus, Southerners are always backwoods, shoeless, racist hicks carrying Confederate flags and thumping their Bibles, while Harvard intellectuals come to save the day. Fortunately, a lot of Americans can see through this; they may not know, or understand, the history behind it, but they do understand, within the spirit that God gave them, that something is drastically wrong. And it is.

What's wrong is knowledge without virtue. The unappeasable appetite of the secular left for control of, and power over, their fellow man. They know better than you--they are "intellectuals," after all, and you are the stupid, unwashed masses--so shut up and follow like sheep. It will be the swan song of the United States--if we continue to elect people like Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, et al to positions of power.

"How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think."--Adolf Hitler

Interesting letter

The material below speaks for itself.

Subject: Jim Hill's Letter to Barbara Boxer

Many saw Barbara Boxer as she admonished a brigadier general because he addressed her as "ma'am" and not "Senator" before a Senate hearing. This letter is from a National Guard aviator and Captain for Alaska Airlines. I wonder what he would have said if he was really angry.

Dear Senator Boxer:

You were so right on when you scolded the general on TV for using the term, "ma'am," instead of "Senator". After all, in the military, "ma'am" is a term of respect when addressing a female of superior rank or position. The general was totally wrong. You are not a person of superior rank or position. You are a member of one of the world's most corrupt organizations, the U.S. Senate, equalled only by the U.S. House of Representatives.

Congress is a cesspool of liars, thieves, inside traders, traitors, drunks (one who killed a staffer, yet is still revered), criminals, and other low level swine who, as individuals (not all, but many), will do anything to enhance their lives, fortunes and power, all at the expense of the People of the United States and its Constitution, in order to be continually re-elected. Many democrats even want American troops killed by releasing photographs. How many of you could honestly say, "We pledge our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor"? None? One? Two?

Your reaction to the general shows several things. First is your abysmal ignorance of all things military. Your treatment of the general shows you to be an elitist of the worst kind. When the general entered the military (as most of us who served) he wrote the government a blank check, offering his life to protect your derriere, now safely and comfortably ensconced in a 20 thousand dollar leather chair, paid for by the general's taxes. You repaid him for this by humiliating him in front of millions.

Second is your puerile character, lack of sophistication, and arrogance which borders on the hubristic. This display of brattish behavior shows you to be a virago, termagant, harridan, nag, scold or shrew, unfit for your position, regardless of the support of the unwashed, uneducated masses who have made California into the laughing stock of the nation.

What I am writing, Senator, are the same thoughts countless millions of Americans have toward Congress, but who lack the energy, ability or time to convey them. Under the democrats, some don't even have the 44 cents to buy the stamp. Regardless of their thoughts, most realize that politicians are pretty much the same, and will vote for the one who will bring home the most bacon, even if they do consider how corrupt that person is. Lord Acton (1834 - 1902) so aptly charged, "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Unbeknownst to you and your colleagues, "Mr. Power" has had his way with all of you, and we are all the worse for it.
Finally Senator, I, too, have a title. It is "Right Wing Extremist Potential Terrorist Threat." It is not of my choosing, but was given to me by your Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano. And you were offended by "ma'am"?

Have a fine day. Cheers!
Jim Hill

Big Brother Needs Your Help

The following is from an article entitled "Facts are Stubborn Things," found on the official White House website:

"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to"

Here's the URL if you want to read it yourself:

I.e., snitch on your friends if you hear them opposing Obamacare.

Folks, it is happening in the United States of America.

Solving the Baseball Steroid Problem

I love baseball and I'm sickened by all the cheating (steroids) that have denigrated the sport. Bud Selig is a horrible commissioner. I don't know anything he's done right. He could very easily solve the "illegal substance" problem by doing one simple thing:

Ban any player, for life, who tests positive, the first time, for steroids. And check every player every three months.

It wouldn't take but one player being banned and there would be no more problem.

Oh, the players' union would probably have to be abolished before that could happen, but that would be the 2nd best thing that could happen to the sport.