War? What War?

Last week an arrest was made. One of thousands, to be sure. This one was different though; it was the only one reported that was in direct response to a terrorist plot on US soil. Even more disturbing was the revelation that three other terrorist plots have been foiled in the last month alone. With just the information available to the public, there have been a total of 27 separate terrorist plots on Americans foiled since 9/11. On average, over three a year.

Now, if three a year does not sound like that much to you, let's play a game of "what if". What if... two-thirds of these attacks had been carried out successfully? What if... those successful attacks were only two thirds as effective (devastating) as the 9/11 attacks? Doing the math, that comes out to approximately 4,000 dead Americans, PER YEAR. The death toll for 2002 - 2009 would be 32,000. Not to mention the disastrous effects on our economy.

Obviously, with four plots foiled in the last month, our Country is still in danger. Not only is there the potential for an attack on the US, terrorist are working hard to make it happen. But the White House decided it did not like the sound of a "War on Terror"; so they stopped using the term. The White House decided that they might not approve of the methods being used to keep us safe; so they ordered an investigation into CIA personnel. Heroes of our country that were doing an unpleasant job to save American lives, and following orders.

Mr Obama has gone on a world tour bashing US policies and actions that were undertaken in order to keep Americans safe. Policies that have been a resounding success. There has not been an attack on American soil since 9/11; and with 27 known attempts in eight years, they are obviously still trying.

So far, Mr. Obama has chastised and tried to bully our allies in Israel; he has betrayed or allies in eastern Europe; he has refused to address a soon to be nuclear Iran, and refused to even voice support for dissidents in that country crying out for freedom; he has ignored North Korea as they test their new nuclear weapons. All the while, reaching out the hand of friendship and understanding to the dictators of the world.

Bottom line? The President is trying to negotiate with everyone without the will to back up his position with force. He is trying diplomacy from a position of weakness, with people that have no respect for weakness. They will walk all over you if you are not willing to defend yourself.

Now, the President is delaying a much needed decision to deploy more troops to Afghanistan. Further portraying an image of weakness and indecisiveness to the world. Yesterday, the President defended his actions by saying that he would not "rush" to a decision. It has already been weeks since the request was made for more troops and the Press Secretary announced yesterday that it would probably be weeks before a decision was made. Rush, Mr President? Do you think General McChrystal "rushed" into his recommendation? Do you not think he and his staff have been examining this issue for months before coming to you asking for more troops?

Mr. President, the first priority of your job above all others is to keep America safe. A job your predecessor, while far from perfect, did remarkably well. You are surrounded by people that are very good at keeping this Country safe; Generals, CIA, FBI, NSA. Let them do their job Mr. President and listen to their advice. Debate with them in private if necessary, but to the world Mr. President.... To the world,we need to appear unified in purpose, strong, able to make the hard decisions, and willing to defend this great Country at all costs.

An Amoral Country

When this great Country was formed, the Founding Fathers placed a great deal of significance on the value, and necessity, of leadership and government based on virtue and morality. Specifically, since they were an overwhelmingly reverent, Christian group, virtue and morality based upon a religious code and value system. With few exceptions, these principles were adhered to by both Presidents and Congress for the first 150 years of the Great Experiment.

During the Great Depression, and more specifically with FDR, the Federal Government stopped adhering to a standard of morality and started imposing their will under the guise of "taking care of the needy". The historical reality of FDR's policies and public building projects and all the other things he tried to end the Depression, is that were largely massive failures. The only decision FDR made that helped our economy was when he finally entered the war; and the Japanese bullied him into that.

What FDR did achieve was establishing a mentality among Americans that the Government was there to take care of them. If I need food, I can go to the Government. If I need a place to live, I can go to the Government. If I do not want to take care of my retirement, the Government will do it. It started out slowly; just little incremental changes in how people saw their relationship with Government. What used to be a fall back position has turned into an expectation and a "right". I have the "right" to health care. I have the "right" to a job. It is my basic "right" to be fed. The list of "rights" that US citizens now claim is extensive and no where to be found in the Constitution.

I discussed the basic morality problem of this attitude in my previous post, and included a great segment from Walter Williams clarifying the point. The basic premise is that it is not possible for the government to provide a single service without taking something from someone else. The Government does not generate income; it's coffers are filled through only one method. Taxation. In order for them to provide Citizen B with food, shelter, health care, etc, they must confiscate the funds for this "right" from Citizen A. The Government is nothing more than an intermediary with a gun. The "provider" is the productive citizen that has been taxed. What would be theft in the private sector is acceptable for Government.

The rise of the entitlement attitude has been accompanied by the decline of religious influence in Government. Somewhere over this same 50-60 year period the Constitution has been reinterpreted as it pertains to religion. The prevailing opinion and belief is that the Founding Fathers put in an exclusion of religion from Government; a "Separation of Church and State." What it actually says is this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. (Amendment I to the Constitution for the United States).

What it actually says is that Congress cannot establish a State Religion; they cannot say that the Country is now Christian, or Muslim, or whatever, and that as a citizen you are required to adhere to the established State religion. It actually promotes the principle of Religious practice by the Governed by refusing to limit the "free exercise" of religion.

Somehow this has turned into the banning of all religious activities on public property and a general animosity towards things "religious" by the Government. More specifically, anything Christian. For some reason there is an unwillingness to permit a demonstration of Christian values and beliefs in a Country that is still overwhelmingly Christian.

The reality is that most moral codes are a result of adherence to a religious principle. It is a factual statement to say that the laws of this Country and the values of its Founders were firmly grounded in a Judeo-Christian belief system. The scary part is that they seem to have foresaw, among other things, a time when we would lose our moral compass and start to exclude religion. Read these quotes, it is amazing how applicable they are to today's world:

Statesmen my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand....The only foundation of a free Constitution, is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People, in a great Measure, than they have it now, They may change their Rulers, and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty. John Adams

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness. George Washington

Reading, reflection and time have convinced me that the interests of society require the observation of those moral precepts...in which all religions agree. Thomas Jefferson

[W]here is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation deserts the oaths...? George Washington

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. John Adams

{All quotes obtained from The Patriot Post, where full credits are provided}

Powerful words from insightful men. The last one from Adams is particularly timely and somewhat frightening. Are we naive enough to think we have moved past this thinking? Are we truly ignorant to the effects of avarice and ambition on our current economy and Government? Do we honestly think we can move past that without a strong moral and religious code to guide us?

As he emerged from the Continental Congress Benjamin Franklin was asked what kind of Government had been formed. His famous reply was " a Republic, if you can keep it." Can we keep it? If we are the virtues and morality, which I believe still exist, of the people are going to have to win out. We have to be heard by the politicians. We cannot allow them to set our moral compass for us, they have already taken us far off course.

By What Right?

By what right and authority does our government pursue it's current policy objectives? The laws, policies and expenditures of our current Congress raise some significant questions into the limits of their authority.
When a governing body undertakes a course of action, it must have a legal or moral authority to undertake said action. In a Monarchy, or Dictatorship, that authority exist solely at the whim of the leader, who holds absolute power. In a Communistic government, such as China, it resides primarily with the Politburo, backed by the military. Again, at their sole discretion without any input from the populace.
The Government of the United States was established by our Founders by the Constitution. This well constructed document clearly defines the structure of our Federal Government (as an aside: it is a Republic, not a Democracy). It established three distinct branches with separate powers and a system of checks and balances. Any legal authority for a course of action is defined by this Constitution for the United States of America.
The power to make law has been assigned to the Congress. The powers of the Congress are defined in Article I, Section 8. These powers are clearly and succinctly listed without leaving much room for interpretation. Based on this list of 18 powers granted to the Congress, there is absolutely no legal authority for actions taken this year by Congress. There is nothing about taking over banks or other businesses; nothing concerning providing health care at the taxpayer expense.
Actually there is very little that the Congress has done in the last fifty years that has any legal basis in the Constitution at all. When did legality stop being a criteria for lawmaking?
Now, when clearly lacking the legal authority to pass laws, many are arguing that Congress retains a Moral Obligation to pass certain laws fro the benefit of certain citizens. We must feed the hungry; we must provide housing for the homeless; everyone should have health care; every artist should have funding; and so on ad nauseam. The problem with this philosophy is that in order to meet this obligation to care for one group of people, it is necessary to take something from another.
Dr. Walter Williams is a Professor of Economics at George Mason University and a nationally syndicated columnist (read him every chance you get, fantastic stuff). He explains the concept of out of control government, the advantages of free markets, and the concept give and take noted above, in a recent speech he gave (transcript). His explanations are concise and easy to understand as well as being historically and factually accurate. His brilliant explanation of the problem with big government follows:

Again, the primary justification for increasing the size and scale of government at the expense of liberty is that government can achieve what it perceives as good. But government has no resources of its own with which to do so. Congressmen and senators don't reach into their own pockets to pay for a government program. They reach into yours and mine. Absent Santa Claus or the tooth fairy, the only way government can give one American a dollar in the name of this or that good thing is by taking it from some other American by force. If a private person did the same thing, no matter how admirable the motive, he would be arrested and tried as a thief. That is why I like to call what Congress does, more often than not, "legal theft." The question we have to ask ourselves is whether there is a moral basis for forcibly taking the rightful property of one person and giving it to another to whom it does not belong. I cannot think of one. Charity is noble and good when it involves reaching into your own pocket. But reaching into someone else's pocket is wrong.

In a free society, we want the great majority, if not all, of our relationships to be voluntary. I like to explain a voluntary exchange as a kind of non-amorous seduction. Both parties to the exchange feel good in an economic sense. Economists call this a positive sum gain. For example, if I offer my local grocer three dollars for a gallon of milk, implicit in the offer is that we will both be winners. The grocer is better off because he values the three dollars more than the milk, and I am better off because I value the milk more than the three dollars. That is a positive sum gain. Involuntary exchange, by contrast, means that one party gains and the other loses. If I use a gun to steal a gallon of milk, I win and the grocer loses. Economists call this a zero sum gain. And we are like that grocer in most of what Congress does these days.

Some will respond that big government is what the majority of voters want, and that in a democracy the majority rules. But America's Founders didn't found a democracy, they founded a republic. The authors of The Federalist Papers, arguing for ratification of the Constitution, showed how pure democracy has led historically to tyranny. Instead, they set up a limited government, with checks and balances, to help ensure that the reason of the people, rather than the selfish passions of a majority, would hold sway. Unaware of the distinction between a democracy and a republic, many today believe that a majority consensus establishes morality. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Another common argument is that we need big government to protect the little guy from corporate giants. But a corporation can't pick a consumer's pocket. The consumer must voluntarily pay money for the corporation's product. It is big government, not corporations, that have the power to take our money by force. I should also point out that private business can force us to pay them by employing government. To see this happening, just look at the automobile industry or at most corporate farmers today. If General Motors or a corporate farm is having trouble, they can ask me for help, and I may or may not choose to help. But if they ask government to help and an IRS agent shows up at my door demanding money, I have no choice but to hand it over. It is big government that the little guy needs protection against, not big business. And the only protection available is in the Constitution and the ballot box. (Walter E Williams)

What many consider to be the moral obligations of our government are the very activities that used to be managed very well at the local level; and most times still are. Feeding the hungry and clothing the needy are tasks that are performed everyday around the country by local civic and religious organizations. They do it very well, and it is all voluntary with very little of the waste and corruption that accompanies a government program. Somewhere over the course of the last century (really since WWII) there has been a movement for the federal government to take over what has traditionally been a local government and charitable enterprise. Now, what was before voluntary and charitable has become forced.

Is that the Country our Founding Fathers envisioned? Is that the role of our Government? Have we become a nation so devoid of morality that we approve of the actions of this Congress? Unfortunately, it appears so.

It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World

What used to qualify as insanity has become normal. What the media used to abhor just last year they now fawn over. What used to be ridiculed is now overlooked and excused. Just an overview of the highlights of this year:

• The Obama administration disregards the principles of the Constitution and the values of Capitalism by taking ownership of major banking establishments under the guise of "stimulating" the economy and saving the industry from failing. An industry, by the way, that was in such sorry condition due to previous government intervention.
• Using the same logic as above, the Obama administration takes ownership, or gives it to the unions, of major auto manufacturers. Once again, there is no constitutional basis for this action, nothing legal; yet the media acts like the three monkeys.
• Our President, the leader and voice of our Country, goes on a world tour and proceeds to tell the world that we are the bad guys. He clearly states his opinion that the prior actions and positions of the USA were wrong; that our foreign policy positions are changing to be more in line with those Countries we have opposed. Plain and simple, he announced a policy of a weaker America.
• Along those lines, he betrays the trust of our Eastern European allies by canceling our commitment to a missile defense system.
• Together with the Democratic leaders of Congress, the Obama Administration has put forth a tremendous initiative to take over another major portion of the US economy: Health care. What started as a campaign promise to insure all Americans turned into an effort to control the entire health care system: possibly the single largest portion of our economy. Seems to be a trend here....
• The State of California is in a complete fiscal tailspin. This is important to the current comments for one very significant reason: California has long been the role model for a Liberal utopia. They have done everything in the liberal playbook: They have some of the highest taxes in the country on high income individuals and businesses; they cater to every minority from Hispanics to gays; they provide more "services" on the government dime than anyone; their environmental regulations are excessively restrictive and damaging to businesses; and on and on and on.... And it is all falling apart! The tax revenues have not been able to keep up with the promises made by the government, and collections are decreasing. Businesses are deserting the State for more favorable environments, individuals are moving out, services are not being delivered. It is a colossal mess and a perfect example of the unsustainable nature of liberal policies.
• After announcing his foreign policy stance of Diplomacy through Weakness, Mr. Obama is rewarded by being made the head of the UN Security Council. Brilliant! What a statement. Since it;s inception the UN has been an anti-democracy, anti-capitalism organization. This announcement confirms their position of opposing freedom and strength.
• Today we have the greatest Federal budget deficits in the history of our Country; by any standard you care to measure it. (And to be completely fair - The Bush Administration policies did lead to some of this. I did not like their domestic policies either). And it is getting worse, not better. This administration and Congress continue to push for more government services, more "stimulus packages", more takeovers (you did hear they wanted to take over all student loans, and thereby all Universities), more taxes. All of which follows the failed pattern of Socialism the world over; And right at home. See the diatribe on California above.
  
• And as an aside.... Global Warming appears to be officially dead. All of the trends are showing lower temperatures across the board. Not to worry though: the Administration and Congress are still going to try and get Cap and Trade legislation though next year. Not that it will have any effect on the environment, it will just further restrict businesses ability to compete, therefore reducing profits, which reduce taxes paid, which increases the deficits, etc, etc, etc.
• This list could go on for pages, but possibly the most ludicrous event so far since the election of this President.... They gave him a Nobel Peace Prize. I am not sure I even know how to respond to that. The only thing that comes to min is...WHY? What is the criteria for this reward? A deep, passionate belief in Socialism and national weakness? Even the international media could not believe it and recognize that the award has become nothing more than politics. You should know it is bad thing when Castro gives it an 'attaboy.

The sum total of all of this is extremely frightening. The results of the policies and decision of this President are a militarily, diplomatically and economically weaker United States of America. Is this the change you were expecting? It should have been.