3. Possible solutions to our big-government problem; their viability; and How the health care debate factors in.

A few weeks ago I mentioned what I believe are the three basic options we have for saving our Republic. Now I will expound on them.

I. Overthrowing the federal government via armed revolution.

There are numerous problems with this approach, not the least of which is that it essentially constitutes treason. Even conspiring to overthrow the federal government is treasonous, so orchestrating such a rebellion would be very difficult. Some would point to the overwhelming military might of the United States Army as another obstacle; however, I personally believe that if a group of patriots were able to plan and execute such a revolution, they would actually meet with little resistance, as I think most of our military personnel would refuse to comply with orders to fire on American citizens.

Of course, victory (should such a plan be carried out) would mean that the tyrants who presently rule us would be removed from power. But what then? If a coup d’état were successful, what would we do after seizing power? The blueprints are there—the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution—so there is no reason to reinvent the wheel. We’d just need to actually follow them this time—which would require electing a completely new slate of representatives to serve in government. Fortunately, there is a way to achieve this without the violence of revolution…

II. Elimination of ALL current elected officials from office

We could get back on the path our founding fathers intended by voting out every last elected official at our first opportunity. We would also need to eliminate the politicians’ primary motive—reelection—by imposing term limits via a Constitutional amendment. As I mentioned recently, the halls of government are filled with career politicians, many of whom have served for decades. Their first priority is to get reelected, and the surest way to do this is to increase the number of people who are dependent on government—and this is exactly what they have done. I believe we should vote out every incumbent, regardless of party affiliation, in the next election—and replace them with candidates who have not previously served. By limiting them to only two terms, we can remove their incentive to increase the size and scope of government, since they know they will have to eventually return to private life—and be governed by the laws and policies they put in place.

Unfortunately, I do not believe our electorate has either the will or the intelligence to accomplish this. Apathy is rampant, and so many people who do vote are terribly uninformed. Voters also lack the resolve to vote out their own representatives—they may agree with these calls for action, but when they go to the ballot box, they say to themselves, “534 of these people need to go—but mine has been doing a good job.” Simply electing a handful of new representatives scattered across the nation will not accomplish anything—they ALL need to go. Since I don’t believe our voter base is competent enough to accomplish this, I present the third option…

III. Dissolution of the Union, and reorganization into regional governments.

I believe this is the most feasible solution for the future of these United States. It is more likely to occur than a complete turnover of elected officials, and it can be accomplished without violence. Were one state to secede from the Union, others would surely follow—and I do not believe that the federal government would attempt to preserve the Union by force as it did in 1861.

Why did the original 13 states decide to unite under a central federal government? As expressed in the Constitution, it was to “insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare…” Certainly three or four regional governments could accomplish this better than the single behemoth we have today. The fifty States are spread across the continent, and their interests vary a great deal. Regional alliances of States could accomplish the same goals more efficiently than the current union.


I believe the current “health care reform” proposal in Congress may play an important role in determining the direction our Union goes. It provides a galvanizing issue for those, like myself, who would like to put an end to the continuous growth of government and return to the limited government intended by our founding fathers. Such a rallying point is essential if we are to convince the citizenry to take action. If this proposal passes in its worst form, it may indeed spur secession. However, if a weakened or significantly altered proposal (perhaps one without a “public option”) is signed into law, then not only will it work further damage to our economy and strike another blow against liberty, but it will also pave the way for future passage of the worst version. Unfortunately, those future changes would have a much smaller chance of galvanizing resistance the way the current version has over the last few months.

2. Grievances; our Duty and our various options.

Our founding fathers envisioned a nation where citizens would live free of government intrusion into their daily lives. Men were supposed to be able to engage in commerce without interference from the state, with the court system resolving matters that could not be worked out between citizens. Government was not supposed to get involved with contracts between private citizens. Today, the federal government regulates the size of the toilets we install in our houses, and mandates that we use a certain kind of light bulb (the incandescent bulb will be illegal beginning in 2014). I think we can all agree that there are areas where regulation is necessary, but we’ve been beyond that reasonable level of government involvement for a long time.

Now our federal government is designing a plan they call health care “reform” that will result in government control over citizens’ access to health insurance, and by extension, to health care. Our representatives insist on passing some form of this legislation, even though a majority of the citizenry is opposed to it. Somewhere along the line, our political class decided that they don’t answer to “we the people” any more; in fact, many of them think they know what’s best for us (and that we don’t know what is best for ourselves). This is tyranny—make no mistake about it.

The current administration is making radical policy proposals, but our government is already redistributing wealth at levels that will be difficult to sustain. Obama’s policies, if enacted, will push us over the brink.

From the nonprofit, nonpartisan Tax Foundation:

In Fiscal Year 2010, before Obama's major policies on taxes, health care and climate change are enacted:

Collectively, families in the bottom 60 percent of the income scale (those with market income below $86,000) will receive more back in government spending during the upcoming fiscal year than they pay in taxes. The top 40 percent of families will collectively pay more in taxes than they receive in spending.

Overall, federal tax and spending policies will redistribute $826 billion from the top 40 percent of families to the bottom 60 percent. In other words, the majority of American families currently receive more in federal spending than they pay in taxes.

More than 70 percent (or $592 billion) of the total amount redistributed is paid by the roughly 5 million families comprising the top 5 percent, those with market incomes above $280,000. At the other end of the income scale, more than half of redistributed benefits flow to the nearly 34 million families in the bottom two income groups—those with market incomes below roughly $23,500. Fully 80 percent of the redistributed benefits flows to families earning under $50,000, a total of 66 million families overall.

…

In 2012, after all of Obama's policies are in place, the amount redistributed from the top 5 percent of families will grow in real terms to $770 billion, a 34 percent increase over current levels. Every other income group will benefit from the increased amount taken from the top 5 percent of families and the group of families who, on average, get more back in spending than they pay in taxes will jump to 70 percent of all families.

(More in-depth explanation, including charts and graphs, can be found here.)

We cannot continue along this path. What happens when the highest income earners, who already shoulder so much of the load, decide to leave—or, like John Galt, just cease to be productive? The whole house of cards will come crashing down.

We cannot abide the continued arrogance of our elected officials, and we must put a stop to this growth of government, which—like a malignant tumor—continues to spread into every aspect of our lives.

Our own Declaration of Independence certifies our right—indeed, our duty—to revolt when government becomes oppressive.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness…But when a long train of abuses and usurpations…evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

What is our current station, if not Despotism? What, then, are we to do?

I do not know if it is possible to save our Republic. I do believe we have three basic options:

I. Overthrow our federal government via armed revolution.

II. Eliminate ALL elected officials at the federal level, and implement term limits via a Constitutional amendment.

III. Secession and reorganization of the states into regional governments.

I will examine each of these options, and their viability (or lack thereof), in my next post.

1. The Monster; its Origins and Effects

I am quite concerned about the state of our Union. We have drifted so far away from what our founding fathers intended that I fear we may not be able to right the ship. What I mean is that our federal government has grown into a monster that is almost completely beyond the control of the people it purports to represent.

I believe it all began with Lincoln’s use of federal force to conquer the states that seceded in 1860. Each state had decided to join the Union because it believed that its interests would be better served as part of the Union rather than standing alone. Many states believed that, just as they had entered the Union of their own volition, they were free to leave it if circumstances warranted. While Lincoln made his decision because he truly believed otherwise, he nevertheless set a precedent for what has become a very powerful central government. Not the least of his precedents was the income tax, which was later declared unconstitutional before the 16th amendment made it permanent.

Franklin Roosevelt made things worse with the sweeping changes of his “New Deal.” His programs drastically expanded government to the point where it reached into the private lives of citizens for the first time. It’s hard to figure the worst thing FDR did, but establishing mandatory tax withholding has to rank among them. (Before 1943, citizens had to actually pay the government every year—so they knew exactly how much they were paying. By withholding tax from workers’ paychecks, the taxpayer never sees it—and so many people have no idea how much they actually pay in taxes. With taxes “out of sight and out of mind,” most people are less inclined to pay attention to how their tax dollars are being spent.

Lyndon Johnson added to the federal behemoth with his “Great Society,” which included the creation of Medicare and Medicaid—the two biggest entitlement programs (both of which are insolvent, just like Social Security). Now Barack Obama’s administration is attempting to further increase the size and scope of government at an almost unprecedented pace. In just eight months, he has passed massive “bailout” spending, and the other proposals he is pushing (cap-and-trade legislation and health care “reform”) will not only cost trillions of additional dollars, but they are also radical changes to our society that will move us closer and closer to becoming a European-style socialist democracy. (Contrary to popular belief, we are not a democracy; we are a constitutional republic. But I digress.)

Further complicating our situation is the fact that our Congress is filled with career politicians. Some of these people have served for decades. (Of the 535 senators and representatives, 82 have served at least 20 years; 24 have served 30 years; and three have been there for 40 years or more. 131 have served at least two terms.) Many of these people are corrupt, and nearly all of them are drunk on the power and prestige that come with their position. They have no incentive to reduce the reach of government (or even to stop its growth), because that would jeopardize their positions of power. Their priorities are severely misplaced, and they have lost touch with the people they are supposed to serve. Our founding fathers never intended for government service to be a career; it was supposed to be a sacrifice. How far we have fallen from their ideal!

The combined effects of this expansion of government have been deleterious to the American people. Unfortunately, many citizens are unaware of the erosion of their liberty because the process has been incremental. Like a beaver (or perhaps termites?), our ever-growing government gnaws away at the tree of liberty.

The recent acceleration of government growth (since the latter part of the George W. Bush administration) has seen the federal government take over significant portions of the American economy. From the automotive industry to the mortgage business, the Obama administration is sticking its fingers into as many pies as it can. The health care industry is next on their list. If it continues to grow, this government interference in the market will inevitably lead to the collapse of our economy. The result will be either a socialist state (where the government owns the means of production outright) or a fascist state (where the means of production are privately owned, but controlled by the government).

What would be the result of such an economic collapse? Would the United States be in danger of being conquered by a foreign power? Or would we just have to suffer through a prolonged depression?

On federalism, the health care debate, and its implications for our Union

I've been thinking a lot lately about the state of our Union. For over half a century, our federal government has been growing almost constantly. As its size and scope increase, it reaches farther and farther into our lives. We are a long way from what I believe our founding fathers intended when they wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. As Patrick Henry said, "the Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people; it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government--lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."

Over my next few posts, I plan to examine the idea that the federal government has grown beyond any semblance of controllability by the people. I'll look at the causes of this growth, and its effects on our nation and our society. I'll propose some possible solutions to the problem, and discuss their viability. After that, I'll talk about how the current debate over health care factors into the equation.

In their own words

An eye-opening compilation of quotes from the Messiah, Slobbering Barney, and Jan Schakowsky (for those who still have their eyes closed and their fingers stuck in their ears) that reveal their true intentions for health care in America:



(Hat tip: Michelle Malkin.)

Celebrity worship

I am continually both amazed and disgusted by the way people worship celebrities in our culture. I am proud to say that I did not watch or read any of the coverage of Michael Jackson's funeral yesterday, unlike the untold millions who stopped what they were doing for most of the day to mourn a man who did nothing but sing songs. Some of the grief was particularly over the top. Take, for instance, this Facebook status post by a girl I went to elementary school with:

"I thought I was done mourning over Michael...I really feel as though I have lost a part of my family...."

Seriously?! I would wager that two weeks ago, before he died, most people hadn't even thought about Michael Jackson for months. (Granted, this girl is black and liberal, but still.) I almost left her a comment ("Give me a break!") in reply, but I refrained.

I hate the fact that Us Weekly, People, InTouch, and other celebrity gossip rags are among the best selling magazines, while Entertainment Tonight and Access Hollywood continually draw millions of viewers, along with vapid garbage like American Idol and Dancing With The Stars. Contrast this with the fact that the vast majority of Americans can't tell you who their Congressional representative is--and a significant number can't tell you who is currently vice president. Nor do most people have the foggiest notion of how government works (or is supposed to work), or of how their liberty is constantly being eroded in Washington. Then again, too many of these people don't want liberty--they want security, provided by the government teat.

As my friend UMCMatt wrote earlier this week, the media might not report on so much of this rubbish if there weren't so many people consuming it. We are being led like sheep to the slaughter, and we don't even know it because we're too busy reading about Britney Spears' latest embarrassing antics or trying to see photos of Brad Pitt and what's-her-face on the beach. Americans worship these people like gods, and so many of them aren't even worth pissing on. I wish there were some way to get the dumb masses to wake up and become aware of all the things that are in desperate need of our attention.

My lame attempt at live-blogging the ObamaCare infomercial...

Here we go...I'll see if I can keep from throwing up on the TV (or throwing something at it).

His grandmother died recently...yeah, from injuries suffered when he threw her under the bus during the campaign.
He gets letters every day from people who can't afford insurance...yeah, I believe that about as far as I can throw him with one arm.

I would like to punch Diane Sawyer in the face.

Who decides what coverage is adequate, Mr. President? You and your government bureaucrats? I want to decide for myself, thank you very much.

Damn right they're paid fees for services. IT'S A BUSINESS. Changing the incentive structure is going to chase good doctors away. Why invest in medical education and training if you can't make a good living by it?

The initiative HAS been forthcoming, you twit. It's called profit.

There's a difference between "access to care" and "ability to pay for care." People have access to care. They can choose to pay for it directly or to pay for medical insurance; unfortunately, some people choose to pay for cars and houses they can't afford, or for cell phones, cable TV and big-screen TV sets and other toys they don't need instead. It's a matter of priorities.

Back from commercial...

Government bringing down costs. HAHA! I almost fell off the couch just then.

Medical students with large student loan debt making practice decisions based on how much they can make...So they're going to make more money under your socialist system? Right.

Goverment is the answer...blah...blah...starting to run together...

46 million uninsured only comes to about 15% of our population. 15 percent! We're going to completely wreck the system for 15 percent of the people. And a sizable number of them are uninsured by choice! (More on that later or tomorrow.)

Remember when the AMA booed our Dear Leader last week?

Sorry, AMA prez, he's not going to answer that question...after the break they'll just pretend it was never asked.

Maybe he'll answer it after all.

You keep saying people will get to keep their plans...but what's going to happen to private insurers when their customers defect in droves to take advantage of free ObamaCare? Many of them may fold, or raise their prices. What happens to my private plan then? Also, you forgot to mention that you're planning to tax my insurance premiums.

So, Mayo Clinic Guy, we'll just kill them off rather than continue treating them? Did you forget about the Hippocratic Oath?

If you think for one second that a 99-year-old woman would get a pacemaker under this plan...you're dumber than you look.

Mr. President, my living will is going to say "you better not think about pulling the plug on me."

He says "I don't want bureaucracies making those decisions." How else are government decisions made? Do you have any idea how our enormous federal monster works?

No rational, non-kool-aid-drinking person honestly believes that a government program is going to be able to eliminate any kind of waste. If you believe that, there's a nice bridge in San Francisco I'd like to sell you.

After the break...should there be government insurance for people? Well, how the hell else are you going to provide insurance to all those uninsured folks?

If the CBO estimates $2 trillion over the next 10 years, it will end up costing $10 trillion.

He keeps saying the same thing over and over. "If you're happy with your plan, you keep it."

Eliminating preexisting conditions...basically, he is going to force insurance companies to take risks they wouldn't otherwise take. Just like the mortgage lending industry took risks they shouldn't have taken (partly thanks to pressure from liberal groups who wanted to increase minority homeownership). They never learn, do they?

Good Lord. Spend, spend, spend. It's not money we're already spending. It's money you're going to have to either borrow, raise through taxes, or print out of thin air. Why can't they just keep their grubby hands off it?

BHO asserts that government intervention is going to help the health care industry be more profitable and save more money. And, as Wayne Campbell once said, maybe monkeys will fly out of my butt.

Hat tip to @mkhammer: "O shifting to say he'd like everybody to keep their HC, but last week he said, "No one will take it away. No matter what."

Of course there are "some" who want to tax benefits "at certain levels." You're one of those "some," Mr. President.

Yes, we've taken a "body blow" to the economy. So how is government intervention in a significant sector of the economy--the health care industry--going to help things? Government intervention sure hasn't helped any other sector of the economy.

Taking another break. I think I've had enough of this. It comes down to the fact that PrezBO and his ilk think that America is great because of its government, rather than because of our (seemingly forgotten) commitment to personal liberty.

Sort of like a meteor game

(In case you're curious about the definition of "meteor game," the Georgia Sports Blog has a nice explanation here.)

I have a deep-seated loathing for the Black Eyed Peas "band" (after all, they are responsible for one of the worst "songs" in the history of music--recorded or otherwise). I also abhor the very existence of Perez Hilton. So when I read earlier that the two of them clashed in Toronto last night, my first hope was that a "meteor game" sort of event had occurred. Unfortunately, that was not the case.

However, I found it curious that Hilton--an in-your face homosexual who is apparently quite proud of the fact that he lets other men pack his fudge--admitted to provoking the assault by calling Peas "singer" will.i.am a faggot. Interesting, isn't it, that a gay person would attempt to insult someone else by...calling them gay! I imagine the irony is lost on him, though.

Rhode Island to allow marijuana sales

Rhode Island just became the third state in the Union to allow chronically ill patients to purchase marijuana, despite the governor's opposition to the bill.

State lawmakers voted overwhelmingly to override a veto last week from the Republican governor, who warned the system could put people at risk of federal prosecution, would encourage illegal drug use and send conflicting messages to children about substance abuse.

I can understand his concerns--look what the Imperial Federal Government has done to people using medicinal marijuana in California in the past.

Marijuana remains illegal under federal law, but U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has said the Obama administration will not target dispensers that follow state law.

I wish I believed him, but I don't. Still, it is good to see these states' rights issues coming to the forefront.

Holocaust musem shooter a Mensan?

Yesterday I was reading The New Editor's coverage of the shooting at the National Holocaust Museum, and they had a link to the (alleged) shooter's Web site. On the site was a link to the guy's bio, where he claims (among other things) to be a member of Mensa.

This made me curious, so I searched the member directory. I did not find any listing for a James W. von Brunn (or any other variation of his name). I'm not sure if the directory lists only current or active members, or if it includes both active and inactive members. I'd guess that the former is true, and that the guy was just trying to play up his "qualifications." However, he did claim to be a combat veteran and a college graduate, so it's conceivable that he could have been telling the truth. After all, the only qualification for Mensa membership is this IQ score--they don't test for sanity or extreme political beliefs.

On dogs and statues in islam

By Hugh Fitzgerald of Jihad Watch.

On dogs and statues in islam

Ibn Warraq once told me that while both Jews and Muslims do not eat pork, Jews are completely relaxed about it. No Jew would run rushing out of a restaurant screaming if he happened to discover that pork was on the menu. But Muslims would, and do. And it is the same with dogs. The hatred of dogs is not rational. It is simply based on the slavish acceptance of Muhammad’s strictures, in a well-known Hadith, in which he is reported to have said: “I will not enter a house in which there are statues and dogs.”

Be sure to read the account of Mary Boyce's observations of muslim treatment of Zoroastrians and their dogs in Iran. These people are blind automatons. Their "religion" is not morally equivalent to Christianity, or any other. I can hardly sit still, so hot does my blood boil when reading what these savages do to innocent dogs...all because they believe their "prophet" declared the animals to be "unclean."

I will be sure to give my own dogs a little extra affection when I get home today.

Montana draws a line in the sand

The state of Montana is challenging the federal government under the 10th Amendment. This week, Montana's governor (a Democrat, by the way) signed into law the "Montana Firearms Freedom Act," which essentially declares that federal regulations will no longer apply to firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition that is (a) manufactured in Montana, (b) sold in Montana, and (c) remains in Montana. The rationale is that since the weapons do not cross state lines, there is no interstate commerce, and therefore the federal government has no authority to regulate them.

Here's a good summary, along with the complete text of the new law (from freedomsphoenix.com).

This is exciting. I'm glad to see the states beginning to remember that this nation is not a kingdom divided into 50 regions; it is a union of 50 sovereign states who agreed to join together under a set of conditions that have been steadily eroded for the last 150 years.

It's rumored that Utah may follow Montana's example. I hope other states will do so as well.

Albertville mayor wants signs to include translations

The mayor of Albertville, Ala. wants the city's sign laws to require all signs in Spanish to include English translations.

As much as it irritates me to see signs in Spanish everywhere, I have to disagree with the mayor. Government--even local government--should stay out of the business owners' way. He claims it's a public safety issue:

Because police officers and firefighters cannot read Spanish, he said, it could take them longer than necessary to answer a 911 call at a Hispanic business if its sign is only in Spanish.

Well, if that happens, maybe next time the owner will have a translated sign, or perhaps one that's entirely in English. It's a similar principle to consumers voting with their wallets. For example, I refuse to patronize businesses that advertise primarily in a language other than my own.

Tuscaloosa Tea Party

I went to the Tuscaloosa Tax Day Tea Party yesterday after work. I had to leave around 6:15, unfortunately. But it was a good experience, and I'm looking forward to the next one.

Here are just a few photos from the afternoon.

This kid is going to have a lot of federal debt to pay off. So will his kids.


Gadsden Flags and related apparel were common at Tea Parties across the country.


The one on the right was one of my favorites.


My friend Adam came prepared.

Another good one on the left.

There's no justification for this out-of-control spending.

There were a few media members there, and I noticed one guy standing maybe 100 feet behind the crowd (toward Gorgas Library). He had a professional-looking camera, and I stopped to see the logo on his shirt so I could find out what media outlet he was with. Turns out he was from the Tuscaloosa Police Department. I half-jokingly asked if he was taking pictures for DHS. He didn't really seem to want to talk. Now I wish I had taken his picture; I'm going to wonder if some of us are going to be in a database or on a watch list now.

I just might have to move to Texas.

Perry fires up anti-tax crowd

Later, answering news reporters' questions, Perry suggested Texans might at some point get so fed up they would want to secede from the union, though he said he sees no reason why Texas should do that.

Some people are going to say Perry is an idiot for making this remark. They'll say it's political suicide, or they'll call for DHS to keep a closer eye on him. But he's right. Every state entered the union voluntarily, reserving the right to leave the union if it became tyrannical. The War Between the States (it wasn't a civil war) did not change that.

We need to ban swords!

This senseless swordfight killed two people.

Man dies days after swordfight that killed woman

How long will we have to wait for the Indiana legislature to take action?!

No touchy!

Here's another ridiculous no-tolerance policy in a government school.

Connecticut School Bans Physical Contact

How appropriate.

Have you seen those commercials for the commemorative Obama coins?

Well...they're not exactly what you'd think.

Obama coins turn out to be stickers

"They had hope, but were only left with change." Ha!

If the fools who bought these things had done their homework first, they might not have been taken advantage of. Apparently there was concern about this sort of ripoff way back in November:

The Obama Coins Rip-off

Obama Coins Warning--Colorized Obama Coins Are A Rip-off

Caveat emptor...

Yet another reason...

...why my children will not go to government school, no matter how many extra jobs I may have to work in order to pay their tuition.

Zero Tolerance, Zero Common Sense

Zero common sense is right. These people have no business educating our children.