Back to Basics:

For the most part, this blog is my somewhat futile attempt to teach and expound on the founding principals of the United States. I think this "Back to Basics" approach is necessary because of the almost complete ignorance on matters as simple as the difference between Capitalism and Socialism or why the founders declared their independence from the most powerful empire in the world and in little more than 200 years eclipsed that same empire as the premiere power in the world. It is not mere coincidence that a young upstart nation of dubious origins assumed easily outpaced and outclassed other nations with thousands of years of history to back them up. The principal reason for America's success is Freedom. Freedom in all it's forms is central to the America's prosperity, economic, social, political, religious, they combine together to form the pallet upon which the American masterpiece has been painted. Ignorance of this fact is the most expensive thing we pay for in this country, because one can not know right from wrong if he has no knowledge or experience from which to compare it to. That is exactly why I continue to pound away at the need for more education on history and civics.. unfortunately both myself and people like me are often ignored, thus necessitating this blog and editorial pages across the nation. It's a big giant circle.. fun huh? Without much further ado.. let's get the show on the road!

Capitalism vs. Socialism:
At it's core, the battle between capitalism and socialism is the battle between those that wish to achieve much by their own merit, and those that wish to achieve much at the expense of others. The founders of this nation intended for America to be a "Meritocracy," where those that had both the drive and talent can succeed and rise to the top tiers of society; a sharp contrast to the nobility and aristocracy they left behind in England. It has been said that capitalism's inherent flaw is the unequal distribution of blessings and socialism's inherent flaw is the equal distribution of misery. I think Churchill said that beauty, but since I'm lazy, I'll just leave that one as it is. Freedom is a difficult concept to understand, but at it's core, to my mind, freedom is an economic concept. If you are not free to keep the fruit of your labor, or to own private property then you are not free. If the founders were willing to start a revolution because of perceived unfair taxes, or for abuses of private property rights, the idea of communism or it's transitional cousin, socialism should be out of the question for anyone living in America that has any grasp of history.

Let's take a look at what Thomas Jefferson thought about "redistribution of wealth."

Thomas Jefferson, April 6th in 1816: "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 spare 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."

Thomas Jefferson, first inaugural address, March 4th, 1801: "A wise and frugal government … shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."

Thomas Jefferson, again: "Congress has not unlimited power to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." They argued, the Founders argued over this whole inclusion of promote the general welfare, what are people going to think that means? There is evidence galore that they did not ever intend that to be interpreted as redistribution. "A wise and frugal government … shall restrain men from injuring one another ... shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."

It doesn't sound to me like he was very much in favor of socialism, or anything even remotely resembling it. I could put dozens of quotes up here that would lay clear the stark differences between American rugged individualism and European socialism but despite their eloquence I think their influence wanes with the passage of time. Nonetheless, should you wish to read something truly inspiring; I submit to you President Washington's First Inaugural Address. I can safely say that no one in modern day politics would have the strength of their convictions to deliver such an address, and that perhaps is the most lamentable critique one can offer about the state of America's politics as usual.

It was said that the founders had an inherent distrust and disdain for pure democracy. They called it "mob rule." The reason being, is that if you can get enough people to covet something enough, then you could have the government forcibly take wealth, property, or freedoms from a person or group. That is why America was founded as a democratic republic where representatives were elected by their peers to promote their interests in the government. I bring this up, because a striking parallel can be drawn between socialism and mob rule. In a socialist society, should one person happen to amass any amount of wealth above the rest, it would have be taken away and redistributed amongst the masses. Ultimately it ends right back at the beginning. Capitalism promotes growth, which creates wealth, which is the inspiration for people to come from all around the world to come to America to make their fortune. Socialism promotes mediocrity, which creates economic malaise, which is the reason why no socialist/communist state has ever prospered or succeeded in the history of the world. In the final analysis, we give government a monopoly on force, not to forcibly redistribute the wealth we as private citizens create, but to protect it from just such an action; in this greatest nation on God's green Earth.

Video/Audio Clip(s) of the Entry:

This is audio of an interview that Senator Obama did in 2001 on Chicago Public Radio. Remember this is way before he was in the public eye or in line to be the Democrat nominee to be President of the United States. There is honestly enough material in this clip to write a whole blog on, and I may yet do so further along in the week. This is something of a rare moment for a politician, a moment of truth.. though in today's America, is it bad to want the government to forcefully take from one group of people and give it to another? We'll see on Nov. 4th.



I wonder if Senator Obama would recognize this quote, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." For those that don't know, it's the Presidential Oath of Office. For a man that wants the courts to "break free of the constraints of the Constitution;" I don't think he could honestly take this oath.

Random Thoughts:
This may never start,
We could fall apart,
And I'd be your memory..
Lost your sense of fear,
Feelings insincere,
Can I be your memory?

So get back, back, back to where we lasted,
Just like I imagined,
I could never feel this way..
So get back, back, back to the disaster,
My heart's beating faster,
Holding on to feel the same..

Quote of the Entry: "Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it."
-Thomas Sowell (June 30, 1930– ) is an American Economist and Political Commentator

The Race Card

In the course of any election season there are any number of tactics/gimmicks that a political candidate uses to help establish that he/she is just like you, despite the fact that they clearly are not, and that they have the same cares and concerns that you have, though again that certainly is not the case. Perhaps the most despicable among these is called "The Race Card," why politics borrows from sports references all the time is beyond me, though I suspect it's to try to spice up what is ordinarily an extremely dry topic. In any event the issue of race has been about as divisive an issue as there is ever likely to be and in this current foray into the democratic process we have seen it being pulled again and again to in defense of the Democrat candidate, Senator Barack Hussein Obama. Despite having virtually nothing in the way of qualifications besides his judgment, which I also have serious problems and questions about, he has risen to be the standard bearer of the Democrat party. But this post is not about Senator Obama, it's about race, politics and the history of both in America.. and for that we inevitably end up at one dark point in American history, Slavery. Though perhaps it wasn't quite as dark as some people might think.

3/5 a Person?:
One of the great supposed contradictions in American history is the clear difference in the language and spirit of the Declaration of Independence and the allowance of slavery to continue in the new union. People often point to the 3/5 compromise in the Constitution which a slave was counted as 3/5 a person for the purposes of taxation and representation in congress and the electoral college. Was it morally wrong to allow slavery to continue? Yes. Was it morally wrong to count a man as 3/5 a person. Yes, but i'd have you consider the circumstances under which these actions were taken and the nuances that bring redemption to a dark time in American history.

Let me set the scene, it's 1787, the Revolutionary War ended 4 years ago and the nacient nation is struggling to find stablity and cohesion under the loose confederacy that has thus far united the disparate states. The delegates gather in Philidelphia to participate in what would later be known as the Constitutional Convention and would end up being the blueprint of almost all western civilizations in the coming centuries. All of them know that the Articles of Confederation aren't working and need to be fixed and most gathered in order to amend not to abandon them, though that certainly wouldn't be the result. Once the debate began and the establishment of a stronger federal goverment under a new Constitution became certain, there were still many problems to be addressed not the least of which were representation in the legislature, taxation of citizens, and property rights.

Not surprisingly slavery was the common thread that binded those three issues. Northern States generally wanted to abolish slavery and southern states wanted to propogate it. In order to unite as a nation there were concessions made to limit the influence and power that the southern states held while still allowing slavery to continue. The point of contention was whether slaves should be counted for representation in Congress or in taxation or both. The 3/5th's Compromise eventually laid that problem to rest and in case you're curious:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

But what was really important was that 10 of the 13 States had already outlawed slavery and many delegates were boldly and vocally opposing slavery at the Convention. Unfortunatly three states, threatned not only to leave the convention but potentially leave the union if slavery was outlawed. Thus the delegates deffered the issue till later putting the ratification and formation of this new goverment as paramount while still putting limits on slavery by stipulating that Congress would have power to ban the slave trade after 20 years. Later when Georgia would secced from the union, they would put it like this:

The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose.

Now some of you may ask where i'm going with all of this, which is a fair enough question considering the fact that i'm painting with a broad brush a set of events that was serious and grevious enough to send many thousands of men to their death; but I point all of this out to give a backdrop on race, slavery and oppression in America so that you may better understand an issue that has largely been offuscated with time. To try to make my points a bit more clear this format might help..

1. Many of the founders knew that slavery was wrong, and worked to put an end to it as best they could while still ensuring the strength of the union.

2. In fact they put specifically put limitiations on slavery to ensure it's eventual demise in the hopes of avoiding what would eventually become a civil war.

3. Knowledge of history is of the utmost importance because the context upon which events occured is paramount to understanding the truth of the situation.

Believe me there's much more to go through on this issue, and to be honest it's something deserving the attention of a doctoral thesis rather than a one shot blog entry; but the fact remains that for a long time now Americans have simply been scratching the surface when it comes to the truth about race in our country. The irony is not lost on me that the party that literally was willing to go to war over the freedom of those that were enslaved is now viewed as evil by those same people they fought to free, even so much as to vote for and later pass civil rights legislation in the 60's, but I suppose thats a discussion for another day. There are many myths and misconceptions when it comes to the American political landscape, and it is my hope to do my small part to dispel such misinformation and replace it with some perspective and truth in this the greatest nation on God's green Earth.

Random Thoughts:
Bittersweet, you're gonna be the death of me..
I don't want you, but I need you,
I love you and I hate you at the very same time..

See what I want so much, should never hurt this bad,
Never did this before, that's what the virgin said ,
We've been generally warned, that's what the surgeon says..
God talk to me now this is an emergency..

Quote of the Entry: "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."
- Ronald Reagan (1911 - 2004) 40th president of US

The Purpose of Government

It's at once both funny and appalling that Americans have the shortest history of all the developed nations and the least appreciation for the significance and importance of that history. America has existed for not even three hundred years and yet I would contend that more American citizens know more about and deify the histories of Rome or Egypt as opposed to those of Washington and Madison. I suppose the goal of this particular post would be a brief review of the history of America and the ideas and ideals that went into it's incubation and execution. And it goes a little something like this..

Revolution:
A lot of people while studying the American Revolution correctly identify unreasonable taxes as the match that lit the powder keg but then discard the issue as irrelevant even though the issue remained important through the founding and clear on until today. The American Revolution was in truth an economic revolution, in that the citizens of the colonies affirmed the right to keep the fruits of their labors and their GOD given right to self govern and fund through their taxes a government that would protect those rights. I think Thomas Jefferson put it best, and while almost anyone would be familiar with this quote from the Declaration of Independence:

"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."

But what about the following sentences? I think not so much..

"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."

From this we can easily see for what purpose the American democratic republic was formed and the spirit with which it was given life and longevity. And yet today in the modern incarnation of American politics, people often cry out for the separation of church and state; Senator Biden claims that it's patriotic to pay more taxes; and it's become common belief that the government exists not to "secure" the rights and happiness of the electorate but to PROVIDE all that and more in the guise of any number of entitlement programs that are too numerous to name.

It would be obvious to anyone who bothered to do some actual research in even a cursory manner that American politics and goverment are closely intertwined with a deeply spiritual and pious people. The "separation of church and state" that is often popularized and attributed to the first ammendment is what could most closley be likened to a myth. The policy as it is currently represented and enforced came from an interpretation by the Supreme Court, not by any mention in the Constitution, by any early President or by any early incarnation of Congress and yet it is held as one of the long standing traditions in American politics. On it's face, it's foolish to stipulate that any man should abandon or rebuke the religious teachings that provide the moral compass by which that man was raised, had lived and eventually would govern.. But I digress..

I ended up going off on a bit of a tangent there, but theres a lot of ground to cover and this will by no means be the last blog that discusses popular lies, myths and misunderstandings about politics and political discourse in this very heated political season. I know I had previously said I wasn't going to copy and paste previous work but I do think it's just too good and too precient not to include it..

Human Rights vs. Moral Obligations:
I think the mess in the debate on Health Care has confused the basic principles on which a people or indeed a country act. One could put them into two categories: Human Rights and Moral Obligations. In the argument for Universal Health Care, it is assumed that it is the a right of a person to have the responsibility of their welfare be assumed by their neighbors. Just on the face of it, we should know that it is not true, nor should it be the case. It is the individual's responsibility to provide a lifestyle for himself to which he can be satisfied, and indeed in a free society and a capitalist one at that, the sky is indeed the limit. In the case of the indigent or otherwise incapacitated, thats where Moral Obligations take over. We as a nation are a good and moral nation, and as part and parcel of this we have programs to take care of the those who can not take care of themselves. That being said, this should not be extended to those who choose a plasma tv over health care simply because they believe that it is their right to health care and so can afford luxuries that would be ordinarily outside of their range. The same goes for planning for retirement, the supposition that the government and therefore your neighbor will take care of you in your old age should not replace personal responsibility for your own welfare. Live within your means and continually strive for better, letting the limits of your ambition be the only limits on your success. Now back to the idea of a Moral Obligation, I would submit that moral obligations take precedent over human rights because it is not a persons right to be afforded health care even if he is indigent, but it is our moral obligation to help and in that pursuit we must not fail. So in the final analysis, it is not human rights that determine moral obligations but in fact it is the other way around; it is our moral obligations that confer rights to people and it should always be in this order. We are a moral and compassionate country and that is manifest in our actions and a desire to do more for our people and indeed the world, but that desire should be tempered by the knowledge that we should not allow people to opt out of their responsibilities as an adult simply because of a misguided feeling of entitlement to a right that was never really theirs to begin with.

Once again, I hope that whomever comes across this blog finds it to be informative and helpfull and most of all a good read. I'll be attempting to update daily, partly because theres a lot to discuss but also partly because i'm often bored and have little else to do as of late. There's a lot at stake in this election beyond that of just the presidency, indeed it will, for the most part, determine the tone and tenor of America for the rest of this century; in this the greatest nation on God's green Earth.

Random Thoughts:
Another summer day has come
And gone away,
And even Paris and Rome,
And I wanna go home..
Let me go home..

And I’m surrounded by,
A million people I,
Still feel alone..
Oh, let go home,
Oh, I miss you, you know..

Let me go home..
I’ve had my run,
Baby, I’m done,
I gotta go home..
Let me go home..
It will all right,
I’ll be home tonight,
I’m coming back home...

Quote of the Entry: "He who promises more than he is able to perform, is false to himself; and he who does not perform what he has promised, is a traitor to his friend."
- George Ernest Shelley (1840-1910) English Geologist and Orinthologist