Why the United States Can’t Survive

Why the United States Can’t Survive

Education; Economy; Culture/Morality/Religion; Media; Political Parties; Apathy

 I -Education

A)     Pride VS. Embarrassment

The United States was found on an idea. The idea was radical at the time but one that is taken for granted today by most Americans. The idea was that man has a God given right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The idea that the individual is the foundation of self-rule and that no group of individuals has a right over any other group was a concept for the founding of a new government seen as revolutionary and radical at the time, and in some countries it still is.

The reason I open with a chapter on education should be obvious. If this country was founded on an idea, it can only survive with a thinking people. And a thinking people can only survive if they are willing to educate posterity to perpetuate the idea.

If you go out and ask ten people a question to name two of our founding documents, you would be lucky to get 4 of 10 that could name them. Ask someone under the age of 25 and you may get 2 out of ten. It might depend on the neighborhood you are in when asking the question, but it is disturbing how little time our education system spends on the founding of this country.

There is a propensity for educational bureaucrats to harbor guilt about the United States. Too often the people that develop public education curricula are being lobbied by small special interest groups to include topics in history and civics that spend a disproportionate time on other systems of government. These topics squeeze out the time needed to support the survival of this nation.

There is often a knee jerk reaction to talk about how history is written with a bias and kids spend time analyzing whether Columbus was a villain or a hero? I have no problem with analytical thinking and the importance of defending and debating positions. But in order to formulate counter positions to the American Experience, you need to know the American Experience inside and out. What we find in public education is embarrassment about our success and a reluctance to highlight our status as a force for good. Instead we hear about colonization, hording of resources, and a wrath of charges that need context to be properly understood.

This nation can’t survive without pride and understanding of the journey to the current state we find the United States. I am confident saying we will not survive if we are not willing to teach the citizens of this nation about the morality and positive contributions the United States has made to the world. By continuing to focus on the warts of history, we guarantee our demise as a nation.

There are no signs we are making any significant impact in this area. The education system is now being led by teachers that have been the product of this limited teaching of the founding principles of this nation. It cannot support a healthy future for this nation.

New Voters Must Think About VP Picks 2012

There is a lot of talk about Paul Ryan since his announcement as Mitt Romney’s VP pick. The talk has not been all good especially from partisan democrats. The criticism ranges from Paul Ryan is too young to being uncaring toward seniors and the needy. I personally think Paul Ryan was a stroke of genius by Mitt. He is caring in the fact that he is trying to save this nation from bankruptcy by being the one person willing to address the difficult budget issues we must face as a nation.

Paul Ryan has placed all the chips on black, and that black is the federal budget. The federal budget is sinking in red debt, and Paul Ryan is the author of a budget that addresses the areas in the budget that must be reformed in order to get back into a semblance of black. He addresses the biggest entitlement, Medicare, with thoughtfulness to current seniors, and the need for choices in the future for the younger folks to save the program.

Paul Ryan is a man that is not afraid to state the obvious and then defend it with details and plans that are easy to understand. He treats his position in government as any adult would. He is not afraid of the political backlash because he has done his homework and knows how to address any question thrown his way with a confident grasp of every detail because he has taken the time to study the facts.

In contrast, Joe Biden is the “junkyard dog” of Obama’s campaign. He is given his marching orders and goes out and does what he is told. Joe Biden has made gaffe after gaffe, and each time the media discounts it as “oh it’s just Joe Biden being Joe Biden.” That would be OK if he wasn’t a heartbeat away from being president.

The media has not done its job of vetting either President Obama or Joe Biden. Joe Biden is considered one of the most jovial politicians in Washington DC but is he prepared or capable of being president? Would you be more comfortable with a Paul Ryan presidency or a Joe Biden presidency? Joe Biden is not a very smart man. It is proven everyday he speaks and is backed up by his college transcripts. Paul Ryan is a very smart man and it is backed up every time he speaks and his college transcripts.

If the left wants to compare the VP slot I say bring it on. They have tried to paint a scary picture of Paul Ryan but they are finding it hard to do because the picture they are painting is not supported by the facts. The more the media focuses on Ryan and Biden the more aware the voters become about the scary possibility of Joe Biden becoming president.

And that is a truly scary thought: Joe Biden as president? The left should return to the failed attempt to paint Mitt Romney as the successful business man he is. The Obama campaign is imploding because they have nothing to run on and the two incumbent candidates are truly scary for this country. Neither has the right stuff to lead this nation to prosperity.

Just watch the two campaigns and what you see is two accomplished men, and two men with little accomplishment…

The Supreme Court is Invalidating the Founder’s Intent

No matter what decision the Supreme Court reaches regarding Obamacare, the SCOTUS is and has been acting unconstitutionally for decades since FDR. The US Constitution is clear on the role of the court as are the Federal Papers and the many correspondences between the founders about its role simply as arbiter not legislator. Legislation and law were intended to be introduced and voted on in the House first and foremost. The Constitution is clear about who holds the law making responsibility. There is no alternative including interpretations of laws by the SCOTUS. They were only meant to validate or invalidate a laws legitimacy based on the founder’s intent.

Let’s start with the intent. The intended purpose of the Constitution was to limit Federal Power. The clearest and easiest evidence to understand and to support that is the Tenth Amendment. Why else would the founders/states have insisted on this addition if the intent was not to limit central power? The US Constitution would not have been ratified without the guarantee of the Bill of Rights which includes the 10^th Amendment. The Bill of Rights in total underlines the distrust the states and the people had for this newly formed central government. Today it is painfully apparent how little the power of the Tenth Amendment has been utilized in the fight to curb centralized programs, but it has seen a renewed commitment to make it relevant again.

The SCOTUS was intended by the founders to simply be the referee to ensure the legislature was only passing laws that met the limits and protections within the constitution. Madison believed the role would be utilized on a very limited basis and in the federal papers he insists the concern about precedence was unwarranted. He suggested that every case that came before the SCOTUS would be looked at from the perspective of the original intent and not subsequent cases. How wrong he was. The precedence of the SCOTUS has been used to rewrite original intent to mean whatever the court wanted it to mean. This has been seen with the Commerce Clause. Its intent was to make trade regular between the states so there was a “uniform” set of laws guiding how the states traded. The coastal states could have easily introduced additional tariffs and taxes to the other states due to their proximity and importance in the delivery of foreign goods. It was not intended to be used as a way for the federal government to force the states to comply with its wishes simply because they participated in commerce. It was more efficient to have one representative dealing with foreign governments and trade agreements so the states would not have 13 different sets of rules that could be used to divide and create mischief by foreign governments especially France and England.

There have been a number of torturous interpretations based on precedent and ideology that have slowly but surely undermined our freedoms and decisions as a people. The suggestion that if we buy something or make something that is considered “commerce” that that becomes a reasonable opportunity for the federal government to regulate it and tax it to pay for the regulation is a warped view of the constitution. There is no requirement of the SCOTUS to consider any previous cases. That is what they need to do in the Obamacare case. They need to read and look at the original intent of our constitution.

That is where the crux of my argument lies. We now have a completely politicized process that does not fundamentally begin with a review of the constitution; it begins from the ideological views of the justices. As a conservative I pray the more conservative judges begin with the constitution in this healthcare case. But no one person can argue that every decision of late that the SCOTUS has ruled on is based in politics. Yes they occasionally reference the constitution but too often reference precedence. Completely opposite of what Madison argued would be the case.

The growth and intrusiveness of the Federal Government is being refereed by a party (SCOTUS) that has a self interest in the growth of that same government. If President Obama gets to choose two or more justices for the Supreme Court does anyone believe it will be a legitimate institution to protect our founding document? We will have reached the point of a nine person dictatorship if the SCOTUS becomes all powerful in the making and determining our future laws and original intent of the Constitution.

The states and the Governors of those states along with the legislatures need to take up the cause of liberty and limited federal power. They can do that by nullifying the laws they disagree with and believe are unconstitutional. Nullification is a legitimate course of action found within the constitution. We can’t rely on the Supreme Court for much longer because it is already politicized but if this president gets a few more picks it will no longer be on the side of the people and the states.

It is time for the states and the people to read, understand, and protect the US Constitution. It is the greatest weapon in the fight for liberty. Much more reliable than any SCOTUS.   

Capitalism Works Every Time…

If you replace the word capitalism with “individual choice” you start to understand the reason we are so prosperous as a nation and people. This election cycle we are seeing a very dangerous tactic by the president and his supporters by demonizing “capitalism.” In the view of too many Americans, Capitalism has become a negative word. As a nation there is no quicker path to the bottom than to bite the system that feeds the prosperity we enjoy.

“Individual choice” to engage in trade with others works best because the individuals involved in the transaction know what is the best outcome of that transaction. The two parties assess the others offer and decide if it is worth the exchange of value to each party. An example would be a person needs food and a farmer needs a barn. The farmer and the carpenter decide what the value is in the transaction. The carpenter may ask for 6 months’ worth of corn in exchange for building a barn. If that trade is acceptable the two parties transact business. If not they either renegotiate or find another person that will find the transaction terms acceptable. The final transaction will be the result of “market” principles in action. Individuals decide for themselves the value of goods in the market.

The introduction of a third party like government into the market to decide what the “price” for goods and services is and the way they are distributed is socialism. A third party decides how much time people need to spend working and what wage they will receive for that time “spent” on the job. This third party is not part of the transaction except for the part of deciding how the transactions will take place and how the terms will be distributed. No matter what the individuals in the transaction think about the terms, the terms remain the same (“equal”). If those terms are not acceptable to the parties the parties remove themselves from the “market’ and the market stalls, and dwindles away. Nothing gets done and things stagnate or more likely a “black market” is created to get around the third party arbiter.

The economy and the world revolves around billions of “individual choice” transactions that all together make up a vibrant economy. The reason the “individual choice” model is so efficient is because people will only do the transactions that make sense to their individual circumstances. They make the best choice for themselves and their families. They control the choices they make and every transaction adjusts based on the needs of “individual choice.”

There are times when “individual choice” is “cruel” to the other party by rejecting what they have to offer. But unlike a system like socialism that attempts to force the transaction to move forward, in the “individual choice” model that rejected party must rethink, retool, reduce the price, (or many other possibilities), make a change that is acceptable to the other party.  It forces changes that can result in failure but can also result in a more efficient offer or product. It forces people to be creative, diligent, hardworking and in a word it is competitive. The strong survive and the weak either change or fail.

So even though socialism touts “fairness” it is not fair at all. It distorts the “individual choice” and replaces it with forced transactions. It never works for a greater length than individuals figure a way to work around it or stop working at all. So the next time you hear someone criticize capitalism ask them if they believe in “individual choice”? Most likely they will and then explain that capitalism is a system of individual choices which produces the best outcomes for all willing to work hard in our society…

Capitalism is Compassionate…

The most compassionate nation in the world is the United States of America. We are not compassionate because we have special DNA or are some special form of human species, we are compassionate because of capitalism. Capitalism has given us the gift of excess goods, services, and resources that we share with the rest of the world.

At the heart of capitalism is the ability of individuals to produce and create wealth for their own personal use and their family. As human beings, we first must take care of ourselves by producing food, clothes, and shelter. It is the nature of survival that is first and foremost in the human condition. In most economies prior to the capitalist system of the United States, goods and services were assumed to be owned by some ruling class. Production was stifled because the people producing wealth for others is much harder to manage than a system that allows for individuals to keep what they produce for themselves.

Capitalism rewards the hard work of individuals and is destroyed by the policies of taxation or confiscation without due compensation. It is a simple premise that is rooted in human nature. As we create our own wealth beyond the basic survival needs, we create additional wealth that allows us to become more compassionate. Whether that is on the personal scale of donating food to the local food pantry or the on the corporate scale of creating foundations that help other nations climb out of poverty, it can only happen when we create excess wealth. Excess wealth only happens in a capitalist economic system.

There are people and companies that abuse the system but on the whole most people and companies in the United States are a great example of how capitalism is the only system that works is a free society. As the government tries to regulate business and the capitalist system they impede freedom, freedom of individuals, and freedom of markets to conduct business. This limits wealth, reduces freedom, and smothers compassion.

So as you listen to all of the political posturing in 2012, remember capitalism is the most compassionate economic system in the world. It produces both winners and losers. The losers often come back into the market to become winners. But that can only happen when the government keeps its hands out of the arena. Any business or business person breaking the law should be punished. But any business or business person that fails in the market must be allowed to fail and not bailed out by the government.

If the government continues to distort the market capitalism is dead. Once capitalism is dead so is wealth and compassion. It’s that simple…

The Cost of Ignorance…

No matter what they say - ignorance is not bliss. In fact it is dangerous and imperils our freedoms. Our founders understood human nature because they were students of history. The founders had a love of learning and believed that education was a personal obligation to becoming a good citizen. Knowing history is like having a crystal ball to the future. By studying the civilizations of the past, our founders created the foundational principles of the Constitution.

Limiting the capacity of government to be able to control individuals was the principle goal of the Constitution. The main argument for a central government was to create the ability to provide a common defense for the states. They didn’t want to have to beg the states to support the defense of the country as they did during the revolution where George Washington had to make due with very limited resources. The Constitution was designed to contain the tendencies of governments to overstep and control the lives of the governed as was the case throughout history. They believed by putting us in charge of us, and limiting what a central government could do, they could improve the lives of everyone that lived within the constitutional republic. The Constitution was the written culmination of lessons learned that would set a foundation for a brand new form of government. One created by the people for the people. No ruling class or group of people would have power without the consent of the governed. It was a revolutionary concept but could only survive with an engaged citizenry. The founders feared if the citizens ignored the government it could quickly deteriorate into dictatorship so they provided as many safeguards in the Constitution as they could. But ultimately they knew it would come down to a willingness of the people to defend the Constitution. Without the people’s attention they knew the past would repeat itself.

They feared many things when designing the new republic including an all-powerful president. They did not want one man to have too much power or any group of people in the government to have too much power so they used the concept of “balance of powers” between the executive, judicial, and legislative branches of government. It was the job of each branch to keep the other in check. So no one branch could determine the direction of the federal government without the consent of each branch. It was a design nothing short of a miracle.

As we consider the actions of the Federal Government today and this President, it is apparent that the American education system has failed. The outrageous conduct of the appointments made by this president without the constitutionally mandated consent of the senate yesterday should have received a greater reaction than it did. The limited reaction to these appointments shows how our education system has systematically limited the citizen’s knowledge of their form of government. These radical and unlawful acts should be stirring up a beehive of legal action against this administration. Yet we go on and act as if this is just a game being played by a President intent on creating a rift between him and the congress to be used in his re-election campaign strategy. It is a dangerous and illegal game that deserves the attention of our congressional members and the judiciary.

This President has said he will go around the congress to do the “people’s work” which is exactly what every dictator in history uses as an excuse to implement their own tyranny on the governed. I know most people don’t realize how dangerous this is but they should. No matter what rhetoric is used to justify his actions, in a constitutional republic the law is king not the president. And the law says he can’t appoint people to positions of power within the government without the consent of the Senate. The Senate is officially in session and therefore the excuse of recess appointments is irrelevant.

Following the process of government is like watching paint dry for most citizens but if we expect to live in a country that respects freedom and the rule of law we must pay attention and react when necessary. The congress should threaten impeachment immediately and defund the departments affected by these appointments. This is not business as usual. This is a crime.

The country is worth watching over. It may be boring but it is our responsibility to protect future generations from the ambitions of leaders that would rather dictate than follow the law of the land.