Do You Have A Right To Your Neighbor’s Labor

“I have no doubt but that the misery of the lower classes will be found to abate whenever the Government assumes a freer aspect and the laws favor a subdivision of Property.” — James Madison

My brother oft times tells me that it takes only a few minutes in any conversation for me to bring up a reference to James Madison — considered by most historians to be the father of our Constitution. I plead guilty to that charge. If Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, is consider the icon of the American Mind then James Madison must be considered the icon of the American Regime.

It was Madison, who along with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, authored 85 essays on government and the rights of citizens collectively known as the Federalist Papers. These essays were published under the collective pseudonym of "Publius", in honor of Roman consul Publius Valerius Publicola, and were intended to advance the argument for a federalist form of a republic as our regime for the government of the newly independent 13 colonies and a replacement of their Articles of Confederation.

One of the more important of these essays was Federalist Paper No. 10, authored by James Madison and published Friday, November 22, 1787. This essay is the most famous of the Federalist Papers, along with Federalist No. 51, also by Madison, and is among the most highly regarded of all American political writings.

Federalist No. 10 addresses the question of how to guard against "factions", or groups of citizens, with interests contrary to the rights of others or the interests of the whole community. Madison argued that a strong, large republic would be a better guard against those dangers than smaller republics—for instance, the individual states. Opponents of the Constitution offered counterarguments to his position, which were substantially derived from the commentary of Montesquieu on this subject. Federalist No. 10 continues a theme begun in Federalist No. 9; it is titled, "The Same Subject Continued: The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection". The whole series is cited by scholars and jurists as an authoritative interpretation and explication of the meaning of the Constitution. Jurists have frequently read No. 10 to mean that the Founding Fathers did not intend the United States government to be partisan.

In Federalist No. 10 Madison not only wrote about Factions he also commented of the role of government in protecting the property rights of citizens. In our Declaration of Independence when Jefferson referred to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness he was using “happiness” in the context of John Locke as meaning the right to your property. In Madison’s view property meant your money, your land, your labor, and you opinions.

Central to the tenth paper in the Federalist series is faction. The argument Madison makes is that faction and liberty are inseparable. Instead of focusing on trying to eliminate the causes for faction, the choice that government can control the effects of faction. Madison makes the argument that the means to control the causes of faction is to stamp on dissenting opinions, and remove liberty. In other words oppress until all the society is of the same opinion. This is totalitarianism. Madison dismisses this as being against the nature of man:

“As long as the reason of man continues to be fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed.”

Faction is a normal part of liberty, and wrapped in the fallibility of humankind. John Stuart Mills makes similar arguments as to why freedom of expression should never be curtailed. An individual can never be sure that they are not suppressing a truthful opinion as humanity's reasoning abilities are not perfect. Madison uses a similar argument to Mills as to why liberty cannot be abolished in a functioning government:

“Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be a less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.”

From this Madison concludes that liberty and faction are essential in any healthy government system. What isn't healthy is the violence of faction. Madison argues that controlling the effects of violent faction can be achieved through the Republican model of government.

Any individual needs to be concerned about government using the apparatus of the nation-state for the purposes of coercion. Madison was also concerned with this issue. He saw the violence of faction being when a group of individuals created a faction with a common interest that was adverse to individual rights, the rights of minorities and against the common good. Madison's view of common good is similar to the Aristotlean notion of virtue being necessary in the ruling elite.

Madison also shares Aristotle's disdain for the workability of a democracy. Aristotle wrote that a democracy fails as the individual is too distracted with the day to day trivialities like working and eating to have an understanding of the public good. Aristotle believes that only an idle class have the time and hence virtue to devote themselves to the public good and the glory of the nation-state.

Madison writes that humankind naturally falls into animosity and this clouds the ability of individuals in a democracy to be aware of the common good and articulate legislation for that purpose:

So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities that where no substantial occasion presents itself the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their infriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts.”

Another flaw that Madison identifies in a democracy is that it allows individuals to be their own judge in their own interests. This assumes that an individuals self-interest will blind an individual to the public or common good. A notion that individuals are not capable of public good without the coercion of the nation-state. Madison writes;

“No man is allowed to be a judge in his own case, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time.”

Madison in Federalist Paper No.10 writes that property and its unequal distribution is the most constant source of faction. He is undoubtedly correct, that the new federal government kept in place the practice of allowing one human to own another is testament to this.

Madison argues from the opposing points of view of creditors and debtors. Legislators are subject to the advocacy of their constituents, and if this advocacy is biased by a faction, then there is no justice in the legislation, as the larger party or faction will drown out the smaller factions. With the recent changes in the U.S. system of advocacy being dominated by lobbyists, attorneys, and money, the public good has been ignored by legislators in areas such as spending of the taxpayers’ money. Legislators have created new forms of property and property crimes in an ever expanding definition of what can be owned or controlled by governments and corporate interests. This is the classical definition of Fascism.

Madison states in 1792 Essay on Property:

“This term in its particular application means "that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual."

In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.

In the former sense, a man's land, or merchandize, or money is called his property.

In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.

He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.

He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.

He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.

In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.”

Madison continues:

“More sparingly should this praise be allowed to a government, where a man's religious rights are violated by penalties, or fettered by tests, or taxed by a hierarchy. Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that, being a natural and unalienable right. To guard a man's house as his castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact faith, can give no title to invade a man's conscience which is more sacred than his castle, or to withhold from it that debt of protection, for which the public faith is pledged, by the very nature and original conditions of the social pact.

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest. A magistrate issuing his warrants to a press gang, would be in his proper functions in Turkey or Indostan, under appellations proverbial of the most compleat despotism.

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where arbitrary restrictions, exemptions, and monopolies deny to part of its citizens that free use of their faculties, and free choice of their occupations, which not only constitute their property in the general sense of the word; but are the means of acquiring property strictly so called. What must be the spirit of legislation where a manufacturer of linen cloth is forbidden to bury his own child in a linen shroud, in order to favor his neighbor who manufactures woolen cloth; where the manufacturer and wearer of woolen cloth are again forbidden the economical use of buttons of that material, in favor of the manufacturer of buttons of other materials!

A just security to property is not afforded by that government, under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward another species: where arbitrary taxes invade the domestic sanctuaries of the rich, and excessive taxes grind the faces of the poor; where the keenness and competitions of want are deemed an insufficient spur to labor, and taxes are again applied, by an unfeeling policy, as another spur; in violation of that sacred property, which Heaven, in decreeing man to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, kindly reserved to him, in the small repose that could be spared from the supply of his necessities.”

I have referenced Madison’s thoughts on factions and property to lay the groundwork for the remainder of this post. I do this in order to illustrate the vast difference in government philosophies that will, hopefully, be presented to the American electorate for the next 84 days.

In 1944 in his annual address to Congress President Franklin Roosevelt presented his vision for American by proposing a second Bill of Rights — rights that would be granted by government. In his progressive agenda he proposed an Bill of Rights based on the equality of results and not on the rights stated in the Declaration. Roosevelt proposed:

“The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.”

It was Roosevelt’s plan to institutionalize Progressivism in the United States — something that has come to fruition drip by bit over the past 68 years. Let’s take a look a each of these so-called government granted rights.

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation.

By this right Roosevelt was stating that the federal government should mandate a minimum wage to be paid by business to their employees. It was Madison who stated:

“He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.

He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.”

A minimum wage not only reduces the chances of employment for unskilled and untrained persons to entry-level positions where they can learn and develop their skills it also causes inflation of prices and in this instance could be considered a tax. The Progressives, while proposing feel-good programs, take no responsibility for the unseen consequences of their actions.

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation.

Again we see the Progressives desire to dictate how much a person should earn based on the term “adequate food and clothing and recreation.” What is considered adequate? Some masterminds in Washington, D.C. will sit in an office and decide what is adequate. Should every American be able to have a 60” flat-screen TV or a new pair of $100 Nike sport shoes? Should every American get a two-week vacation to Hawaii or a 10-day cruise?

If you look at what is considered necessary and adequate by our welfare and food stamp programs you would be astonished to see what is considered adequate. If you doubt me just stand in line at the supermarket checkout counter and watch someone with an EBT card or WIC voucher check out and see what is considered adequate by the government. Of course all of this is paid for with tax dollars — dollars are taken out of the economy and your pocket. This is pure Marxism and the root cause of class warfare. In essence one class states I need or want this or that and you have an obligation to pay for it with no accountability accruing to me.

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living.

On the surface this sounds good, but once again government intervention has turned the price of food and the freedom of the farmer upside-down. Farm subsidies are nothing more than coercion by the federal government telling the farmer what he can grow when he can grow it and what he can sell it for. Once again the unseen consequences of this program has driven many small, family owned farms out of business and allowed large agribusiness corporations like Archer, Daniel, Midlands to monopolize the farming in this country. Under Roosevelt’s own Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 a small Ohio farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was sued by the United States Government for growing wheat that would be used for his personal use. (See Wickard v Filburn)

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad.

Once again we have the federal government intervening how people run their businesses and determining the winner and the losers. It was Madison who stated:

“What must be the spirit of legislation where a manufacturer of linen cloth is forbidden to bury his own child in a linen shroud, in order to favor his neighbor who manufactures woolen cloth; where the manufacturer and wearer of woolen cloth are again forbidden the economical use of buttons of that material, in favor of the manufacturer of buttons of other materials!”

What is considered “unfair”?” Will federal government dictate how fairness is defined. If a furniture manufacturer in North Carolina or a clothing manufacturer in New England believe he can increase his business and serve his customers better by buying furniture from China or having their clothing made in Sri Lanka is it the government role to dictate where and how he should obtain his products?

Progressives believe that the government has the responsibility to regulate all aspects of business today and have passed numerous and onerous laws and regulations, including guitars, on small businesses. Large business, who have lobbyist to support their faction are often immune from these rules.

The right of every family to a decent home.

This “right” has been one of the main causes for our current recession and the collapse of the housing market in the United States. By forcing lending institutions to make loans for mortgages to people they knew could not pay back the government not only destroyed the housing market it damaged people’s lives. Talk about Bastiat’s seen and unseen, this one takes the cake. Yet the progressive masterminds take no responsibility for their actions. They blame the banks they coerced into making these loans by using the force of the Department of Justice and their Civil Rights Division. Banks and lending institution were in fear of being brought into court by the Justice Department for violation of civil rights by discriminating who would be able to pay a loan back. Once the toxic loan was made it was sold to the federal government and the taxpayers took the hit.

This so-called right also pertains to the many public housing projects the federal government has financed where each and every one has failed and turned into a ghetto slum.

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.

The United States has had the best health care in the world. Our cancer survival is much higher than Great Britain with its National Health Care. According to FactCheck.org the U.S. has a cancer survival of 83.9% while the Brits have 69.7% and the average European survival rate is 73.1%:

“It’s certainly the case that we have higher survival rates than the United Kingdom and other countries with nationalized health care. Across the board, the United States boasts a higher five-year relative survival rate than the European average, according to a 2008 study in the British medical journal Lancet. For breast cancer, for instance, the U.S. survival rate was 83.9 percent, the U.K. rate was 69.7, and the average European rate was 73.1.”

Kathleen Doheny writes in WebMD that cancer survival rates vary by states and race:

“A racial gap in survival was evident, with white patients more likely than blacks to survive, especially breast cancer. "The comparison is confirmed right across the USA, in all 16 states," Coleman says of the racial gap.”

Could this mean that those with access only to public health care have a lower rate than those with access to private health care? It is also true that the lowest rate of cancer survival in the United States is for those patients on Medicare.

The United States has developed more advanced medical devices, drugs, and procedures than any nation in the world under a free-market health care system. The one single thing that is draining our health care resources and driving up the costs is what we are paying for the health care for illegal immigrants.

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment.

Our system of social security is a fraud. Originally touted by the progressives as an insurance program, social security is anything but that. If you and your employer pay into the program your entire working life and die soon after retirement your estate gets nothing except a pittance for burial costs. All of the monies you and your employer paid into the program belong to government to give to some other recipient who manages to outlive you. If this was a true insurance annuity you would receive all of the funds acquired from your contributions, including interest, and not paid out. The program is a fraud and is nothing more than a tax-funded Ponzi scheme where the government takes the money and then decides what to do with. They can stop payments anytime they desire.

Unemployment insurance and welfare is also a fraud as the federal government takes from workers and doles the money out to those who do not work. In socialist Denmark they discovered that as long as unemployment insurance was available people did not aggressively look for work until the last days of the insurance. While they were paying 99 weeks if benefits they found out that the recipients would find a job in week 97 or 98. When they reduced the term of payments to 40 weeks they discovered that people would find a job in week 38 or 39.

Today we have federal unemployment for 99 weeks and an average unemployment rate of 9% (much higher in some states). Unemployment insurance programs should be left entirely in the hands of the states. The federal government has no warrant in the Constitution to pay tax dollars to the unemployed. As Madison stated:

“That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest.”

The right to a good education.

A few weeks ago I was having a conversation on education with my sister-in-law who is a school teacher. When I expressed my belief that the federal government should not spend one cent on education either in direct payments, grants or student loans she responded “what about the right to an education?” This took me back for a moment as I was a that surprised that a person with a Master’s in education would not know the Constitution.

My reply was to her was very simple. I asked her to show me where in the United States Constitution there was a warrant allowing the federal government to spend tax dollars on education, certainly not in Article I, Section 8. I explained that funding for education was an issue our Founders, while in favor of, left to the people. Otherwise to the states. Education is a state and local issue and the federal government has no business in taxing us for the purpose of sending money back to the states for education, money bound in a wrapper of corrosive requirements and regulations. This includes money for school lunches.

Most Americans pay for education though their property taxes. This money is then passed on to local school boards, run by local, elected officials beholden to the local taxpayer, not some mastermind at the Department of Education. Local control of education has and should be the keystone of public education. It is up to the states to set education standards and policies along with providing addition funding, if needed, to poorer school districts. Each state has it their state constitution as to how public education in that state shall be dealt with.

Some states may spend more per child on education than other states. That is the business of the people of that state. If they are unhappy with the way their state is dealing with public education the people can change their state’s constitution, change those in office overseeing education, or move. As I said above there is no warrant in the Federal Constitution claiming education as a right or in funding it. People in Arkansas are not responsible for funding public education, including school lunches and teacher union benefits in California or vice versa.

In 1979, President Carter advocated for creating a cabinet-level Department of Education. Carter's plan was to transfer most of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare's education-related functions to the Department of Education. Carter also planned to transfer the education-related functions of the departments of Defense, Justice, Housing and Urban Development, and Agriculture, as well as a few other federal entities. Among the federal education-related programs that were not proposed to be transferred included Headstart, the Department of Agriculture's school lunch and nutrition programs, the Department of the Interior's Indian education programs, and the Department of Labor's education and training programs.

Upgrading Education to cabinet level status in 1979 was opposed by many in the Republican Party, who saw the department as unconstitutional, arguing that the Constitution doesn't mention education, and deemed it an unnecessary and illegal federal bureaucratic intrusion into local affairs. However many progressives and Democrats see the department as constitutional under the Commerce Clause, and that the funding role of the Department is constitutional under the Taxing and Spending Clause. The National Education Association supported the bill, while the American Federation of Teachers opposed it.

As of 1979, the Office of Education had 3,000 employees and an annual budget of $12 billion. Congress appropriated to the Department of Education an annual budget of $14.2 billion and 17,000 employees when establishing the Department of Education. Today the Department of Education has over 5,000 employees and an estimated annual budget (2011) of $71 billion dollars.

With the trillions of taxpayers’ dollars spent by the federal government on education since 1979 education has not advanced one iota, in fact it has been dumbed down with federal regulations such as No Child Left Behind, another progressive/socialist good idea with unseen consequences. Once again refereeing to -Frederic Bastiat when he stated in treatise The Law:

"These socialist writers look upon people in the same manner that the gardener views his trees. Just as the gardener capriciously shapes the trees into pyramids, parasols, cubes, vases, fans, and other forms, just so does the socialist writer whimsically shape human beings into groups, series, centers, sub-centers, honeycombs, labor-corps, and other variations. And just as the gardener needs axes, pruning hooks, saws, and shears to shape his trees, just so does the socialist writer need the force that he can find only in law to shape human beings. For this purpose, he devises tariff laws, relief laws, and school laws."

This next presidential election presents a choice between two social contracts: the socialist-fascist contract of Mr. Obama and the Democrat Party, and the limited government-free enterprise-capitalist contract of Mr. Romney and the Republican Party.

(A simple description of Socialism is a philosophy that disfavors individual property rights and autonomy and places them in service to centralized governing elite; a Fascist philosophy cedes industrial control over private-sector market forces to a central government.)

To help you choose your contract, please answer the following question. A simple Yes or No will do.

Do you have and inalienable right to your neighbor's labor?

(I use the term inalienable in the same sense it was used in our Declaration of Independence: a right self-evidently granted by Nature's God and Creator. It is a permission granted to you by no other merit than your existence. It does not come from others or a government; you are born with it, and to diminish it is inherently evil and against the natural order.)

If you believe that you have this right, than it is perfectly acceptable to demand that your neighbor labor for you, and you for him. Practically extending this right, you have a right to the earnings of your neighbors' labor, such as wages and rents — and they to yours. It means that private property is a meaningless fiction. This sort of social contract — where one is not permitted private property — is either indentured servitude or slavery.

If you believe that you do not have this right, then by definition, you must receive permission to acquire your neighbor's labor or private property. You must not steal. You must exchange something of sufficient value in trade for your neighbor's labor.

If you believe that someone less well-off than another self-evidently justifies your forcing the better off to labor for the worse — because it is the right thing to do — then indeed, you obviously believe that your neighbor's labor is yours to claim. You have the same worldview as America's antebellum slave owners and indentured servant contractors. Our Constitution's 13th Amendment established that slavery is forbidden, so how is it that you now wish to philosophically bring slavery back?

Once again to quote Madison; “…nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest.”

If you believe that it is in the community's interest to provide a safety net for the less well-off in order to prevent more burdensome expenditures, such as a public education or childhood health care, then it might be best to create economic incentives that promote voluntary charitable support for less fortunate.

Consider national health care. If you believe that you have an inalienable right to another's labor, you might compel a hospital to provide emergency services (skilled medical labor and private medical supplies and lodging) to the indigent without compensation at market prices. Such an arrangement requires the hospital to subsidize the emergency room by raising the costs of other hospital services offered to patients who have the means to pay or else the hospital can operate at a loss and eventually shut its doors.

An alternative approach — one that does not claim a right to skilled medical labor or property — pursues tax incentives that make charitable contributions to hospitals compellingly reasonable. If you want to provide a benevolent safety net to those who are willing but unable to work (the only population that merits assistance), then make such benevolent assistance to them more valuable than investing money elsewhere. This might be accomplished by granting a 150% gross income tax reduction for all charitable contributions to health care facilities that serve the indigent. For every $100 one gives to an inner-city health clinic, $150 is deducted from gross taxable income. Let's legislate a social contract that makes benevolent giving economically compelling, without placing a claim on our neighbors' labor.

We concluded our most deadly Civil War (1860-1865) with the affirmation that one did not have an inalienable right to another human being's labor. How ironic it would be to elect a president of color who will return us to such plantation thinking?

On November 6^th you will have the opportunity to select the vision for America that fits your thinking. You can vote for the socialistic/fascistic compact or the vision of America espoused by our Founders — a vision of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The debate is on.

Obama vs. Our Founders

“Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. — James Madison, Federalist Paper 51

A political regime has three dimensions: the ruling institutions, the rulers, and the way of life of the people. In America, the rulers—the people themselves—and their ruling institutions—staffed by the people’s representatives aim at securing the Creator-endowed natural rights of all citizens. The Framers did this in two ways — Vertical and Horizontal.

In the American regime, the Constitution is the “supreme law of the land.” No one branch is superior to it; all three branches have a duty to abide by it. While each of the three branches plays a unique role in the passage, execution, and interpretation of laws, all of the branches must work together in the governing process.

The Vertical form of our ruling offices or institutions is called Federalism — it includes the states, counties and municipalities. This structure prevents the United States government from becoming overbearing — every citizen can participate in self-government. It prevents American from becoming utopian.

The Horizontal framework is how our Founders separated the powers of the elected and appointed representatives.

Madison wanted a “Compound Republic” where passion of action would be impaired. A weak government would be too weak to secure our rights from an overbearing legislature. Jefferson said ”one hundred and seventy-three despots would surely be as oppressive as one, a few or many”. Compound Republicanism makes government more moderate and just by forcing it to act slowly and deliberately.

Madison stated in Federalist No. 47: “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

In 1690 John Locke published his Second Treatise of Civil Government in which he stated:

“And hence it is, that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power, does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life: for I have reason to conclude, that he who would get me into his power without my consent, would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it; for nobody can desire to have me in his absolute power, unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom, i.e. make me a slave.”

With Locke’s thoughts in mind James Madison wrote in Federalist Paper No. 47:

“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

Madison stated in Federalist 57:

“If it be asked, what is to restrain the House of Representatives from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of the society? I answer: the genius of the whole system; the nature of just and constitutional laws; and, above all, the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America—a spirit which nourishes freedom, and in return is nourished by it.

If this spirit shall ever be so far debased as to tolerate a law not obligatory on the legislature, as well as on the people, the people will be prepared to tolerate anything but liberty.”

Continuing this line of thinking Madison stated in Federalist No. 55:

“As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust, so there are other qualities in human nature which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form.”

If the people are the sovereigns, if we want to govern ourselves, we must make our own laws This sensible self-government was to be and for years was our way of life.

All the above was debated in 1787 and was the thinking that went into the formation of our Constitution.

Throughout modern history, those who sought to control and expand the reach of government often resorted to exploiting mankind's most dominant trait: an innate desire to survive and prosper. To that end, the people would be promised a utopia on earth — a promise that could never be fulfilled. This is not only the most cynical of all political tactics, but also one whose proponents are interested only in self-aggrandizement and the accumulation of power, in other words they would be the “masterminds” of our lives and fate.

This strategy has three component parts: 1) promise the populace "fairness" and lifelong personal security; 2) create out of whole cloth villains who must be dispatched, as they are determined to make certain that there is no "fairness"; and 3) never fail to reassure the people that everything is under control. Unfortunately, these tactics have often succeeded in their initial stages, as there is a willingness among the people to accept the guarantees of the political class, but in the long term, a catastrophe has resulted for those societies who wholeheartedly embraced these transparent and fallacious precepts. Such recent examples would be Germany under the Nazi regime, Italy under Mussolini’s Fascist government, and the Soviet Union under the communism of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. This is also the Eurocentric socialism that has existed in Western Europe and Great Britain for the past 40 years. It is the utopian socialism once described by the post-war German economist Ludwig Erhard as “Socialismus mit Herz” (Socialism with a Heart).

Nonetheless, this game plan was the foundation of the 2008 campaign of Barack Obama. Now facing failure and defeat in 2012, Barack Obama and his minions are accelerating the demonization of their political opponents, often in the most vile and false ways possible, and pulling out all the stops in pitting various segments of society against one another regardless of the potential damage inflicted upon the American culture.

This desperation by the left and Barack Obama is indicative of the reality that both do not have a clue as to why their socialist/Marxist approach and theory are not and will never be successful, as the primary focus of this ideology has been to manipulate the base nature of mankind to the advantage of its proponents.

While some may willingly choose to pursue subsistence on their own terms, to the vast majority of the human race, the path of least resistance for survival and prosperity is the most desired. Thus, mankind is susceptible to financial scams, gambling, crime, and resentment, or to violence towards those who may have more. But above all, the preponderance of humanity is very open to the concept of a central authority providing people with the means of livelihood, and said people are thus willing to be swayed by the siren song of cradle-to-grave security.

A fatal characteristic of human race is the need, by some within the group, to conquer or maintain total control over their fellow man. Those who considered themselves masterminds superior to the masses — and who, in the distant past, may have achieved ruling status through the power of intimidation over the illiterate — now have to look to other means to achieve control of the levers of government.

The easiest course to assume this power is to promise that the state, in return for the support of the people, will provide the citizenry cradle-to-grave economic security. Thus, a Faustian bargain encompassing the desire by the majority for ease of survival and others for the need to rule is entered into. The populace, having committed itself to this compact, will expect never-ending freedom from adversity.

However, within this arrangement is the seed of its own destruction. For socialism to succeed, it must have an economic underpinning that can provide the foundation for massive social spending. The Soviet Union, as early as the 1920s and '30s, proved that complete state control of the means of production was a colossal failure, as the USSR could not produce sufficient wealth to support the population. Today, many nations in Europe are facing insolvency and social chaos as they had pursued a version of socialism wherein the state has de facto control over wealth-creation through regulations, taxes, and mandates necessitated by the unrestrained spending on guaranteed social programs coupled with unachievable promises.

Only an unfettered capitalist economic system, which is anathema to a powerful central government and its attendant oligarchy, can produce sufficient wealth necessary to underwrite a basic social safety net for the general public, finance the national security of a country, and provide an ever-increasing standard of living for the people.

Capitalism, reflective of that portion of mankind choosing to seek subsistence on their own terms, does by its nature celebrate the success of the individual, not the collective. Individuals, separately or together, driven by the motive of self-enrichment, produce goods or services desired by others. In the process, jobs and wealth are created, thus benefiting society as a whole.

A massive tension exists between those who adhere to central government control and fealty to socialist or Marxist philosophy and those who produce the wealth of a nation. As the state inherently has more power than the individual, and once the left-wing element of the ruling class assumes power, government begins an inexorable process of injecting itself into the affairs of the individual and producer class (which is always a minority in any society).

Those who believe they have a manifest destiny to rule and are faithful to socialist tenets have a predisposition to control the populace and economic activity through laws, regulations, taxes, and intimidation. Despite the lesson of the Soviet Union and its state control of the economy and the failure of modern day Euro-Socialist democracies, every new generation of adherents to socialist ideology believes that he can make this fallacious philosophy work and maintain socialists' arrangement with the citizenry.

Madison warned of this in Federalist No. 62:

“The internal effects of a mutable policy are still more calamitous. It poisons the blessings of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?

Another effect of public instability is the unreasonable advantage it gives to the sagacious, the enterprising, and the moneyed few over the industrious and uninformed mass of the people. Every new regulation concerning commerce or revenue, or in any manner affecting the value of the different species of property, presents a new harvest to those who watch the change, and can trace its consequences; a harvest, reared not by themselves, but by the toils and cares of the great body of their fellow-citizens. This is a state of things in which it may be said with some truth that laws are made for the few, not for the many.”

But the reality is no one can do this, as the economic engine of capitalism will not continue to produce wealth if it is increasingly put under the thumb of bureaucrats and central planners inevitably attempting not only to institute state control of the economy, but also to regulate the day-to-day activities of all citizens. The motivation of the producer class will be stifled, and that class's members will then drop out, join the dependent class, or simply move on to other, more hospitable countries — leaving behind a stagnant and ultimately declining economy and diminished national wealth.

As history has shown, (most recently in Europe and now in the United States), left-leaning governments will inevitably turn to excessive and unsustainable borrowings as well as inflation to finance their societal obligations. The unwritten contract between the statists masterminds and the citizens who were promised cradle-to-grave security cannot be maintained; the economic underpinning of this arrangement will be quickly eroded.

Social and economic chaos resulting in a dramatically lower standard of living will inexorably ensue and, in some cases, lead to violence or revolution. No amount of promises; demonization of capitalism; or seizure of the means of production, confiscatory taxes, or the printing of money will reinstitute prosperity or security for the people.

This is the path on which President Obama and his fellow travelers have placed the United States. After just three years, the nation faces an unsustainable growth trajectory in national debt, a deteriorating economy, and a society in decline. The American people have been repeatedly told that Barack Obama is the most intelligent and empathetic person to ever occupy the Oval Office. Nothing could be farther from the truth, as he is incapable of understanding — or else unwilling to understand — why his unshakable belief in Marxist socialist ideology, as well as his actions as president, has placed the nation in such jeopardy.

The Obama re-election strategy of not defending or acknowledging these failures, but instead doubling down on the dishonest demonization of the opposition and further polarizing the populace by creating and exploiting race, class, and gender fissures in society, is beneath contempt. It is reflective of the tactics used by many of the despots during the past century, whose only interest was to accumulate and retain power. Barack Obama and the Democratic Party cannot be allowed to succeed with this line of attack; they must be rejected by the American people in November.

Barack Obama, The Despot

"Congress can raise taxes because it can persuade a sizable fraction of the populace that somebody else will pay." — Milton Friedman

How many times will the American people have to be hit over the head before they understand that Barack Obama is the most corrupt, dictatorial, and ideologically driven president in American history? That his entire being and psyche are devoted to transforming the country not only into a socialist utopia, but into a nation permanently governed by a radical oligarchy?

This mindset has been on display since the beginning of Obama's term, as detailed by David Limbaugh in his book, Crimes Against Liberty. Yet so many seem to not care or are deliberately oblivious to the long-term implications of his actions, many of which mirror those of the despots that ran roughshod over the last century.

The recent ruling by the Obama Department of Health and Human Services forcing religious institutions to provide either directly or through private insurance not only contraceptives, but abortion pills and sterilization is not a matter of so-called women's rights, but a means of setting the precedent and foundation to force organized religion to be subservient to the state.

The passage of ObamaCare, from which this edict stems, has nothing to do with healthcare; rather, it is a vehicle to ultimately control the day-to-day activities of the American people through the dictates and mandates emanating from an overarching bureaucracy. Once fully implemented, individual liberty and freedom, the hallmarks of the nation's history, will be eradicated forever.

Further, the Obama regime has shown a callous disregard for the sanctity of life, as no administration in the nation's past has so aggressively promoted abortion, and, through the rationing mechanism in ObamaCare, the very real prospect of government-sponsored euthanasia.

In their isolated inside-the-Beltway arrogance, it appears the Obama administration did not anticipate the huge blowback resulting from Obama's decree that Catholic institutions provide birth control, abortion drugs, and other contraceptive services to their employees.

This latest attack on the unborn is simply more of the same from Obama. As an Illinois senator, Obama voted against the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which authorized hospital staff to give medical assistance to babies who survived failed abortions. Before the Born-Alive Act, hospitals were legally forced to leave an unsuccessfully aborted baby to die. Some died quickly; some clung to life for several hours. Obama voted against Born-Alive Act three times.

But folks, Obama is not alone in his callousness towards the most innocent of human life.

Think of the secular-progressive movement as a pro-abortion patchwork quilt of various anti-America groups. These people hate everything about America, from the light bulbs we use to our consumption of beef to our love affair with the automobile. They believe that America is the greatest source of evil in the world; everyone else in the world has too little because America has too much.

Now get this, folks — a large number of these environmental zealots are mega-wealthy Hollywood people and Democratic politicians who live in mansions and travel everywhere in limos and private jets. They consume more fuel and resources per month than most of us will consume in our entire lifetimes.

Abortion is the thread which joins each wacko anti-America patch of the secular-progressive quilt. Why? Why is the left so fanatical about killing human babies? If it is about "choice," as they claim, why are they infuriated when a woman "chooses" to have her baby? Case in point: the left's hysterical outrage over the Super Bowl ad in which Tim Tebow thanked his mom for not aborting him.

"Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated." So said Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, a person Hillary Clinton praised a few years ago. Seventy-eight percent of Planned Parenthood clinics are in black neighborhoods. Blacks make up only 12% of the population, but 35% of America's aborted babies are black. Half of black pregnancies end in abortion. Is this an intentional genocide?

"The most dangerous place for an African-American is in the womb," according to Pastor Clenard Childress, Jr. Blacks are the only minority in America experiencing a declining population.

So why would Obama, the NAACP, Rev. Sharpton, and other black leftists be passionate supporters of Planned Parenthood? Why did Al Sharpton threaten to protest a pro-life billboard which exposed the devastatingly high number of black abortions?

Why? Why are these leftist blacks more loyal to their Holy Grail of abortion than they are to their fellow blacks — all the while claiming that rich white Republicans and the Tea Party are the enemies of black America?

Why are so-called African-American activists, all Democrats, at odds with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s niece, Alveda King who is a committed Christian pro-life advocate?

What is up with these people on the left? Why do the same folks who passionately defend the life of a whale, a spotted owl, a baby seal, a toad, and a death-row serial killer get extremely angry at the mere suggestion that a woman consider not killing her baby? Why?

I can only conclude that it is a spiritual thing. I know what some of you are thinking: there you go again, Fred bringing God, good, and evil into the mix. Well, there is something extremely evil and godless about the left's obsession with killing babies.

Obama's obsession is so strong that he is willing to risk re-election. How else can you interpret Obama basically giving Catholics, of which a majority supported him last election, the finger?

I once thought Obama voted against the Born-Alive Act and passionately supported Planned Parenthood to secure the hardcore radical feminist vote. I was wrong. Obama's commitment to abortion goes far deeper. Limbaugh nailed it: "Abortion is the sacrament to the religion of liberalism" — a religion of which I believe that Obama is a zealot. Didn’t he say during the 2008 election campaign that he would not want to have his two daughters “punished” by having a baby?

Nothing reveals Obama's dictatorial mindset more than his relationship with Congress. His recent actions in unilaterally making appointments that are subject to Senate approval while the Senate is still in session are blatantly unconstitutional and done to marginalize Congress. His appointment of innumerable "czars" is a means of bypassing Congress and their oversight of the federal Cabinet departments. His Department of Justice has been transformed into an advocacy group to enforce the left-wing radical version of social justice while refusing to be accountable to Congress. Soon we will have to change the name from Department of Justice to Geheime Staatspolizei. Obama has resorted to utilizing executive orders and volumes of regulations from various agencies under his command in order to put in place his radical policies and sidestep Congress and thus the will of the people. Wasn’t it Hitler who issued racial policies by executive orders?

In furtherance of Obama's transformative goals, he and his minions are in the process of shackling the free market through unfettered government control and influence. It is the aim of the Obama presidency to create a so-called "government-business partnership" wherein the government chooses the winners and losers based upon their allegiance to and support of the regime.

The massive spending and debt incurred over the past three years are the byproduct of Obama's overarching objective to make certain that the overwhelming majority of the populace becomes, by necessity, dependent on the government, thus more subservient and easily controlled. Whether the country becomes insolvent or the middle class ceases to exist is immaterial.

In his public speeches and well-produced appearances, Barack Obama plays the fictional role of someone who cares for the "little guy" (as all despots do). He is the people's avenger against those he defines as the enemy, be it the wealthy, the corporations, deeply committed religious groups, conservatives and the Tea Party movement, or those intransigent ideologues in Congress who stand in the way of his nation-saving agenda. In this quest for power, there are no lies or obfuscations too egregious to tell or societal tensions too dangerous to create, as he alone can save the nation.

Barack Obama is following in the footsteps of the despots who dominated the 20th century. If given another term in office, he, along with his fellow-travelers in the administration, will be unencumbered in attempting to complete the transformation of the United States. However, they will not accomplish their quest — just as those they admire in the previous century did not. They will succeed only in initiating massive social upheaval and violence.

I had to survive a war that was precipitated by leaders in various European countries who were democratically elected. Yet once in power, these power-crazed ideologues began to systematically usurp and overthrow the rule of law with the ultimate goal of becoming the government themselves.

Their lust for power led them to shred any written constitution or traditions as they systematically imposed new regulations, laws, and executive orders geared primarily to centralize authority in the government as individual rights and liberties were extinguished. Legislatures were abolished or marginalized; organized religion was forced to be subservient to the state, and respect for the sanctity of life was extinguished. The owners and managers of business and industry were intimidated and compelled to be submissive and loyal to the state. By the time the populace became aware of what was happening to their respective countries, it was too late.

The citizens of Germany in the first four years of the 1930s would have found it impossible to imagine what became of their country by 1945 or to think it even remotely possible. Those in Italy in the 1920s, promised so much by the Mussolini regime, eagerly voted the Fascists into power only to end up with a society torn asunder and a nation lying in ruins. The same results were played out in Russia, China, and many countries in Eastern Europe.

The history of the United States and its traditions of liberty and individual freedom should be a bulwark against the successful emergence of someone like Barack Obama and his cronies. Yet the majority of the citizenry, the media, the opposition party, the members of Congress, and the judiciary are not shouting from the highest hilltop and taking action to stop the Obama regime's unconstitutional acts and power-grabs.

Has this country enjoyed peace and prosperity so long that everyone is jaded and preoccupied with themselves, or in a self-induced stupor, either ignoring the situation or telling themselves that these unconstitutional steps and power-grabs are minor? Is a pre-packaged television image all that matters? Is it because Obama happens to have black skin, and everyone is too intimidated by political correctness to speak out? Are we as a society unwilling to say in the bluntest of terms that a national leader is a liar and a fraud? Why are countless members of the Ruling Class unwilling to learn from history, or is it that their egos are such that they cannot admit a mistake, or do far too many have a vested interest in the current state of affairs?

Perhaps it is as it was in Germany, Italy, and Russia among many — a belief that the worst could never happen here.

For those who emigrated from those nations whose societies suffered not only overwhelming destruction, but a devastating loss of freedom and liberty, they can only warn our fellow citizens that the country is going down a road that is becoming eerily familiar. It is not hyperbole to say that we see someone in the White House whose character reflects the worst and most dangerous traits to be found in a national leader, and we are stunned that the majority of the American people do not understand what is happening to the most successful society in the history of mankind. We know that the only viable solution to avoid the storm clouds gathering over the horizon is to relegate Barack Obama and his regime to a footnote in the annals of American history.

Either the citizens, on the 6th of November 2012, will choose to reverse course and return to the basic tenets of freedom and liberty upon which the nation was founded, or the people will choose to blindly follow Barack Obama on a path which will eventuate in internal chaos and violence as well as subservience to those countries who wish to see the end of America's time on the world stage.

Arrogant egomaniacs have a tendency to overreach. Who was the guy in Greek mythology who flew too close to the sun despite being cautioned not to do so? Oh, yeah — Icarus was his name. The wax which held his wings together melted, and Icarus fell to his death.

Mr. President, you may have flown a bit too close to the sun with your latest in-your-face attack against people of faith. Even the superglue of your race will not be able to hold your wings together this time. I pray that come November, your fall will be great.

Why Do We Call Liberals Liberals

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must undergo the fatigues of supporting it." — Thomas Paine

Classical liberalism is a philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government, constitutionalism, rule of law, due process, and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.

Classical Liberalism developed in the 19th century in Europe, and the United States. Although classical liberalism built on ideas that had already developed by the end of the 18th century, it advocated a specific kind of society, government and public policy required as a result of the Industrial Revolution and urbanization. Notable individuals who have contributed to classical liberalism include Jean-Baptiste Say, Frederic Bastiat, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo. It drew on the economics of Adam Smith, a psychological understanding of individual liberty, natural law and utilitarianism, and a belief in progress. Classical liberals established political parties that were called "liberal", although in the United States classical liberalism came to dominate both existing major political parties. There was a revival of interest in classical liberalism in the 20th century led by Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, and Milton Friedman.

Economic Liberalism is the economic component of classical liberalism. It is one the main components of the ideology of capitalism. It is an economic philosophy that supports and promotes laissez-faire economics and private property in the means of production. Although economic liberalism can be supportive of government regulation to a certain degree, it tends to oppose government intervention in the free market when it inhibits free trade and open competition. Economic liberalism opposes economic planning as an alternative to the market mechanism. Economic liberalism contrasts with mercantilism, state capitalism, socialism, market socialism, and fascist economics (Corporatism)

Economic liberalism opposes government intervention on the grounds that the state often serves dominant business interests, distorting the market to their favor and thus leading to inefficient outcomes. Ordoliberalism and various schools of social liberalism based on classical liberalism include a broader role for the state, but do not seek to replace private enterprise and the free-market with public enterprise and economic planning. For example, the social market economy is a largely free-market economy based on a free price system and private property, and includes government regulation to promote competitive markets and social welfare programs to address social inequalities that result from free-market outcomes.

Theories in support of economic liberalism were developed in the Enlightenment, and believed to be first fully formulated by Adam Smith, which advocates minimal interference of government in a market economy, though it does not necessarily oppose the state's provision of a few basic public goods with what constitutes public goods originally being seen as very limited in scope. These theories began in the eighteenth century with the then-startling claim that if everyone is left to their own economic devices instead of being controlled by the state, then the result would be a harmonious and more equal society of ever-increasing prosperity. This underpinned the move towards a capitalist economic system in the late 18th century, and the subsequent demise of the mercantilist system.

Social Liberalism is the belief that liberalism should include social justice. It differs from classical liberalism in that it believes the legitimate role of the state includes addressing economic and social issues such as unemployment, health care, and education while simultaneously expanding civil rights. Under social liberalism, the good of the community is viewed as harmonious with the freedom of the individual. Social liberal policies have been widely adopted in much of the capitalist world, particularly following World War II. Social liberal ideas and parties tend to be considered centrist or center-left.

A reaction against social liberalism in the late twentieth century, often called neoliberalism, led to monetarist economic policies and a reduction in government provision of services. However, this reaction did not result in a return to classical liberalism, as governments continued to provide social services and retained control over economic policy.

The term "social liberalism" is often used interchangeably with "modern liberalism". The Liberal International is the main international organization of liberal parties, which include, among other liberal variants, social liberal parties. It affirms the following principles: human rights, free and fair elections and multiparty democracy, social justice, tolerance, social market economy, free trade, environmental sustainability and a strong sense of international solidarity.

From the three examples cited above you can see the deviants in the term “Liberal.” Is your philosophy more in line with Classical Liberalism, Economic Liberalism or Social Liberalism?

Our Republic was founded on the principles of classical liberalism. Founders such as Jefferson, Adams, Madison, and Mason were classical liberals who believed in small government, private property, minimal government interference, and the free market. the Constitution is proof of these beliefs.

After the Civil War we began to fall into the path of social liberalism. This trend continued, albeit minimal, until the beginning of the 20^th century when the progressive movement, under Theodore Roosevelt and Robert Lafollette.

It was not until the election of Woodrow Wilson that the progressive movement began to dominate our political scene. Wilson’s internationalists foreign policies, his entrance into World War II and his support of every growing government be began to move the Democrat Party to the left of center.

With the election of Franklin Roosevelt and the Great Depression the Democrat Party began to define itself as a party more dedicated to social justice than classical liberalism. The Democrat Party had discovered the key to power by their populous stances on many of the social issues of the day.

By the end of World War II the government had grown to a sized never envisioned by our Founders. The federal government had gained control over many aspects of our life and Roosevelt’s social justice programs were becoming larger and larger, especially in the areas of farm subsidies and welfare programs.

When John Kennedy was elected, although a Democrat, he was not an advocate of social liberalism. He had grown to age under his father, Joseph, a wealthy businessman and political boss. He lowered taxes, taxes that had grown to an obscene rate of 81% and was loath to get into the civil rights issues. I believe Kennedy was an economic liberal.

When the Texas Democrat Lyndon Johnson assumed the presidency after the assassination of John Kennedy he began his cynical policies leading to the Great Society. This is when the Democrats learned to really adopt the policies of social liberalism and adopt the term “Liberal.”

Today people and politicians we refer to as liberals are not classical, economic, or social liberals. They are some sort of mutant of a social liberal with an interjection of fascism, Marxism, and statism.

Here are a few examples of what today’s “liberals” espouse.

Take the Gay community for example. Why they call themselves Gay is a mystery to me. I don’t see how being a homosexual is gay. Gay means happy, delighted, ecstatic, and thrilled. This is how our society has introduced euphemisms into our lexicon. The Gays will tell you they do not want anyone to tell them what to do in the privacy of the bedroom (or in San Francisco a public park). They don’t want government or anyone else telling them what to put in their butt. On the other hand they want government to tell us what we can put in our mouths. No salt, no burgers, no cigarettes, and no fast food. I wonder what government would say if they put a cigarette in their butt?

The gays claim they don’t want government in their lives until they contract Aids, then they want government (us) to pay the bill. In other words personal responsibility for thee but not for me.

In another example we have the “liberal” women. They want government to keep their hand off their bodies and want abortion on demand, at any stage. But, they expect government to pay not only for the abortions, but also for birth control. Once again they want their will to be done and anyone who disagrees with them is demonized. Personal liberty ends in the pocketbook.

“Liberals” love to engage in class warfare. They tell us the rich should pay more, especially those with planes and yachts. But who has the planes and yachts? Yes the liberals like John Kerry and the Kennedys. President Obama tells us we need to sacrifice yet he vacations with his very wealthy liberal friends and donors on Martha’s Vineyard. It’s okay to be rich, but don’t demonize those of us who want to be rich. This is reminiscent of the old Soviet Union where the apparatchik and party bosses lived in their dachas on he Black Sea while the proletariat stood in line at the GUM Department Store all day for a pair of ill-fitting shoes. Once again socialism is for the people, not for the socialists.

Liberals like Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. decry the iPad and other technologies as killing jobs. They cannot see the jobs and opportunities created by technology. If you told them if we wanted to create jobs we could eliminate bulldozers and only use shovels on construction jobs. Their response would be that’s irrelevant. Liberals do not believe technology in the hands of the free market can create jobs, They believe that only the government can create jobs. This is in part due to the lack of education in the inner city where unemployment is 20% and among Black youth as high as 40%. They cannot accept the fact that the lack of personal responsibility and bad choices such as dropping out of school, having babies out of wedlock, a devotion to a gangsta culture, and drugs has anything to do with this high unemployment rate. They have dumbed down the public school system, even after pouring billions of dollars into it, to such a state that these youth can longer compete for good paying jobs in the free market. They believe government will put forth all the solutions, which they haven’t been able to do for the past 60 years.

Liberals will claim it’s for the children, the poor, the underprivileged, and the middle class. Yet when asked to define what they mean they are vague and cannot explain why for six decades these policies have failed. When you challenge their views or policies they will demonize you, call you selfish, call you racists, and say you don’t care about your fellow man. It was Frederick Bastiat who called their game some 150 years ago when he wrote:

"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain."

Liberals believe government can solve all the problems of mankind if they just have enough time and money. They believe all rights come from government, not from God. In fact they don’t really like God. You see God has laws that have been around since Moses. It’s these laws they don’t like. They say they are too clack and white and too judgmental. Liberals don’t like to be judged, but they like to judge. Just ask one and they will tell you what is wrong with you and your evil, selfish conservative thinking. After all isn’t the Tea Party evil for wanting the government to reduce spending so our grandchildren will have a country to live in without being crushed by debt.

So what should we call these people, and politicians? That’s hard to define. Do we call them liberals? Do we call them Marxists? Do we call them progressives? Do we call them Mutants or do we call them statist? Perhaps statist is the term that fits them best, but we will have to educate the public to that term and what it means in today’s body politic.

Today’s liberal (statist) is not very liberal at all. He is a tyrant who believes in social justice and using the power of government and their fellow travelers in the media to crush opposition by demonizing and demagoguery. All they really want is power and they will ignore all lessons of history to obtain that power.

The Animal Farm of Social Justice

"An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy; because there is a limit beyond which no institution and no property can bear taxation." — John Marshall

After months of talk about the nation's runaway debt, lawmakers managed to agree on a plan that, at most, will cut spending by a mere 5%. Is it any wonder federal spending is out of control? According to IBD's analysis of available budget numbers, the deal's $2.4 trillion in 10-year cuts amounts to a mere 5% trim off total projected federal spending during that time. It's like a 400-pound man boasting that he plans to drop 20 pounds over a decade, while his doctors warn about the risks of losing weight so fast. Even calling these 'cuts' is a bit of a stretch, since spending will continue to increase, just at a slightly slower pace. By 2021, federal spending would still equal 22% of the nation's economy, above the post-World War II average of 20%. Not really a cut, is it? Plus, in the short term, these 'deep,' 'sharp,' 'slashing' cuts would still leave the federal government spending roughly 4% more in 2012 than it did in 2010, and 20% more than it did in 2008. Shorn of all the hyperbole, what this agreement really demonstrates is why it's so hard to get federal spending under control. Both sides routinely use budget gimmicks to exaggerate spending cuts, while armies of special interests swarm Washington to make sure their pet programs don't get touched. All the while, spending marches upward. And reporters too dumb, lazy or biased to understand how budgets work keep falling for this nonsense." — Investor's Business Daily.

A recent celebratory video showed a mildly content Obama applauding Congress for "compromising" by agreeing to raise the debt ceiling through the next election cycle in exchange for long-term spending cuts, but he went on to reiterate the need for the wealthy to chip in more than they have because "that's only fair."   Yes, the American people have twice rebuked his attempts to legislate tax hikes for the wealthy within the last year, and a multitude of economists have warned of the danger of any such legislation, and yet he still he clings to the notion with uncanny resolve.

Apparently, losing consecutive battles and his troops' morale will not deter him from fighting his war to increase taxes upon the rich.  But in preparation for the renewed offensives against the wealthy that Obama will undoubtedly launch in the coming months, perhaps we should just focus on simple facts to prove that raising taxes will yield utterly destructive economic results.

The left very rarely deviates from their standard talking points about the moral imperative of taxing the wealthy; like how the rich make "enough money" or that they "need to pay their fair share." But when they do, the argument usually goes something like this: taxing the rich more will yield more revenue for the federal coffers, and more money in the coffers means economic growth.  But this, their best argument of any substance, is little more than a dreadfully flawed assumption that does not take current global contexts into account.

In his monthly market forecast, Markus Schomer, Chief Economist for Pinebridge Investments, lets us in on some grim facts, assuring us that "spending cuts and tax increases will both hamper growth."  And he suggests that employing both of these tactics at once, which is the "balanced" approach Obama suggested two weeks ago in the White House, would likely result in the toxic economic scenario we've seen play out in the UK, "where drastic spending cuts and tax increases have pushed domestic demand back into recession."  A more proper solution, he describes, might be to achieve "credible long-term deficit reduction through spending caps and entitlement reform, but refrain from damaging domestic demand any further."

In 1948 George Orwell wrote his famous novel 1984 about a about a society ruled by an oligarchical dictatorship. For years I heard that this novel predicted a dictatorship of the right, when in fact it has turned out to be more descriptive of the left’s socialism and communism.

Orwell was a Fabian Socialist when he went to Spain to cover the Spanish Civil War in 1936. He became so disillusioned with Republican Left that he eschewed his Fabian beliefs for social democracy and in 1943 wrote his famous allegorical book, Animal Farm. The novel was not published for two years because the liberal Bloomsbury establishment did not want to offend the new Labor Party majority in London or Stalinist allies in Moscow.  After WWII, Orwell defended his fable, saying that his intention was to illustrate how easily otherwise intelligent people could be "misled by propaganda in a democracy” — in other words turned into useful idiots.

Political ideology in America has devolved to forms that would make Orwell cringe today: socialists (née Marxists) and democratic socialists (née Keynesians).  The former views government as an all-purpose solution and the latter views government as a "stimulator," a kind of economic and social Wizard of Oz.  The two are more alike than they are different.  The fatal flaw of both is the chronic inability of voters and their elected representatives to distinguish between wants and needs.  Elections are now confused with democracy, and the majority seldom votes for the common good — or their own best interests. 

Neither debt nor deficits are national security crises.  Both are just two symptoms of civic decline, a bloodless coup in slow motion.  The end may come slowly or catastrophically, but collapse seems inevitable.  And the solution isn't Democrats or Republicans; both parties are now "democratic" in name only.  Neither major party represents the will nor the best interests of the people.

Before the turn of the 21^st century, Francis Fukuyama wrote a provocative essay for National Interest where he argued that the fall of the Soviet Union represented the "end of (authoritarian) history" as we knew it and a triumph of "liberal democracy."  Fukuyama didn't have much to say about the advent of totalitarian Islamism or the spread of virulent socialism in the West.  Indeed, Frank might have been more candid had he called the 20^th century a triumph of "social," not liberal, democracy.  Fascists and old-school Communists may be gone, but socialism has metastasized in every Western democracy under the tutelage of "progressives."

Socialism, with the able assistance of Islamism, is now poised to do to Europe, the British Commonwealth, and America what Nazis, Fascists, and Communists could not.  The threat from social democrats may be more subtle than the naked aggression of Islamists, but the endgame might be the same.  The illusions of socialism and the worst instincts of democracy are now joined in a death spiral.

The fatal flaws of social democracy include but are not limited to promises that cannot possibly be kept; outlays that might always exceed income; the necessity for Orwellian mendacity; the absence of all moral hazards; and ultimately, a terminal erosion of the electoral process and democracy itself.

Social democracy is a kind of piñata politics, a system where special interests seek like-minded politicians who will cater to a host of creative dependencies.  Few distinctions are made between real needs and simple greed, or as Bastiat stated; “everyone plunders everyone”. Once established, most federal programs quickly outlive their usefulness.  Results become immaterial.

Once funded, the legislature might be lobbied by bureaucrats from within and beneficiaries from without.  Social democracy is a perpetual motion machine where the prime function of government is spare parts — spare parts for itself.  Mission statements for most social agencies are adorned with adjectival admonitions like "better" or "improved," yet few if any measures of effectiveness are ever established or enforced.  The "wars" on poverty, illiteracy, drugs, and terrorism and their associated federal departments are all examples of dismal, yet expensive failures.  The only function that most federal agencies do well is write checks — checks against funds which must be borrowed from folks that may not have our best interests at heart — like China.

The liberal or progressive proposal for solving the deficit/debt dilemma is "more of the same": tax and spend.  The strategy is aptly defined as "leading from behind."  Four in ten spending dollars must be borrowed today to keep America afloat.  Paul Krugman tells us we must spend now, cut later.  Later, unfortunately, never comes and never has.

The proper Orwellian state requires a language of euphemisms. Discretionary and non-discretionary spending are two of the best. The latter term is designed to protect sacred cows — as if any spending is ever "mandatory." Taxes are never taxes; words like "investments," investments that never pay, mask the pain. Keynesian deficit spending masquerades as "stimulus." If a stimulus package doesn't work, clearly it wasn't big enough. A corruption of language is necessary for any successful fraud. Deceit is a standard kit for grifters and social democrats.

The most egregious deception turns rhetoric and logic on their heads. Those who argue that spending should not exceed income are libeled as immature, radical, insensitive, and dangerous. Those who would end the spending bender are labeled as right-wing "nuts." Somehow a balanced budget threatens the future, full faith, and credit of America. In the bizarre world of social democracy, all facts and logic are subverted by compulsive spending and fiscal deficit disorders. Blaming the thrifty for impending default is a little like blaming fire on the alarm.

There are no moral hazards in the world of social democrats.  Indeed, government is not required to produce goods, nor does it necessarily deliver services.  In spite of decades of Keynesian stimulus, government at all levels has become a net consumer, not a creator of wealth.  And most programs and departments are vampires, they cannot be killed.  Failure always looms, yet there are no penalties for poor performance.  No-fault politics is a value that crosses party lines.  Of 15 cabinet departments, six have been in default for decades.  All are immune to reform or the axe.

Consider just three: Defense, Welfare, and Education.  America has waged a host of wars since WWII.  Few have been unambiguous successes.  Indeed, among four ongoing wars in the Muslim world, the word "victory" is the most notable casualty.  At home, two cabinet departments now service the welfare state.  Even progressives argue that misguided federal largess has created a host of pathologies and dependencies that never existed before the advent of the "nanny" state.  And American education is a domestic and international joke.  The technology sector, that is supposed to be America's economic salvation, must go abroad to India and China to find qualified employees.

Walter Williams writes in Capitalism Magazine:

“Blacks and Hispanics, especially blacks, are the most politically loyal people in the nation. It's often preached and taken as gospel that the only way black people can progress is through racial politics and government programs, but how true is that? Let's look at it.

In 1940, poverty among black families was 87 percent and fell to 47 percent by 1960. Would someone tell me what anti-poverty program or civil-rights legislation accounted for this economic advance that exceeded any other 20-year interval? A significant chunk of that progress occurred through migration from rural areas in the South to big Northern cities. Between 1960 and 1980, black poverty fell roughly 17 percent and fell one percent during the '70s. Might this have been a continuation of a trend starting much earlier, or was it a miracle of the civil-rights movement or President Johnson's War on Poverty?

Dr. Thomas Sowell's research points out that in various skilled trades, the incomes of blacks relative to whites more than doubled between 1936 and 1959. What's more, the rise of blacks in professional and other high-level occupations was greater during the five years preceding the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than the five years afterward.

In 1940, 86 percent of black children were born inside marriage, and the illegitimacy rate among blacks was about 15 percent. Today, 31 percent of black children are born inside marriage, and the illegitimacy rate hovers around 70 percent.”

In the 18th century, the founding fathers restricted the voting franchise to the landed gentry — those who had a stake in the society. The idea was to restrict governance to the successful and accomplished citizens. If nothing else, successful and enterprising men were thought to serve as role models. No one anticipated a 20th-century oligarchy of venal lawyer/politicians without term limits.

It was John Adams who wrote in 1776 that no good could come from enfranchising more Americans:

“Depend upon it, Sir, it is dangerous to open so fruitful a source of controversy and altercation as would be opened by attempting to alter the qualifications of voters; there will be no end to it. New claims will arise; women will demand the vote; lads from 12 to 21 will think their rights not enough attended to; and every man who has not a farthing, will demand an equal voice with any other, in all acts of state. It tends to confound and destroy all distinctions, and prostrate all ranks to one common level.”

Like the wise men of 5th-century Athens, early American political philosophers were aware that even a representative republic could be hijacked -- where cupidity and self-interest could thrive at the expense of the common good. It's no accident that the word "democracy" does not appear in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution.

The original vision of an entrepreneurial, capitalist republic has devolved now to a social democratic nightmare where government programs actually suffocate initiative and enterprise. Literal, and figurative, industry is now vilified from the Oval Office. At the local level, especially in urban areas, social democrats thrive in dysfunctional, one-party towns. These urban blights cannot afford incompetence, even; it must be subsidized.

Fifty percent of the population pays no income taxes, but they do have the vote. This constituency has no skin in the game except, maybe, to collect a government check. There's no incentive for fiscal prudence when deadbeats can be bought with other people's money.

Today we have an oligarchy comprised of the political elite, the left wing media, the wealthy in the entertainment industry and the corporate internationalist like George Soros and Jeffrey Immelt. These are the people, like the pigs in Animal Farm have learned to walk on two legs and believe that all pigs are equal, but some pigs are more equal.

The American crisis was not created by reformers or conservatives. It was created by a bovine electorate and a porcine federal government — a horrible model that actually cultivates social pathologies for political purposes. More than four out of ten dollars spent by Washington must be borrowed to finance what now amounts to an American "Animal Farm." Indeed, George! The pigs have taken over again. Napoleon and Squealer are back!