Core Liberties

There have been many events this week that strikes at the foundation of our country. First is the opening scenes that may well be the first shots in the battle between the states and the federal government. Specifically, the suits by Virginia against the Obamacare mandates. Next is the Federal Court injunctions against the oil drilling moratorium in the Gulf. Twice the courts have blocked the moratorium and the Obama Administration ignores the orders and continues to block the return of to the oil rigs. Finally is the initiation of the federal suit against Arizona for having the audacity to enforce federal law when the Obama administration refuses to do so and leaves our borders unprotected.

(Why is our federal government aiding our enemies and oppressing us?)

Getting back to the subject, I’ve been thinking about our core liberties. Not necessarily those in the Bill of Rights, but core concepts.

Not necessarily in order of priority but the ability to travel without restraint nor constraint is a core liberty—the ability to “vote with your feet”. This allows a person the capability of escaping tyranny. The flight of wealth from New York, New Jersey and California to states with less onerous taxes is an example.

The right of self-defense, to protect yourself, your family and friends, even your community and property is a prime facet of liberty. Without this right, we’re slaves to those who can overpower us.

The freedom to speak our minds, whenever and to whomever we wish. The first amendment was created to keep the actions of government and of those in power public. The right to inform and be informed is a weapon against tyranny and oppression. The recent revelations on JournOList prove that the Media has abdicated this task. When those charged with guarding our sources of information join the tyrants and oppressors, we, individually, must supplant them. The abomination spoken by CNN’s John Robert’s call for a crackdown on bloggers is a direct attack against our first amendment rights.

The right to own and acquire property and assets is another core liberty. The urge, the need to better ourselves is a life-long task. That cannot be done without assets in some form. Historically this has been the acquisition of land and property. Today, property had taken other forms of tangible and non-tangible assets.

No one has a right to take what a person owns, what a person has earned, without the voluntary assent of the owner. Anything else is theft. In many instances, taxes are nothing more than governmental theft. I would favor a change that would allow us to earmark where our tax dollars are spent. I doubt many, if any, welfare programs would receive a dime.

Finally, for me, the freedom to worship God as I choose, when I choose, where I choose without restraint by any level of government. The first amendment is not freedom from religion, but freedom OF religion. If you don’t like that, use your other unalienable right to vote with your feet and go elsewhere.

I’m sure many others would add more “rights”. Many, in reality, do not exists but are nothing more than encroachment on others. I challenge you to add more to this list. Remember, it is not a Right, if it restrains others.

Why bother?

This is a shorty stolen extracted from Friday’s Morning Bell by the Heritage Foundation.

Like everything else the Obama administration does, their approach to arms control is the exact opposite of President Reagan. As the following exchange from this Tuesday’s Senate Armed Services Committee New START hearing shows, the Obama administration approach to arms control might as well be, “trust, but don’t bother to verify.” Here is the crucial exchange between Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and U.S. Strategic Command Commander, Air Force General Kevin Chilton:

Sen. McCain: General Chilton, do you agree with the unclassified statement in the State Department Verification Assessment that ‘any cheating by the Russians would have little, if any, effect?’

General Chilton: Senator McCain, I do agree with that…

Sen. McCain: Well, what this brings to the casual observer’s mind, General, is if it doesn’t have any consequences if they do any cheating, what’s the point in having a treaty?

Why bother?

This is a shorty stolen extracted from Friday’s Morning Bell by the Heritage Foundation.

Like everything else the Obama administration does, their approach to arms control is the exact opposite of President Reagan. As the following exchange from this Tuesday’s Senate Armed Services Committee New START hearing shows, the Obama administration approach to arms control might as well be, “trust, but don’t bother to verify.” Here is the crucial exchange between Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and U.S. Strategic Command Commander, Air Force General Kevin Chilton:

Sen. McCain: General Chilton, do you agree with the unclassified statement in the State Department Verification Assessment that ‘any cheating by the Russians would have little, if any, effect?’

General Chilton: Senator McCain, I do agree with that…

Sen. McCain: Well, what this brings to the casual observer’s mind, General, is if it doesn’t have any consequences if they do any cheating, what’s the point in having a treaty?

The Ruling Class

oligarchy (plural oligarchies), noun

  1. A government run by only a few, often the wealthy.
  2. Those who make up an oligarchic government.
  3. A state ruled by such a government.
(from Wiktionary)

Oligarchy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
An oligarchy (from Greek ὀλιγαρχία, oligarkhía[1]) is a form of power structure in which powerhegemony. The word oligarchy is from the Greek words “ὀλίγος” (olígos), “a few”[2] and the verb “ἄρχω” (archo), “to rule, to govern, to command”.[3] Such states are often controlled by politically powerful families whose children are heavily conditioned and mentored to be heirs of the power of the oligarchy. effectively rests with a small segment of society distinguished by royalty, wealth, family ties, military control, or religious.

Oligarchies have been tyrannical throughout history, being completely reliant on public servitude to exist.


Monday of this last week, I listened to Rush Limbaugh while on the road home from a weekend trip. His subject for the entire show was about a article in The American Spectator, titled “America’s Ruling Class — And the Perils of Revolution.”

There is a group in Washington, scattered around the East and West Coasts, in the media and all departments of government the writer of were born in various segments and economic classes around the country. As they met, conversed and merged into the group called “The Ruling Class,” they exhibited a number of common denominators.

Today’s ruling class, from Boston to San Diego, was formed by an educational system that exposed them to the same ideas and gave them remarkably uniform guidance, as well as tastes and habits. These amount to a social canon of judgments about good and evil, complete with secular sacred history, sins (against minorities and the environment), and saints. Using the right words and avoiding the wrong ones when referring to such matters — speaking the “in” language — serves as a badge of identity. Regardless of what business or profession they are in, their road up included government channels and government money because, as government has grown, its boundary with the rest of American life has become indistinct. Many began their careers in government and leveraged their way into the private sector. Some, e.g., Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner, never held a non-government job. Hence whether formally in government, out of it, or halfway, America’s ruling class speaks the language and has the tastes, habits, and tools of bureaucrats. It rules uneasily over the majority of Americans not oriented to government. — The American Spectator, July-August, 2010.

Another common denominator is that all of the members of this group, in one way or another, derive their livelihood from federal coffers.This group is a minority within the country consisting of about 20%, if that, of the total population.

In contrast to The Ruling Class, the rest of the country is best referred to as “The Country Class”. Members of this class contain all other segments of society, farmers, white and blue collar workers, educated and the uneducated. The common denominator is that while these groups appear to have some political power, they, in actuality, have none—except through the ballot box.

The origins of the ruling class can be found in Johnson’s “Great Society” of the 1960s. Leftist, statists and Marxists from academia and other sources of progressive thought, joined the bureaucracy to develop and implement the goals of Johnson’s plan. As more plans were created, relationships were created and the group grew. The common theme of those relationships were “you wash my back, I’ll wash yours.” Before this time, the elite of the country…

…was a mixture of people who had gained prominence in a variety of ways, who drew their money and status from different sources and were not predictably of one mind on any given matter. The Boston Brahmins, the New York financiers, the land barons of California, Texas, and Florida, the industrialists of Pittsburgh, the Southern aristocracy, and the hardscrabble politicians who made it big in Chicago or Memphis had little contact with one another. Few had much contact with government, and “bureaucrat” was a dirty word for all. So was “social engineering.” Nor had the schools and universities that formed yesterday’s upper crust imposed a single orthodoxy about the origins of man, about American history, and about how America should be governed. — The American Spectator, July-August, 2010.

Fifty years later, The Ruling Class has taken control of the federal government.

When printed, the American Spectator’s article covers sixteen pages. It contains a wealth of information that is too much for a single post. I invite you to read it in its entirety. The bottom line is that we will not win, we will not take back our country, we will not be able to restore our nation to that envisioned by the Founders, with a single election. We must continue to take control by replacing members of The Ruling Class in Congress from both the democrat and republican parties, but we must also eliminate them in the federal bureaucracy. We must eliminate a number of governmental departments along with their supporting functionaries and bureaus and the regulations they have created.

There is a warning within the article. We must heed it to our peril.

The two classes have less in common culturally, dislike each other more, and embody ways of life more different from one another than did the 19th century’s Northerners and Southerners — nearly all of whom, as Lincoln reminded them, “prayed to the same God.” By contrast, while most Americans pray to the God “who created and doth sustain us,” our ruling class prays to itself as “saviors of the planet” and improvers of humanity. Our classes’ clash is over “whose country” America is, over what way of life will prevail, over who is to defer to whom about what. The gravity of such divisions points us, as it did Lincoln, to Mark’s Gospel: “if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.” — The American Spectator, July-August, 2010.

Various items for Thursday, July 22, 2010

As I drove to and from Indy this last weekend, Mrs Crucis had her nose hidden in a book.  It had a grade school type dust cover on and I thought it was something she was reading for her upcoming class this fall. She teaches in a small Kansas City seminary.

From time to time, she’d snort and snuffle. Once she may’ve even emitted a snicker and a giggle!

When we got home, she told me that she’d snuck out to our local Wally World last week before we left town and bought a copy of Laura Ingraham’s The Obama Diaries. She then proceeded to read me some passages.  It’s a hoot!  I strongly recommend y’all get a copy. Pass it around to your friends and SO’s when you’re done.  They’ll thank you!

***

Yesterday’s poll released by Quinnipiac University was a shock to Obama and democrat pols.  Once you’ve read through the statistics, it says that ANY republican opponent would beat Obama in 2012.  The once-leaning independent voters have turned and their support for the democrat-socialist agenda is dropping like a rock in vacuum.

A year after President Barack Obama’s political honeymoon ended, his job approval rating has dropped to a negative 44 – 48 percent, his worst net score ever, and American voters say by a narrow 39 – 36 percent margin that they would vote for an unnamed Republican rather than President Obama in 2012, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

This compares to a 48 – 43 percent approval for Obama in a May 26 national poll by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University and a 57 – 33 percent approval last July, just before the political firestorm created by opposition to his health care plan galvanized political opponents and turned independent voters against him.

In this latest survey of more than 2,000 voters, independent voters disapprove of Obama 52 – 38 percent and say 37 – 27 percent they would vote for a Republican contender in 2012.

American voters also say 48 – 40 percent Obama does not deserve reelection in 2012.

Anti-incumbent sentiment slams both parties as voters disapprove 59 – 31 percent of the job Democrats are doing, and disapprove 59 – 29 percent of Republicans in Congress. But voters say 43 – 38 percent they would vote for a Republican in a generic Congressional race.

American voters say 42 – 32 percent that Obama has been a better president than George W. Bush, similar to the 43 – 30 percent who felt that way in January of 2010.

There is more information about the poll at the University’s website.  Most interesting is this generic summary poll data.

TREND: If the 2012 election for President were being held today, do you think you would vote for Barack Obama the Democratic candidate, or the Republican candidate?

                     Jul 21  Mar 25
2010 2010
Obama 36 40
Republican 39 41
DEPENDS ON CAND(VOL) 13 9
DK/NA 12 9

***


Democrat Representative Pete Stark of California has been struck with a new idea, a new tax—a currency tax.  It sounds innocuous but the impact can be extremely severe.  

Currencies are exchanged on the global market continuously.  That market determines the relative worth of one currency to another.  If you watch the news, you’ll hear comments about comparisons of the Euro or the Yen against the Dollar.  As the exchange rates vary, so does the cost of buying goods and services on the global market.


For instance, if the rate of the Dollar against the Euro goes down, that is it cost more dollars to buy or exchange an equal value of the Euro, it costs more dollars to buy goods and services from European marketers. The price of that imported Beemer, the price of cell phones made in Europe, French, German and Italian wines goes UP!


What democrat Pete Stark has proposed is a tax on every currency transaction.

By Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) 07/20/10 03:51 PM ET
Each day, $4 trillion dollars of currency are traded. For international businesses and travelers, trading dollars for other currencies serve a legitimate purpose. However, nearly 80 percent of these transactions are undertaken by a handful of major banks. Experts agree that most of these transactions are made for purely speculative purposes.
Wealthy traders and big financial institutions make huge bets on the fluctuations in currency value, and they can make massive profits if their bets are correct. This type of speculation helped to worsen the recent financial crisis and serves no purpose other than to make a few people and institutions even richer.
Today, I introduced H.R. 5783, the Investing in Our Future Act. My legislation would simply impose a small tax — of 0.005 percent — on these currency transactions. The money raised would be put toward investments in children, global health and climate change mitigation.
For the average person or business, this small tax will hardly be noticed. But, due to the extreme speculation that takes place, it would raise significant funds. Studies estimate a worldwide 0.005 percent tax on dollar transactions would raise $28 billion a year and reduce currency speculation by 14 percent.


Stark says, “For the average person or business, this small tax will hardly be noticed.”  What a crock of S***. You’d think that by now congress would learn that businesses cannot absorb these cost increases.  Their profit margin is thin and thinning all the time.  A currency tax on foreign products will be passed on to you—the end buyer.  It’s not just on transactions of goods.  It also affects large companies with overseas offices and facilities.  You can’t operate those locations, pay the employees in US Dollars.  You have to use the local currency and that monetary transaction will also be taxed.

I’m sure ol’ Pete thinks he’s punishing those EVILE corporations and rakin’ in a ton of tax money.  In reality, he punishing every one of us who buys imported goods or services or who work for large companies with overseas facilities.  When the profit margins are squeezed, companies cut cost and the easiest way is to cut their work forces.  Companies get smaller, fewer people are working, the economy shrinks and the dems then add more taxes from those who remain to prop up their statist regime.

What stupidity.  As I’ve said before, the democrat/liberal/socialist party is a clear and present danger to the survival of our republic and must be permanently removed from political power.

Remember, come November

Good for you, Roy!

Found on MSNBC (and that’s a surprise all by itself!) After Obama came to KC to praise a “green” manufacturer and also to “drop by” and give Robin Carnahan a boost at a fundraiser, Carnahan’s opponent for the Missouri Senate seat vacated by retiring Kit Bond used the event in a new campaign ad.

Good on ya, Roy!

*** Blunt vs. Carnahan and Obama: Meanwhile, in Missouri, likely GOP Senate nominee Roy Blunt is going up with a TV ad aimed at both Robin Carnahan — and President Obama, Politico reports. The ad features Obama’s comment at a fundraiser for Carnahan earlier this month that Carnahan winning would give him another vote in the Senate. It concludes, “Roy Blunt — he’ll work for Missouri, not Barack Obama.” This is a significant development in the national electoral landscape for this reason: It’s the most direct anti-Obama message we’ve seen made by a Republican running in a general election in a swing state. Now, that said, Blunt is trying to appeal to primary voters a tad right now. But if this ad against Carnahan, using Obama, does raise the Democrat’s negatives, don’t be surprised if it gets copied by GOP candidates across the country. This is an interesting test to keep an eye on.

Back home again

What an exciting weekend!

We’re still recovering a bit—me mostly. The trip to and from Indy was uneventful but ohhhh how I wish I still had my Yukon.

I bought a slightly used, dark red GMC Yukon in 2003. I loved that truck/car/SUV. It was big. It
had plenty of leg room. It was comfortable with gray/tan leather interior. It was everything I’d wanted in a vehicle—except for its 15mpg mileage. The photo to the left, while not mine, matches the one I owned.


The key item is “leg room.” My current auto, a 2005 Chevy Equinox, is a good car for local driving and short day-trips. But for anything over a hour or two, it becomes cramped. Really, really cramped!


I drove my Yukon on a 4,000 mile trip the summer after I bought it. We took off towards the Sand Hills area of Nebraska and west up to SW South Dakota stopped along the way at Mt. Rushmore and Sturgis, SD. From there we traveled further west into Montana to see Custer’s Last Stand and then down to see Yellowstone and the Tetons for a 2nd time.


The Yukon had enough room for me to slide the seat back and stretch out my legs. I was almost like sitting in a recliner. Cruise control on…watch the scenery…take photos out the window. I love to watch for wildlife and I’ve been known to stop along the side of the road to take photos whenever I came across something “different or interesting.”


This morning, I stood up along-side the bed and took one stiff gingerly step after another to the bathroom. My feet are still extremely tender and I feel a couple of decades older. Right now I’ve gobbled a couple of Tylenol and in a hour or two I’ll slip off for a shower. I figger that by noon, I’ll be moving close to normal.


I have learned that small cars and long travel times do not, for me, mix. I traded off the Yukon in a fit of pique when it cost me $50 to fill its 25 gallon tank. One tank would last me for a week of work commutes.


I don’t drive that much now. For the last few years I’ve worked from home and now I’m “retired.” One 12 gallon tank in the Equinox lasts me two weeks. I can now afford to feed that Yukon that I once owned.


My Equinox and and Mrs Crucis’ Vibe are paid for. It’d almost be worth another car payment if I found another Yukon…or Tahoe…or even a crew-cab pickup that fits better than the Equinox.