The Empire Strikes Back

As everyone should know by now, Obama has requested that his supporters forward the email addresses and web sites of his opponents to flag@WhiteHouse.gov so that the government can ... enlighten them.

So ... on August 9, 2009, I felt it was my civic duty to report my own little web site, which gets about five visitors a day and has never been mentioned by any newspaper or website. I sent the following message to the new White House snitch address:

I think you may agree that, in the long run, the greatest danger to Mr. Obama's goals to transform America could be the words and the ideas originating from the author of the web site www.LeeroyFDermit.com.

Apparently the White House agreed! Just four days later, my site was one of a handful targeted by the New York Times!

The NYT article was entitled Godwin’s Law Comes to the Town Halls, and it attempts to prove that millions of Americans are making unsubstantiated associations between Obama (or Democrats) and Nazi’s or Hitler, that they are motivated by racism, and that racism is also the driving force behind the dissenters in the town halls.

As evidence, it cites my dispassionate intellectual article that primarily defines Fascism. My article also makes a secondary point about the fascist tendencies of the Democrats, but it does not compare anyone to Nazi’s or Hitler.

Perhaps the NYT didn’t notice that I wrote my article on April 3^rd – four months before the town halls began. The NYT apparently also didn’t notice that there was nothing racist in my article or anywhere else on my site.

Could this attack by the NYT be a coincidence? Could the NYT really believe that my undiscovered site somehow proves something about the beliefs of millions of Americans who have not yet discovered it?

Are we supposed to believe that the NYT author did a Google search for “Obama fascism OR Nazi”, which returned 10,100,000 web pages, and then after reviewing millions of pages, decided that my site was one of the best examples to prove his main thesis?

Astronomically unlikely.

Or… could it be that the White House used the NYT in what it thought was a smart move against a dissenter? Did the most powerful government in the world, use the most powerful newspaper in the world, to attack the least powerful blogger in the world?

Yeah. That’s not fascism.

Feel…

 the power …

of the Dark Side.

The Individual Rights Amendment

Given that the Supreme Court is so reluctant to recognize individual rights, and given the modern confusion about what is and is not a right, I propose a new Freedom Amendment, which I am calling The Individual Rights Amendment.

This amendment in no way restricts the behavior of individuals or organizations of individuals. It only restricts the behavior of governments.

It remedies the authoritarianism of both the left and the right.

The Individual Rights Amendment

This article in no way restricts the behavior of individuals or organizations of individuals. It only restricts the behavior of governments.

A right in this article is a protection of the individual from the power of the government.

An individual in this article is anyone who is a sentient being.

All organizations of individuals whose entire membership has the rights in this article shall also have the rights in this article.

A right shall never compel any individual or organization of individuals to forfeit its time or the fruit’s of its labor.

If any living thing is non-sentient, then it is property and has no rights.

The Congress and the states shall not violate, regulate, restrict, favor, or interfere with the rights of any individual.

Any individual who agrees to this article shall have:

The right to:

• Keep the fruits of one’s labor
• Defend one’s rights
• Own and use land
• Own, trade, and manufacture any individually operated weapon
• Create, join, and train militias
• Consume any substance
• Create and join organizations of individuals

The right to:

• Live
• Die
• Trade
• Reproduce
• Parent
• Enter contracts
• Compete
• Travel
• Relocate one’s residence
• Speak
• Create Art
• Distribute speech and art
• Worship
• Learn
• Explore
• Play
• Dissent
• Opt out
• Secede
• Assemble
• Withhold identity
• Withhold personal information
• Own multiple identities

The right to:

• Associate with any individual
• Avoid any individual
• Offend any individual
• Love any individual
• Hate any individual
• Vote for any individual
• Marry any individuals

The Future of Rights

The 9^th Amendment says:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

All of the rights in the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments) protect the individual from the power of government, and the 9^th amendment is clearly intended to empower the Supreme Court to recognize additional protections of the individual from the power of government. For example, the Supreme Court has recognized a right to privacy and a right to abortion, and it may someday recognize a right to anonymity and a freedom of association. A freedom of association would prevent the government from telling us with whom we must or must not associate.

For reasons unknown to me, the Supreme Court never actually bases any decisions on the 9^th amendment, but I predict that will change. I predict that the justices appointed by Barack Obama will use the 9^th amendment to actually expand the power of government.

Consider that Democrats are claiming that free health care is a right.

If you are familiar with the Bill of Rights, then you should immediately conclude that a right to health care is fundamentally different than all of the other rights in the Bill of Rights. Whereas, a right is a protection from the power of government, free health care requires government to either force doctors to serve us, or it requires government to force us to pay enough taxes to persuade doctors to cooperate.

Forcing doctors to serve us is too obviously a form of slavery, but forcibly taking the fruits of one man’s labor and giving it to a doctor to persuade him to serve another man is less obvious.

If someone else has a right to the fruits of your labor, then you do not have a right to the fruits of your own labor. How can someone else have a greater right to the fruits of your labor than you do? How is that not a kind of slavery?

Clearly, any right that requires the confiscation of the fruits of anyone’s labor; whether a doctor or a taxpayer, is not a right at all.

Understanding the US Constitution

(This article has been revised. It was originally posted 1/12/08 9:53 PM)

The US Constitution defined a union of the states by creating a government over the whole union and by granting specific powers to that government. It also lists some rights of every individual. Of course, everyone knows this much.

Knowing that the Constitution lists powers of the government and lists some rights of individuals, one should wonder whether it grants the government the power to make any law that does not violate one of those individual rights it lists, or whether it reserves all rights and powers to the people except for those powers it explicitly grants to the government.

Which interpretation sounds like that of the courts and the media today?

Which interpretation sounds like the kind of country you would prefer to live in?

Fortunately, the Constitution directly resolves the issue by stating that any powers not explicitly granted to the government are reserved to the states or to the people.

The 10^th Amendment says:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The 9^th Amendment says:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Unfortunately, the courts do not use the 9^th Amendment and rarely use the 10^th Amendment. I am aware of a few instances where the Republicans have begun using the 10^th Amendment, but Democrats still seem to universally oppose it.

The 9^th and 10^th Amendments are part of the Bill of Rights, which was added to the Constitution three years after the Constitutional Convention so that the people would be willing to ratify it. The reason no individual rights were listed in the original version of the Constitution was because it was already universally accepted that the people had those rights and more, that future generations would also understand this, and that the Constitution simply did not grant sufficient power to the government to violate individual rights.

Background

The Constitution was created at a time when the United States was essentially an Anarchy – at the federal level anyway. The US government that preceded the one created by the Constitution had been created by the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, which granted the power to print money, negotiate treaties, and, well, that’s about it. Then again, that was sufficient for the US to defeat the world’s super power – Great Britain.

To be fair, wars at that time were somewhat gentlemanly. This was before the concept of “total war” was introduced in the modern era by Abraham Lincoln and the Union Army. Great Britain could have probably won, but was not willing to kill civilians and destroy American cities, roads, homes, dams, factories, communications, etc. just to maintain control over the colonies. This is why Great Britain lost (when the states declared independence) and why Lincoln won (when the Southern states declared independence).

Therefore, the Articles of Confederation were not tested in the context of “total war” (or weapons of mass destruction either). However, they were tested in the context of maintaining the rule of law in America after the revolution, and the US government seemed too weak to many people. Therefore, each state sent representatives to draft a Constitution which would replace the Articles of Confederation and create a federal government with enough powers to maintain the rule of law.

So…

How did the US government become the omnipotent force that claims the right to do, … well …, just about anything to anyone?

The Preamble

The Constitution was presented with a one-sentence sales pitch called the preamble:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Whereas, the Constitution itself exists in 8 separate “Articles” (chapters), the preamble has no designated location within the Constitution. In other words, it is not article one. Nor does it explicitly claim to be part of the Constitution.

The entire preamble consists of one sentence, which says that the authors believed that their act of creating the Constitution (to Replace the Articles of Confederation) was an act that would “form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity.”

The authors were not saying that the government would accomplish these very general goals. The authors were saying that they themselves were accomplishing these very general goals by limiting the power of government to only those specific powers granted in the Constitution. In other words, the way to accomplish these very general goals is through freedom, and thus one way to fail to achieve these goals would be to create a powerful government.

The Constitution promotes the general welfare by limiting government.

Whether or not anyone considers the preamble to be a part of US law (like the Constitution), is irrelevant because – unlike the Constitution – it does not actually grant any powers to the government. When the Constitution grants a power to the federal government, it quite clearly states “The Congress shall have the power to …”, and the powers themselves are usually very specific, e.g. “To provide and maintain a Navy”. (Note that the Congress has no power “to provide and maintain” an army. It only has the more limited power to “call forth the Militia”.

The preamble is important to mention because the founders apparently did not foresee that today some Americans (e.g. Democrats) would be such strong advocates of big government, so willing to ignore historical precedent, and so generally dishonest, that they would claim the preamble (all by itself) grants vague and sweeping powers to the government to achieve those goals listed in the preamble, which the founders hoped would be achieved primarily by limiting government.

I think “promote the general welfare” is their favorite. Therefore, when the Democrats take money from some people and give it to others, they refer to this practice as “welfare” in an attempt to imply that it is somehow authorized by the Constitution. In fact, I have observed partisan journalists and Democratic politicians argue that this practice is not merely authorized by the Constitution, but that it is mandated by the Constitution.

Let’s now examine all of the powers granted to the Congress by the Constitution.

Article 1, Section 8

I have included the entire text of Article 1 Section 8, which contains all of the powers granted to Congress by the Constitution:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Using its Monopoly to expand its Monopoly

Like the preamble, Article 1 of the Constitution itself has a few sentences that are rather clear in intent, but whose wording is not sufficiently careful to prevent politicians from claiming that it means something else.

For some reason, politicians always interpret the Constitution to grant more power, rather than less power, to the government. Did I mention that most politicians are lawyers? The government thus uses its monopoly on the power to make, enforce, and interpret laws – to expand its monopoly power.

The Necessary Powers Clause

The final power in section 8 is highly vulnerable to politicians because it grants Congress the power, “To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers …”. Now consider that these “foregoing powers” are few and specific, and thus this “necessary powers” clause is actually quite limited. In fact, the necessary powers clause adds no power at all, because the Congress obviously has the power to make laws to carry into execution its explicit Constitutional powers. The necessary powers clause actually reduces the powers granted to the Congress because it requires that such laws also be both necessary and proper.

Today the “necessary powers” clause is often interpreted as the power to make any law that Congress claims is necessary and proper, but obviously, such an interpretation would give Congress almost unlimited power. Clearly, the founders, with their well known fear of government and love of freedom, would never have explicitly granted such unlimited power to Congress, but even if we did not know the intent of the founders, we can easily defeat the modern fascist interpretation by noting the that the Congress only has the power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper “for carrying into execution the foregoing powers.”

The Commerce Clause

Perhaps the most abused clause in section 8 is the power: “To regulate commerce … among the several states …”. The “commerce clause” is interpreted today as granting Congress absolute power to control, confiscate, or ban any portable object because portable objects could potentially cross a state border. Also, Congress now claims absolute power to control any object or personal behavior that could be construed to have an impact on the economy (commerce). Such an interpretation gives Congress almost unlimited power.

Clearly, the founders, with their well known fear of government and love of freedom, would never have explicitly granted such unlimited power to Congress, but even if we did not know the intent of the founders, any honest person would have to admit that the commerce clause only grants Congress the power to resolve commerce disputes between the states.

The Power to Tax

Another power in section 8 that is vulnerable to politicians is the first one, which says:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

So why does the power to tax even mention the “general welfare”?

The power to tax mentions the “general welfare” because taxes were considered evil back then, and thus without the explicit power to tax, the people might have demanded that the Congress exercise its powers using donations. However, in addition to providing for the general welfare by limiting government and thus protecting the people from the power of government, the Constitution also provides for the general welfare by granting a few necessary powers to Congress, and the power to taxes would guarantee that the Congress was able to carry into execution those few powers granted by the Constitution. Therefore, the founders added a sales pitch about how taxes would enable the Congress to pay debt, and exercise its few explicit powers, which defending the United states, and providing for the general welfare. Taxes were thus sold as a necessary evil.

Clearly, the founders, with their well known fear of government and love of freedom, would never have explicitly granted Congress the power to “provide for the general welfare” because that would have given Congress unlimited power.

Also, consider that the modern interpretation of the “general welfare of the United States” is that it means the “general welfare of the people”, but the Constitution always clearly distinguished between “the people”, “the states”, and “the United States”. Therefore, this sales pitch about “the general welfare of the United States” must be referring to the maintenance of the federal government and not to directly helping individuals.

The 9^th Amendment

The 9^th Amendment says:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

All of the rights in the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments) protect the individual from the power of government, and the 9^th amendment is clearly intended to empower the Supreme Court to recognize additional protections of the individual from the power of government. For example, the Supreme Court has recognized a right to privacy and a right to abortion, and it may someday recognize a right to anonymity and a freedom of association. A freedom of association would prevent the government from telling us with whom we must or must not associate.

For reasons unknown to me, the Supreme Court never actually bases any decisions on the 9^th amendment, but I predict that will change. I predict that the justices appointed by Barack Obama will use the 9^th amendment to actually expand the power of government.

Consider that Democrats are claiming that free health care is a right.

If you are familiar with the Bill of Rights, then you should immediately conclude that a right to health care is fundamentally different than all of the other rights in the Bill of Rights. Whereas, a right is a protection from the power of government, free health care requires government to either force doctors to serve us, or it requires government to force us to pay enough taxes to persuade doctors to cooperate.

Forcing doctors to serve us is too obviously a form of slavery, but forcibly taking the fruits of one man’s labor and giving it to a doctor to persuade him to serve another man is less obvious.

If someone else has a right to the fruits of your labor, then you do not have a right to the fruits of your own labor. How can someone else have a greater right to the fruits of your labor than you do? How is that not a kind of slavery?

Clearly, any right that requires the confiscation of the fruits of anyone’s labor; whether a doctor or a taxpayer, is not a right at all.

Why do we care?

Clearly, the founders, with their well known fear of government and love of freedom, would never have explicitly granted Congress the power to “promote the general welfare” or to make “any law” that Congress claimed was “necessary and proper”, because either would have given Congress absolute power. However, this is exactly the interpretation I hear from the more fascist, progressive, or leftist members of the Democratic Party. Why do they want the Congress to have absolute power anyway? Could they really fear and hate so many of their fellow Americans so much?

In addition to the necessary-but-evil power to tax, section 8 lists all of the specific powers granted to Congress (another necessary evil), which are the means by which the Congress can "provide for the common defense and general welfare". In other words, the Constitution promotes the general welfare by creating a congress with these few specific powers, and more importantly, by limiting the Congress to only these few specific powers. To a large extent: The Constitution promotes the general welfare by limiting government.

The modern interpretation of these the Constitution grants unlimited power to the Congress except for those few rights clearly stated in the Bill of Rights, and of course those rights are subject to the interpretation of the Supreme Court, who are appointed by a politician. Such an interpretation obviously contradicts Article 1, the 9^th and 10^th amendments, and the intent of the founders.

Perhaps some Constitutional Amendments are needed to fix these clauses and protect us from the authoritarian left. Until then, educating people about the reality of the Constitution is the only antidote for misinterpretation.

The Promise of Reality is Freedom.

Apologizing for Slavery

(This article has been revised. It was originally posted 6/6/07 6:46 PM)

I originally wrote this article on June 6th, 2007 when the governor of Arkansas expressed doubt that an apology for slavery was needed, and then today on June 19th, 2009, a nearly empty US Senate chamber unanimously apologized to all African Americans on behalf of the people of the United States for slavery and segregation.

In a future article I will address the topic of discrimination, but this article limits the discussion to the question of what is owed to the descendants of slaves solely as a direct result of slavery itself - and not as a result of subsequent injustices, such as Jim Crow laws. I leave open the possibility that subsequent injustices merit reparation and/or apology.

Of course, everyone knows that no one alive today was a slave or a slave owner, and that no one alive today ever knew anyone who was a slave or a slave owner. Nevertheless, I suppose if you buy the tenuous argument that the United States "government of the people" today is the same "government of the people" as in 1792 (even though none of "the people" are the same), then that government should apologize to those people who were slaves. Note that such an argument would not merit an apology to any individuals who are the descendants of slaves nor would merit an apology by the descendants of slaves owners. Only that government would be apologizing and only to those individuals who actually were slaves.

Certainly an apology now will in no way benefit those individuals who were slaves.

Some have argued that the government, or the descendants of slaves owners, or all white people … owe something more than an apology to the descendants of slaves - specifically as a result of slavery.

Given that slave labor created wealth – all of which was stolen by slave owners, I would argue that the slave owners owed all of that wealth to the slaves and their descendants; however, consider that all of that wealth has long since been spent, lost, or wasted, but more importantly, that America paid a huge price to free the slaves that was greater than all the wealth created by slave labor. Therefore, tenuous arguments trying to trace present wealth to slave labor are pointless because America has no net wealth created by slaves that survived the Civil War.

Let us never forget the true cost to free the slaves. 650,000 Americans died. The economies of the North and the South were diverted to war mobilization, and the cities, infrastructure, and wealth of the Confederate nation were destroyed. To add insult to injury, some slaves actually fought for the South! Did I mention that many of those 650,000 Americans died to free those slaves? Why didn't the slaves ever flee or rebel in numbers approaching every other time and place where humans were enslaved?

So given that there is no wealth (created by slave labor) to distribute to the descendants of slaves, the only remaining question of what is owed to their descendants (solely because of slavery) is determined by whether their descendants have experienced a net loss as a result of the enslavement of their ancestors - by whether they would rather be Africans or Americans today.

If any descendants of slaves genuinely believed that the enslavement of their ancestors was a net loss for themselves, then they would have moved to Africa – but they have not. They much prefer to be in America. In fact, the people of Africa and every other land have been trying desperately to come here for a long time, but the descendants of slaves are already here.

Clearly, those who have profited most from slavery in America are the descendants of slaves themselves.

On the other hand, some claim that the reason the descendants of American slavery prefer to stay in America is because American and European slavery set Africa back hundreds of years by removing a significant percentage of its healthy young people from about 1700 to 1820, and that without this loss, Africa would be as advanced as any nation on earth today. Of course, we know this claim is baseless because African cultures never embraced democracy and free markets; whereas, countries like Japan went from losing a war to becoming rich nations in less than 50 years after changing their culture to embrace the American and European concepts of democracy and free markets.

On a related note, consider that the traditional African cultures embraced superstition rather than science, democracy, and free markets, and that the slaves brought this culture to America with them and passed it down to their children. If any traces of these elements of traditional African culture exist in the African American population today, then the impact will be to reduce the success of African Americans. Now let’s get back to the impact of slavery.

Even if slavery had never existed in America or European colonies, then Africa would still be far less advanced than America today because no African cultures ever embraced the American and European values of democracy and free markets. Clearly, any lingering impact of American and European slavery on Africa today is thus so minimal that it should be a non-issue.

As for myself, I understand the reality that the atrocities committed against my Scottish, Irish, and Native American ancestors simply cannot hurt me unless I decide that it does.

However, past slavery is a big emotional issue solely as a result of divisive politicians, and as usual, the key to our freedom is a big dose of reality. The reality is that maybe a third of Africans were enslaved (or indentured) by other Africans for centuries before America existed. These African slave owners sold many of their slaves, thus making slavery possible in America. In fact, Africans continued to enslave millions of other Africans well into the 20^th century – long after slavery ended in America.

We no longer recognize these rather simple truths because political leaders have made a career trying to divide us against each other – telling us that we owe each other – that we have wronged each other – that they will make things better.

Even those few who understand that modern unhealthy and divisive feelings about slavery have been manufactured by what is essentially a political PR campaign, often fail to acknowledge that these feelings are nevertheless real, and thus an apology has a real effect to sooth real feelings of hurt. However, in addition to soothing feelings, an apology would make the politicians and media stronger, and they would only use that strength to create more divisiveness.

What about racism today? Consider that America is not only the first Western democracy to elect a black president, but also America has been ready and eager to elect a black president for the last 20 years, and for at least 30 years, anyone in America could easily become financially successful (upper middle class).

So how is it that America is becoming even more divisive?

The real problem – the reality – is that politicians use, exacerbate, and even fabricate divisive issues in order to get more power – supposedly to resolve those issues. Of course, why would politicians ever let a divisive issue (real or imagined) be resolved? That is how they get more power. Why would they kill the goose that laid the golden egg? Machiavelli figured this out hundreds of years ago, and I'll bet he wasn't the first.

I know that the freed slaves were very thankful for the price America paid to free them, but somehow their descendants are less thankful. I don't see how the descendants of slaves can fully heal until they are thankful for the price America paid to fee their ancestors, and I don't see how white people can fully heal until the political left stops making frivolous accusations of racism, but none of this healing will ever happen as long as we continue to place our faith in politicians and the media.

Consider that in 2004 Obama wrote, "I fear that reparations would be an excuse for some to say we've paid our debt and then avoid the much harder work."

Given that Obama thinks reparations aren’t nearly enough, Obama thus has the most radical and extremist position on reparations I have heard from any public figure, but more importantly, Obama’s is thus a slave to feelings that are negative, unhealthy, and un-American.

Most of us are thus prisoners in our own minds - luxuriating in our negative feelings while simultaneously paralyzed by fear - holding us from back from our true potential. The reality is that our prison is purely the creation of some political elites. We are in fact free - as soon as we decide to be.

The Promise of Reality is Freedom.

The Greater Accountability Amendment

Imagine a federal government that operated solely on voluntary donations …

The government would be limited to performing only those services that had genuine support and were reasonably efficient, and who can argue with that?

If only the government could decide how to distribute our tax dollars, then most people would not donate much if the government were doing anything they didn’t like.

Would we pay more hoping that our favorite agency would get more? No. We would not fund 10 bad agencies and hope that some went to the agency we like. Therefore, the government would allow us to target donations to specific government agencies.

Would people would pay more to insure that their favorite project within an agency gets funded? No. They would not fund 10 bad projects and hope that a small percentage went to the project they like. Therefore, the government would allow us to target donations to specific government programs.

Clearly, genuinely effective projects for national defense, national parks, roads, disaster relief and other forms of charity would have plenty or money.

Programs would be competing and thus evolve. Only the best would get much money.

I conceived the Greater Accountability Amendment a few months after I first conceived the Accountability Amendment.

The Greater Accountability Amendment would result in better accountability than the Accountability Amendment because it would result in same ability of taxpayers to control the expenditure of each of their tax dollars, but in addition, it would eliminate all but the best services; whereas, the Accountability Amendment wouldn’t necessarily eliminate some ineffective services because it provides no ability to pay less taxes, and thus it could result in taxpayers choosing to fund those projects they dislike least – the lesser of all evils.

Only being able to choose the lesser of two evils in our two party monopoly is how we got in the current mess, so the Accountability Amendment may not provide as much accountability as one might expect. Therefore, we need the Greater Accountability Amendment or the Representation Amendment to make government substantially more accountable.

The text of the Greater Accountability amendment would be:

The right of each taxpaying entity within the United States to determine the total amount of taxes it shall pay to the United States government shall not be infringed.

The percentage of taxes requested by Congress that may be declined by taxpayers shall be implemented in 10% increments beginning one year after ratification of this article.

No taxpayer shall ever pay less than 90% of the amount paid by that taxpayer in the previous year.

The Congress may publish the percentage that each taxpayer declined to pay.

This article may be repealed by an 80% vote of the entire membership of both the Senate and the House of Representatives, thus creating a new Constitutional amendment whose sole content shall directly parallel the first sentence of the 21^st article of this Constitution. The votes in the Senate and the house of Representatives shall have occurred within 10 days of each other.

This article shall not apply to the states.

The Accountability Amendment

Imagine if the government were a marketplace where taxpayers are the customers.

In theory, government is accountable because we vote, but if a government project does not satisfy the taxpayers, it will probably continue to exist for decades. If an entire agency does not satisfy the taxpayers, then it will probably continue to exist for decades. In practice there is little accountability in government.

In the free market, if a product does not satisfy its customers, it will cease to exist. If an entire business does not satisfy its customers, it will cease to exist. The great thing about the free market is thus accountability.

Imagine a government as accountable as a business.

It occurred to me in the mid 90’s that we could introduce more accountability in government by amending the Constitution with a Freedom Amendment I call the Accountability Amendment.

The right of each taxpaying entity to direct the expenditure of each of its tax dollars paid to the United States government shall not be infringed.

The members of the Congress shall act in good faith to maximize the choice of government expenditures which may be directed by each taxpayer. Any citizen may sue to remove any member of Congress in the same jurisdiction on grounds of failure to act in good faith.

The percentage of government expenditures directed by the taxpayers shall be implemented in 10% increments beginning one year after ratification of this article.

This article may be repealed by a 75% vote of the entire membership of both the Senate and the House of Representatives, thus creating a new Constitutional amendment whose sole content shall directly parallel the first sentence of the 21^st article of this Constitution. The votes in the Senate and the house of Representatives shall have occurred within 10 days of each other.

This article shall not apply to the states.

The government would become a marketplace where taxpayers are the customers. We could choose to give more money to education or to national defense – whichever we think is the best use of our tax dollars.

In order to maximize our choices, not only would different departments within the government compete for our tax dollars, but different projects as well. For example, we could choose to buy more ballistic missile submarines or more strategic bombers instead.

Just like a real free market, multiple agencies could compete with each other and offer solutions to the same problem. In fact, different teams within the same agency could compete and offer different solutions to the same problems.

How to Know When Obama is Lying

Unlike Bill Clinton, Barack Obama is rather methodical when he lies, and thus patterns have begun to emerge.

Whenever Obama says something like “failed policies of the past”, “discredited debates of the past”, or “we tried it their way” – he is selling us another whopper.

In fact, most of the time when Obama says that something is "failed" or "discredited" - it is not.

Likewise, when Obama says that his opponents are "on the wrong side of history", we can now be confident he is selling snake oil.

Whenever Obama says that something is “legitimate” or “Constitutional” – it is definitely not.

Whenever, Obama quotes anyone like Thomas Jefferson or Abraham Lincoln – he is lying about something.

Whenever Obama says that he has been “consistent”, or that his critics “haven’t been paying attention” – he is lying about getting caught lying. The DC gun ban was perhaps the earliest and most obvious example. Obama said that he supported the DC gun ban. Then when the Supreme Court overturned it a few months later, he said that he agreed, but instead of explaining his contradiction, Obama said that his position has always been "consistent" and that his critics "haven't been paying attention." Obama did not lie about changing his position. He lied about agreeing with the Supreme Court.

Some new patterns I anticipate in the near future are the use of “fair” and “illegal”. I expect to hear Obama refer to actions and words as illegal when they are in fact legal and Constitutional. Consider that Obama claims that his critics are dishonest and harmful, that he is not a fan of freedom of speech or of the press, that he advocates some rather vague laws to make speech more fair, and that he stretches the Constitution (and English) far beyond its actual meaning. It is then easy to imagine Obama claiming that under his new and vague fairness laws, some particularly effective criticism of him was illegal.

In the future you could look for these key words and phrases, or you could just note when Obama is not giving you any details. For example, what are the failed policies of the past, did they actually happen under Bush, were they actually crafted by Republicans, why does Obama say they failed, aren't they more or less the same policies that we had under Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton? Wasn't the mess with subprime loans, Fannie Mae, and credit default swaps created under Clinton and promoted primarily by Democrats? While it is true that almost everyone thinks of Bush and Republicans as failures, the new policies that are responsible were: staying in Iraq, high deficits, and the bailouts, and of course, media bias was also responsible. Now consider that Obama is not only staying in Iraq, but that he is also tripling the Bush deficits and bailouts. I guess we see why Obama is avoiding the details, and he can get away with this only because a biased media is giving him a free pass.

Boycott GM

General Motors has for all practical purposes become “Government Motors”, and like with Amtrak, government ownership will never end. Perhaps more importantly, GM will no longer be competing fairly against other US car companies. One result is that Ford will either be absorbed by GM, taken over by the government, or cease to exist.

Consider that Obama has already decided to change the rules and cheat General Motors bond holders (people who loaned money to GM). Instead of upholding the law that has been in existence for the last one or two hundred years, Obama has decided that the unions will get money legally owed to the bond holders. Apparently Obama doesn’t know that this hurts pension plans that owned GM bonds. Even worse is the effect on all businesses in America in the future. Suppose a company wants to sell bonds to raise money to build a new factory. Apparently Obama doesn’t understand that this company will now have to pay a higher interest rate to entice buyers who will be afraid that the government might cheat them too in the future. Now suppose this company is Ford, which is another car company and another company with unions. Apparently Obama doesn’t know that he just destroyed Ford’s ability to compete.

The government bailout and takeover of GM is, of course, un-American, but there is something we can do about it.

Boycott GM.

I have an allergic reaction to cheaters. I would thus pay $1000 more for a car from Ford than the exact same car from GM. I would keep using my old car as long as possible before I would by from GM.

In addition to boycotting GM, why not also boycott AIG, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, and any other cheaters who received a bailout or who seek special favors from the government - like General Electric.

Sotomayor: Racist? Sexist? Fascist?

Today Obama nominated Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, and the hypocrisy of the announcement ceremony was breathtaking. Almost every relevant statement made by Obama and Sotomayor was what mature and honest people wanted to hear – and yet was obviously false.

Looking at her record, she is at least somewhat racist and sexist with inadequate respect for the rule of law, but I don’t think she is aware of her racism, sexism, or fascist leanings. Listening to her today, she did not seem angry, bitter, or mean spirited. She seemed like a happy, intelligent, and thoughtful person who lives in a sheltered world where she gets much love and support from the political class.

Like Obama, she is their “precious”.

In spite of Sotomayor’s difficult childhood, her sheltered adult life is apparently the reason that she has little awareness, and thus little empathy, for those with a different point of view, such as those who support the values on which America was founded: values such as individual freedom, equality under the law, limited government, and the rule of law. This is what the Tea Parties were all about, but I’m guessing that like Obama and others on the Left, she just doesn’t get the Tea Parties either. At this point in her life, she is probably incapable of getting it. She lacks the experience that would give her the necessary empathy to get it.

Ironically, Obama said that it was Sotomayor’s experience and the empathy resulting from that experience that set her apart from other well qualified candidates.

Breathtaking!

Consider that Sotomayor once told an audience, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” She also told the audience that the first female Supreme court justice, Sandra Day O’Connor, was wrong when she said that a wise old man and a wise old woman would come to the same conclusion.

Sotomayor in a videotaped interview said that she probably shouldn’t admit it, but that the appeals courts are where the law is made.

Sotomayor ruled against the white firemen who were passed over for promotion. The firemen were told that promotions would be based on the results of a test, and then every white fireman outscored every Hispanic and Black fireman, so the city decided to not promote anyone. Clearly, white firemen would not be allowed to succeed because of the color of their skin. One of those white firemen was dyslexic and thus had to spend many hours studying and many dollars paying for materials and tutors. He scored very well on the test, but he was denied promotion because of the color of his skin. Sotomayor – the putative champion of the weak; Sotomayor – Obama’s goddess of empathy … threw out his case without a minute of consideration.

Can you imagine if a white male judge threw out the case of a black handicapped man who made a heroic effort and outperformed his white counterparts and who was then denied promotion because he was black?

Can you imagine if a conservative judge implied that he intended to use his position to make the law?

Can you imagine if a white man said that a white male judge would make better decisions than a Hispanic female judge?

If the Democrats wanted a Latin American on the court so badly, then why did they filibuster the Latino nominated by Bush?

Also, didn't Obama promise a post-racial and post-partisan administration?

Like I said, the hypocrisy is breathtaking.

Confirmation Hearings

First note that Sotomayor resigned from a club that only allowed female members. She said that she did not want it to become an issue during the confirmation hearings. Imagine if a white man resigned from a similar club that only allowed male members and expected no further discussion about it.

In the hearings, Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., asked Sotomayor about a 2004 opinion she signed, which found that "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right." He asked how she can believe in a fundamental Constitutional right to privacy, when the Constitution lists no such right, and then deny the existence of a fundamental right to “keep and bear arms”, when such a right is explicitly stated in the Constitution. Sotomayor answered: "Is there a constitutional right to self-defense? And I can't think of one. I could be wrong, but I can't think of one."

Breathtaking!

Sotomayor should read: The Universal Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

To Be Fair

Sotomayor does have a lot of experience.

Also, Sotomayor is probably no more racist, sexist, and fascist than the average American, and therefore she is probably less racist, sexist, and fascist than the average person around the world. However, if she is going to be on the Supreme Court, shouldn't she be far above average?

What about that case with the Firemen that went to the Supreme Court? Did they side with Sotomayor? Well, no. The Supreme Court UNANIMOUSLY ruled against Sotomayor on that case.

So, it is pretty clear that while Sotomayor is not that bad, she is simply not Supreme Court material.

Why do We Care?

If we expose the reality of mediocre and narrow minded Supreme Court nominees like Sotomayor, then maybe the Supreme Court will consist of more freedom friendly justices.

The Promise of Reality is Freedom.

Republicans as Conservative Democrats

Within days of changing the name from “Republicans” to “Conservative Democrats”, conversations across America would have trouble distinguishing “Conservative Democrats” from “Democrats”. Then, Americans would instinctively distinguish Democrats by calling them Liberal Democrats or Socialist Democrats.

However, instead of making this brilliant and bold strategic decision to change the one thing they have the power to change, the otherwise powerless and much ignored RNC is still planning to accomplish the same thing by passing a resolution to rename the Democratic Party as the Democratic Socialist Party, which will have no effect and will thus make Republicans look weak and short on ideas – as if they still have their head up their ass like for the last few years.

Tea Parties Explained

Throughout the Spring of 2009, and especially on April 15^th, hundreds of thousands of Americans in thousands of towns and cities gathered in a grassroots effort to protest a wide variety of general grievances about the current and anticipated actions of US government and the political parties. However, those who get their news from their friends or from the mainstream media have probably been seriously misinformed about the Tea Party phenomenon. I can help clear things up because I attended two of them, talked with dozens of participants, watched hours of coverage about them, and I was already well informed about most of the grievances expressed at the Tea Parties.

I can assure you from my first hand experience that pretty much everything said about the Tea Parties by CNN, MSNBC, the New York times, Hollywood, and the Obama administration – is wrong. For example, I did not see or hear a single racist thought. I did not meet a single person who was pleased with the Republican party, and I only met one person who came because he was a Glenn Beck fan. I met no one calling for any violence. I met no one praising the war in Iraq, the war on terror, or the Patriot Act, and I met no one who liked George Bush.

The Tea Parties I attended were as informal, as local, and as grassroots as any event can possibly be. There was certainly no money or vast right wing conspiracy behind them.

I have a strong understanding of the Constitution, and I did not see or hear a single unconstitutional agenda; whereas, the critics of the Tea Parties including Congress and the Obama administration have a poor understanding of the Constitution and support a plethora of Constitutional violations.

The primary grievance was not about Obama, and although Obama’s divisive agenda has surely strengthened support for these Tea Parties, Obama himself was a minor subject. I saw about 100 signs, and maybe three of them mentioned Obama.

The primary grievance was not about taxes either.

The primary grievance was about government spending and the related topics of government bailouts, government debt, and government pork. Spending, bailouts, debt, and pork comprised the main grievance because our children will inherit massive debt, owe money to China, and have more inflation and a lower quality of life than they could have had. A few people also recognized that deficit spending is taxation without representation for today’s kids because they will have to pay back the debt when they grow up even though they could not vote when the debt was created.

Taxes were actually the second biggest grievance. Some opposed the current level of taxes. Some opposed any increases in taxes, and some wanted a simpler or more fair tax system.

After taxes, the third most common grievance was the demand for closer adherence to the Constitution, less corruption, more accountability, and more transparency in Washington. The most common concerns about current and anticipated violations of the Constitution were about religious freedom and the right to keep and bear arms.

Perhaps tied for third place were signs that summed up all grievances by opposing socialism, communism, or fascism because these tend to expand government, reduce freedom, reward failure, and punish success.

Why did putatively objective journalists and the putatively post partisan Obama administration so viscously belittle and slander such a noble grassroots effort by the American people? If I had voted for Obama or were a regular patron of CNN, MSNBC, the NYT, their disgusting betrayal of these noble Americans and these noble American values would be sufficient justification for me to renounce them permanently.

To be fair, there was one guy I met at a Tea Party who had some pretty harsh words for Obama and the government, but consider that the government had tried to extort him into spying on his neighbors, and then when he would not cooperate, they spent millions of dollars spying on him and attacking his family with lethal force. For example, his son and a friend were hunting on their property when two agents dressed like ninjas jumped out from behind a rock and shot their hunting dog. The friend instantly fired his rifle from the hip and killed one of them. The 15 year old son fled to the house, but was shot in the back by a third agent. Several weeks and several millions of dollars later, an agent shot his wife in the head while she was holding his 10 month old baby. Then that agent was promoted and was present at a similar government atrocity two years later in Waco Texas. The mainstream media covered this whole event at Ruby Ridge Idaho about as dishonestly as they have covered the Tea Parties. Therefore, I am surprised that this man (his name is Randy Weaver) was not more angry. Perhaps the reason for his calm was that these events happened back in 1992 under the first Bush administration. Reason Magazine published the best account of the whole story that I have seen to date.

I told a liberal coworker the story of Randy Weaver, and he said that he didn’t care because it sounds like Randy Weaver was a racist. I told a coworker from Finland the story of Randy Weaver, and he said that it was OK because it sounded like Randy Weaver was right wing.

So these compassionate leftists say we must punish those who waterboarded 3 terrorists and saved thousands of lives, but they say it is OK kill anyone who is a right winger, and these oh so noble leftists say it is torture to play loud music to deprive terrorists of sleep, but it was OK when the Clinton Administration did the same thing to the innocent right wing Americans at Waco Texas who had been framed by the BATF. Also, these same leftists who view the Constitution as nothing more than an obstacle to their big government fantasies, say that waterboarding terrorists is wrong – because it is unconstitutional!

I suppose it is true that the Tea Party goers were not as wealthy, as educated, as famous, or as powerful as their critics, and yet the Tea Party goers were more civilized, more mature, more honest, more peaceful, and better informed than their critics. In a nutshell, the Tea Party goers are just much better human beings than their critics.

Fascism in the US Senate

A majority in the US Senate has voted to violate the Constitution to aid the Democratic Party in future elections. On Feb. 26, 61 US Senators voted for a bill to grant the District of Columbia a voting member in the House of Representatives. One could argue that the bill is, or is not, a good idea, but it is nevertheless unconstitutional, and thus the Senate vote was an act of fascism rather than the rule of law.

The District of Columbia is not a state and thus has never had voting members in the US Congress. If the Congress wanted to give the District voting members in Congress, then the current Congress would have to pass a Constitutional amendment.

Consider that when Congress wanted to let DC choose electors for the office of President, it ratified the 23^rd Amendment in 1961, which states:

“The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct: A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.”

This amendment explicitly states that DC is not a state, and proves that to give DC any powers reserved for the states requires a Constitutional amendment.

Fascism

Fascism is any system of government where the people have what they consider a mainstream state-of-the-art government compatible with their culture – and then make one additional modification. They install a leader who gives them such hope and unity that they entrust him to make occasional exceptions to the law for important and pragmatic reasons.

Fascist regimes can vary widely because the whims of the leader tend to result in a changing and somewhat incoherent mishmash of rules – like a new parent with a 2 year old. Also, fascism can develop in diverse cultures with unique problems. Another difference in fascist regimes is that early stage fascism, where the leader has made only a few popular exceptions to the law, looks significantly different than late stage fascism, where the leader’s will has entirely supplanted the law.

Although fascist regimes have several common characteristics, the only principle common to all fascist regimes is unity, everything else can vary depending on the will of the leader, which is a triumph of pragmatism over principles.

Some characteristics of each fascist regime are more common than others. For example, the probable path to fascism is likely to begin when the people feel convinced that they are all in agreement on the direction their government should take, and when they also feel that they are currently faced with an overwhelming crisis for which their system of government lacks the authority or the will to manage effectively.

Several side effects of fascism are probable.

For the good of everyone, the leader must have the power necessary to fix any problem as well as the power to unite everyone. Therefore, any threat to the leader’s will is thus a threat to the people themselves. Therefore, any form of repression is reluctantly accepted as justified.

Fascism tries to respect state-of-the-art government such as the right to private property, private business, and self defense, but these increasingly become illusions because all wealth and all activity by any individual or any organization becomes increasingly regulated and controlled for the good of everyone as the leader sees new ways to optimize the use of money and labor and to eliminate opposition.

The obsession of the people with unity tends to result in peer pressure to conform and thus anyone who engages in political dissent will be bullied. As the fascist regime matures, such bullying is likely to become extreme.

Faith in the government and especially in the leader increasingly becomes cult-like as competing sources of faith, hope , and unity, such as religion, are supplanted by government. This reminds me of the Cult of the Left in the America.

Fascism tries to respect the rule of law and due process, but the rule of law and due process increasingly become illusions as the law increasingly gives way to the will of the leader. However, the will of the leader might increasingly be interpreted as the law, and the leader tends to overturn existing law only for very important and pragmatic reasons, which thus maintains the illusion of the rule of law when in fact it is the opposite of the rule of law.

Although the leader seeks to unite the people, inevitably the leader is not up to his superhuman task and will begin to scapegoat one individual or group and then another. Whereas, the right scapegoats external threats, and the left scapegoats its own people, fascism is less principled and may scapegoat either.

American Fascism

America’s move towards fascism has been slow because the genius of the Constitution has maintained a division of power that is still understood to this day. Unfortunately, the courts no longer seem to understand the Bill of Rights and the limits on the powers of government. The courts now let government do pretty much whatever its wants to solve problems and unite the people. It is thus almost as if America has a fascist dictator who is the entire US government.

America has been slowly moving towards fascism starting with Lincoln’s great leap forward. Historians give Lincoln a free pass to this day – ostensibly because several years into Lincoln’s war to end secession, one of his many whims for which he had no authority, was to free the slaves. Of course, it would be very easy for us to accurately observe that Lincoln was basically a fascist dictator and yet still give Lincoln the credit he deserves for finally deciding to free the slaves and for then deciding near the end of his life that blacks just might deserve equality as well as freedom.

Several other President’s, such as FDR, have also facilitated significant leaps towards fascism.

Many people today think Bush was the most fascist president, but if Bush were a significantly fascist leader then he would lack respect for the little guy and the rule of law, he would champion many new regulations, he would have an activist agenda, he would have a fanatical core following, he would have high overall popularity among the people and the media, and he would have weak opposition. Now I am no Bush fan, but Bush was not afraid to let the people keep and bear arms. Rather than championing new regulations, he championed deregulation. He championed foreign pro-democracy dissidents far more than other US presidents. He had no fanatical core following (at least not fanatical about him), and he had ferocious opposition. He certainly didn’t have the popularity to do anything too extreme. If 9/11 had not happened, he would have done very little as President. Therefore, we cannot accurately describe Bush as a fascist leader any more so than the average politician – most of whom are somewhat fascist.

Now consider that Obama does want to disarm the little guy, that he does champion many new regulations, that he has an extremely activist agenda, that he has a fanatical core following, that he does not believe in the Constitution, and that he has unprecedented popularity among the people and the media.

It is possible as of this writing that Barack Obama will become the first true fascist leader in America. An Obama regime looks like it would differ from most historical forms in that it would be internationalist fascism rather than nationalist fascism. Also, Obama is a leftist, but he is not a very principled or consistent leftist. It would be more accurate to say that he is a fascist with a leftist bent.

Of course, Obama’s job approval rating among likely voters is 56% and falling, and is actually lower than at this same point in Bush’s first term. In fact, Clinton’s approval rating never fell below 60% for a single day during his second administration. Therefore, the fascist ambitions of the Obama administration seem unlikely to be realized anytime soon.

Obama would need the economic crisis to be even worse, or he would need some kind of other crisis to complete the leap to fascism under a single leader. This reminds me that his chief of staff, Rohm Emmanuel, said on Nov. 17^th, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste”.

On the other hand, we are so close to complete fascism now that 8 years of gradual movement in that direction may be sufficient to set the stage for a final crisis that would give Obama a third term, which would never end. I have already foreseen this possibility when I wrote Obama’s Third Inaugural Address several weeks ago.

Fascism in Their Own Words

Fascism was summarized by Mario Palmieri in “The Philosophy of Fascism”, 1936:

“Economic initiative cannot be left to the arbitrary decisions of private individual interest. Open competition, if not wisely directed and restricted, actually destroys wealth instead of creating it. … The proper function of the State in the Fascist system is that of supervising, regulating, and arbitrating the relationships of capital and labor, employers and employees, individuals and associations, private interests and national interests … More important than the production of wealth is its right distribution. Distribution which must benefit in the best possible way all the classes of the nation, hence, the nation itself. Private wealth belongs not only to the individual, but, in a symbolic sense, to the State as well.”

I used to think that regulation was the new form of socialism, but then I read this quote, and now I see that the Democrats are not really socialists – but are fascists. Then again, Nazi is short for National Socialists. Perhaps the Nazi’s saw fascism as a new kind of socialism. Therefore, we could accurately refer to many Democratic leaders as socialists or as fascists.

It seems that Republicans are actually a little less fascist than Democrats, but moving towards fascism more slowly than the Democrats is certainly no reason to vote for Republicans.

Of course, there are no Nazis among Democratic or Republican leaders.

Let’s not confuse fascism with Nazism. Nazism added democide (a government killing its own citizens) to fascism. The reasons include the usual need for fascism to find scapegoats, but also, any minority is at risk appearing to the majority as disloyal and thus a threat to the fascist goal of unity. For example, the Nazis were afraid that the Jews saw themselves as Jews first and Germans second, but of course, as a libertarian I would say that even if the Jews did think of themselves as Jews first and Germans second – so what?

It may sound like fascism is thus the form of government most likely to lead to democide, but consider that communist governments have killed far more of their own people than fascist governments.

The Empire Strikes Back

No doubt Obama's fanatical core following would like to smear Leeroy F. Dermit if they discover The Promise of Reality, and as everyone should know by now, Obama has requested that his supporters forward the email addresses and web sites of his opponents to flag@whitehouse.gov so that the government can ... enlighten them.

So ... on August 9, 2009, I felt it was my civic duty to report my own little web site, which gets about five visitors a day and has never been mentioned by any newspaper or website. I sent the following message to the new Whitehouse snitch address:

I think you may agree that, in the long run, the greatest danger to Mr. Obama's goals to transform America could be the words and the ideas originating from the author of the web site www.LeeroyFDermit.com.

Apparently the Whitehouse agreed! Just four days later, my site was one of a handful targeted by the New York Times!

The NYT article was entitled Godwin’s Law Comes to the Town Halls, and it attempts to prove that millions of Americans are making unsubstantiated associations between Obama (or Democrats) and Nazi’s or Hitler, that they are motivated by racism, and that racism is also the driving force behind the dissenters in the town halls.

As evidence, it cites this dispassionate intellectual article, which primarily defines fascism, and secondarily identifies some fascist tendencies of the Democrats, but it does not compare anyone to Nazi’s or Hitler.

Perhaps the NYT didn’t notice that I wrote this artilce on April 3^rd – four months before the town halls began. The NYT apparently also didn’t notice that there was nothing racist in this article or anywhere else on my site.

Could this attack by the NYT be a coincidence? Could the NYT really believe that my undiscovered site somehow proves something about the beliefs of millions of Americans who have not yet discovered it?

Are we supposed to believe that the NYT author did a Google search for “Obama fascism OR Nazi”, which returned 10,100,000 web pages, and then after reviewing millions of pages, decided that my site was one of the best examples to prove his main thesis?

Astronomically unlikely. It is more likely we will discover that Obama is actually the Grand Wizard of the KKK.

Or… could it be that the White House used the NYT in what it thought was a smart move against a dissenter? Did the most powerful government in the world, use the most powerful newspaper in the world, to attack the least powerful blogger in the world?

Yeah. That’s not fascism.

Feel the power of the Dark Side.

Fascism in Connecticut

The First Amendment begins “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …”

Now consider that the Connecticut government recently drafted a bill (with public hearings today) specific to the Roman Catholic Church, thus violating the “establishment” clause. This bill would mandate elections, empower the winners to spend the church’s money, and prohibit the bishops, priests, or any other church members from spending the church’s money, thus violating the “free exercise” clause.

It scares the crap out of me that any government would attempt such a flagrant violation of the First Amendment.

I understand this bill may seem anti-religious, but it is not anti-religious – it is anti-American.

I am an atheist, and I can assure you this bill is neither atheist nor humanist. It is in fact – anti-human.

End Game

Most Americans instinctively know that a relative few are manipulating their government, culture, and  economy, but what is their end game?

Let’s not speculate too much yet. First, let’s look at what we know.

Independence

Imagine an area were financially responsible families own their own homes, and their homes have wells and enough land to grow their own food if they needed. Some of them have windmills or solar panels, and most of them hunt. Imagine they can see their natural environment for miles in every direction. Imagine that they derive some comfort from knowing that their neighbors are well armed.

How can we be so certain they live in a red precinct, almost certainly in a red county, and probably in a red state? How can we be so certain that they live in a relatively low crime environment?

How can we be so certain that whether these Americans are white or black, old or young, religious or atheist, straight or gay, native or immigrant, rich or poor – they will oppose the policies of the Democratic party, they will tolerate the policies of the Republican party, and they will prefer the policies of the Libertarian party – even though they may not realize their political alignment because they are relatively independently minded and non-partisan?

How can we be so certain that they feel like government causes as many problems as it solves?

Dependence

Now imagine an area where families live in apartments, and thus they have no means to generate power, grow food, go hunting, or dig a well, but imagine they also cannot see their natural environment, have typically low savings, and that they are not allowed to possess any firearms. Imagine that the thought of their neighbor owning a single hand gun scares them.

How can we be so certain they live in a blue precinct, almost certainly in a blue county, and probably in a blue state? How can we be so certain that they live in a high crime environment?

How can we be so certain that whether these Americans are white or black, old or young, religious or atheist, straight or gay, native or immigrant, educated or not – that they will oppose the policies of the Republican and Libertarian parties, and they will support the policies of the Democratic Party, and that they are aware of their political leanings because they are relatively partisan and conformist?

How can we be so certain that they feel like government is the solution to every problem?

How can we be so certain that they feel dependent on government, and that government is in fact their main source of hope – not because government directly gives them anything, but because they want a guarantee that there will be no interruption in their supply of food, energy, water, and security. They do not trust that free markets alone are sufficient.

End Game

Imagine if fewer Americans had any hope of ever producing their own food, water, or energy, or providing their own security, and imagine if more Americans feared their neighbors.

How could the political class make this happen?

All government would have to do is: increase population density, and reduce gun ownership.

Of course, the political class can do far more to make us feel dependent on government. They could tax success, fabricate threats that seem like only they can solve, control all purchases, increase our debt, and decrease savings, income, and employment.

The political class could do more to grab power than just making us feel dependent on them. They could  directly reduce the political power of those Americans who are more independent.

OK, now let’s speculate.

What kind of policies could increase population density? Consider that Obama’s cap & trade plan would basically be a tax on red counties that would be paid to blue counties, which would thus be an incentive to live in a blue county, which is more densely populated than a red county – all under the pretense of protecting the environment. Imagine if under the pretense of protecting the environment, the government also raised the property tax on residential land.

How could the political class reduce our savings? They could create a financial crisis that rewarded insiders who bought credit default swaps while decreasing the value of our retirement accounts. Oh wait, they already did that. Then they could raise taxes, increases inflation, and increase interest rates – all of which would decrease employment and salaries. Oh wait, they are already doing that too.

How could the political class fabricate threats? Consider the exaggerations in the War on Drugs, the War on Terror, and the War on Global Warming.

How could the political class control purchases? Imagine if all purchases were electronic. No purchase would be anonymous. Soon thereafter, it is highly probable that the government would know who spends each dollar, who receives each dollar, what was purchased, the location of the purchase. Then, perhaps under the pretense of reducing your burden on the public healthcare system, you might find that you have been forbidden to purchase red meat – transaction denied. Later you might be surprised when you try to purchase a gun, and … transaction denied. You might then try to buy food after calling the President a fascist on the Internet, and … transaction denied, card has been revoked.

How could the political class directly reduce the political power of those Americans who are more independent? Imagine if US Senators and the corresponding electors were apportioned by population instead of two per state. The independent  people of a state like Montana might lose both Senators and two of their three electors to the more dependent people of a state like New York.

I have previously revealed a particular version some of their end game in my article Obama’s Third Inaugural Address.

Now that I think about it, every article on my site points to this end game.

Busted! - Obama Sabotages Economy!

When evaluating Obama on economics, we don’t need to get into his more debatable decisions or construct complex counter arguments because we have enough issues where anyone can see that Obama is creating incentives that are the opposite of those he should be creating.

If housing prices were to stop falling and start rising, and if everyone were confident that this would happen, then that would pretty much fix the economy overnight. Therefore, I have previously explained How to Fix the Economy – Fast by the President or Congress announcing that homeowners will be able to deduct their entire mortgage payment and not just the interest. Of course, this would not be a remedy for all crashes, but it happens to be a remedy for this particular crash.

If one were inclined to further damage the economy, then one could reduce the mortgage deduction rather than increasing it.

So which did Obama do?

President has Obama announced plans to reduce the amount of mortgage interest that wealthy people (over $200,000) can deduct.

Busted!

Herbert Hoover raised taxes during a recession, thus helping to turn a recession into The Great Depression. Barack Obama is the first President since Hoover to schedule a tax increase during a recession. Just knowing the tax increase is coming will cause people and businesses to feel like they will have less money in the future, which will cause them to save more and spend less, thus prolonging the recession.

Busted!

On October 15^th, 2008, after the market had crashed and after Obama had already spent a year prophesying doom and saying that we were in a depression, he bashed Bush for having a deficit of a little over a half trillion dollars. Obama was thus saying that in a bad economy, it was especially harmful to have deficits of a little over a half trillion dollars. Then after only five weeks in office, and given a slightly worsened economy, Obama tripled the deficit to 1.7 trillion dollars. By his own logic, he was causing immense harm to the economy – much more than Bush.

Busted!

If Obama wanted to restore some of the lost value in our retirement accounts, he could increase the incentive for people to buy stocks by announcing plans to decrease the capital gains tax. Instead, Obama has announced plans to increase the capital gains tax.

Busted!

Global profits, growth, supply, demand, need, confidence, and production were all fine until September 2008. As of March 2009, supply, production, and need still exist, but in September 2008, confidence, which had been gradually declining, fell off a cliff, and thereby turned what could have been a minor recession into a major and deepening recession.

If Obama wanted to improve the economy, he would do everything he can to increase confidence; however, starting in the primaries in 2007, Obama has done everything he can to destroy confidence in the current and future economy with his words and his actions.

Busted!

To be fair, these examples may not have a huge impact individually, but together they can prolong the recovery. Also, why are there so many of these bad economic ideas from Obama, and why are they so obviously bad, and why does he have so few good ideas (like an $8,000 tax credit for first time home buyers), and why are the good ideas so weak (why only $8,000, and why only first time buyers)?

Then again, a wise friend of mine always says, “Never blame on malice, what can be explained by stupidity.”

Hmm … Although he quit smoking several times in the last year, Obama has been a smoker for about 30 years after all, which sounds pretty stupid to me. Then, he recently referred to the ubiquitous economics term "price to earnings ratio" as the "profit and earnings ratio", which sounds like a Bushism. Also, while in Europe in early April, he told the Europeans that Austrians speak “Austrian”, when in fact they speak German – sounds like another Bushism. On 4/13, I watched him declare in very careful and measured speech that he wants to halt the “rise in privacy” on the high seas – another Bushism. You may recall that he walked into a window at the White House because he thought it was a door – didn’t Bush do the same thing? In fact, Obama uses a teleprompter more than any previous president including Bush. Of course, you will never see any of Obama’s failings lampooned on Saturday Night Live, but let’s not get sidetracked.

Given that Obama seems to have the self discipline of Bill Clinton and the intelligence of George Bush, and given that he has no training or self study in economics, maybe we shouldn’t find it so hard to believe that Obama could just be really incompetent on economics.

On February 9^th I witnessed Obama create high expectations by saying that Tim Geithner would present an impressive and detailed plan the next day. Then on the following day, I watched as Geithner basically said that he had no details and didn’t know exactly what to do. The stock market plummeted in response to their incompetence.

Obama frequently makes the weasely statement that he will create or save 3.5 million jobs. However, we cannot hold him accountable for this claim because the economy could lose 20 million more jobs, and Obama could claim that it would have lost 23.5 million jobs if he had not saved 3.5 million. If Obama knew what he was doing, then he would make statements for which we can hold him accountable.

Obama frequently says he wants to cut taxes for 95% of Americans, but he will raise the cost of energy. Perhaps Obama doesn’t know that 100% of Americans use energy. He also raised the tax on tobacco 156%. Perhaps he thinks that only the wealthiest 5% of Americans use tobacco.

On February 5^th, Obama complained that his critics argue, “This is not a stimulus bill, this is a spending bill.” To which Obama replied, “Well what do you think a stimulus bill is? That’s the whole point!” Perhaps Obama doesn’t know that tax cuts and deregulation can also stimulate the economy. Perhaps Obama doesn’t know that some spending stimulates more than other spending.

Obama assumes his hyper-spending will help the economy, but apparently he doesn’t understand that he will have to offer higher interest rates to tempt China and others to loan him that much money, and that higher interest rates will do significant damage to the economy.

Obama has decided to change the rules and cheat General Motors bond holders (people who loaned money to GM). Instead of upholding the law that has been in existence for the last one or two hundred years, Obama has decided that the unions will get money legally owed to the bond holders. Apparently Obama doesn’t know that this hurts pension plans that owned GM bonds. Even worse is the effect on all businesses in America in the future. Suppose a company wants to sell bonds to raise money to build a new factory. Apparently Obama doesn’t understand that this company will now have to pay a higher interest rate to entice buyers who will be afraid that the government might cheat them too in the future. Now suppose this company is Ford, which is another car company and another company with unions. Apparently Obama doesn’t know that he just destroyed Ford’s ability to compete.

Obama argues that if you pay for other peoples’ health care, then your sacrifice pays for itself because they miss fewer work days. If Obama would think for himself, he might understand that:

• An entire 40 year minimum wage career would not generate enough wealth to equal the cost of a lifetime of top quality health care.
• You personally would get less than 1% of the benefit for your sacrifice because the benefit would be received almost entirely by the individual you were forced to help, by the health care industry, and by China.
• A minimum wage worker uses about as much energy and produces about as much waste as a successful person.
• A minimum wage worker is less likely to exercise and eat right, and more likely to smoke and drink.
• Free health care reduces the incentive for a minimum wage worker to become more successful.
• Giving citizenship and thus free health care to millions of illegal immigrants would magnify his mistake.

Obama has increased the mileage requirements for American car manufacturers, which he claims will save money on fuel and materials, but apparently Obama does not understand that these smaller cars may actually cost more because of less safety, which causes more frequent injuries and more severe injuries. On a related note, Obama says that the smaller cars will be safe because they will use better safety features. Perhaps Obama does not understand that these same safety features could be used in larger cars, which would make them even safer than the new small cars. Obama also points out that some small cars have the highest safety ratings, and are thus even safer than some large cars with lower safety ratings. Perhaps Obama does not understand that government crash tests only rate cars against other cars that are the same size.

Obama wants to raise taxes on businesses. Apparently Obama doesn't understand that he would be creating an disincentive for anyone to start a new business and that existing businesses would have a powerful new incentive to raise prices, lay off employees to cut costs, or move overseas. Maybe Obama does understand these things. Maybe what Obama doesn’t understand is that 100% of Americans buy stuff from businesses and almost as many are employed by businesses.

Obama has said that he will cut 100 million dollars from White House budget. He claims that 100 million is a significant amount; whereas, earlier he claimed that 8 billion dollars of pork was miniscule. Perhaps Obama doesn't understand that 8 billion is way bigger than 100 million.

I’ll bet that millions of Americans could figure out how to generate more jobs than Obama while spending less money.

Argument from Authority

When evaluating Obama on economics, we have seen that we don’t need to get into his more debatable decisions or construct complex counter arguments because we have enough issues that are self evident and where the facts speak for themselves. However, it seems like many Obama fans don’t think the facts speak for themselves, and they don’t trust their own ability to think. I say this because they seem to only believe the experts, authorities, the New York Times, etc. For these folks, let’s also look at some expert conclusions.

I know that relying solely on the experts is an argument from authority, which is a classic logical fallacy, but the left seems to place all their faith in authority. For example, consider that you must be a climatologist for the left to agree that you might have anything worth saying about global warming. Ironically, such elitist and conformist groupthink is anti-liberal, but let’s not get sidetracked.

Consider that Obama is raising taxes, but a 2007 paper by economist Christina Romer, who is now chair of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, analyzed tax changes since World War II and concluded that a "tax increase of one percent of GDP lowers real GDP by about three percent" and by at least 2.2 percent. Now that Romer is part of the Obama administration, she says that a tax increase of one percent of GDP would only lower real GDP by one percent instead of three percent. Why would any competent economist have been off by a factor of three, and why would any President want to lower the GDP at all?

On 3/9 Obama supporter and former GE chairman Jack Welch said that Obama is focusing primarily on political initiatives like health care and energy when he should be focusing on the economy but that if you say anything about it, you instantly become a pariah in New York Society. In his own words, “This guy is locked in another world. And he’s throwing all these initiatives into this game in the middle of a crisis. Focus on the crisis! Focus on the economy!” Asked whether Obama’s initiatives like health care and energy are inter-related with the economy, Welch said, “Get out of here! They’re not related at all! … I mean it’s, it’s crazy!”

Welch then elaborated on pressure to conform whenever he discusses Obama, “I had cocktail parties this weekend; I stayed in New York. If you even bring up the name Barack Obama and start to go down this [road to criticism] — I love the guy. I think he’s great. I think he has a beautiful family. I think he’s a good man. But these – you bring up a comment about him, and all of a sudden you’re a pariah! You’re not American! You’re a bad guy. If you even bring his name up. My two trust-fund daughters – if I bring his name up in anything other than a glorifying way – they don’t have any critical thinking about it – at all!”

On 3/9, long time Obama supporter Warren Buffet made statements on CNBC that were widely underreported:

• “Joe, it--if you're in a war, and we really are on an economic war, there's a obligation to the majority to behave in ways that don't go around inflaming the minority. If on December 8th when--maybe it's December 7th, when Roosevelt convened Congress to have a vote on the war, he didn't say, `I'm throwing in about 10 of my pet projects.”
• “I think--I think a lot of things should be--job one is to win the war, job--the economic war, job two is to win the economic war, and job three. And you can't expect people to unite behind you if you're trying to jam a whole bunch of things down their throat. So I would--I would absolutely say for the--for the interim, till we get this one solved, I would not be pushing a lot of things that are--you know are contentious, and I also--I also would do no finger-pointing whatsoever.”
• “It's just a mistake, I think, when you've got one overriding objective, to try and muddle it up with a bunch of other things.”

On 3/11 The Wall Street Journal reported that a survey of 49 economists gave Obama a grade of “F” on the economy. They gave Obama a score of 59%. They gave Geithner a score of 51%, and they gave Bernanke a score of 71%.

On 3/13 The Wall Street Journal reported that Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao has warned that he has been closely watching the policies of Barack Obama and he is concerned about the safety of money China has loaned to the US.

Obama supporter, entertainer, and financial expert Jim Cramer has identified several flaws with the policies of Obama and Geithner, and offered many good alternative ideas on his CNBC show Mad Money. On 3/3 Cramer summarized his criticism on the Today show by saying that Obama’s budget was a “radical agenda,” and that, “This is the greatest wealth destruction I’ve seen by a President.” Rick Santelli of CNBC also has become famous for bashing Obama about forcing us to pay for our neighbors’ mortgages. Others on CNBC frequently disagree with Obama, but in less spectacular ways. Also, CNBC is where Obama supporter Warren Buffet criticized Obama on 3/9.

Media Bias Sidetrack: The White House and the Daily Show have thus begun an unprecedented smear campaign against Jim Cramer, Rick Santelli, and CNBC. The Daily show tries to claim a plausible justification (without mentioning Obama) for their sudden, nasty, and unprecedented smear campaign, but as a viewer of both shows, I see through their BS. Jon Stewart even admitted that he was going after CNBC, and not just Cramer. The only reason the Obama network (a.k.a. MSNBC) has held back is because CNBC is also part of NBC; therefore, Jeffrey Zucker, head of NBC, and Jeff Immelt, CEO of its parent company (GE), worked behind the scenes and held a meeting with the people at CNBC in which they ordered CNBC to stop criticizing Obama. As of 3/13, Cramer is responding by backing down and contriving praise for Obama. I guess he wants to retain his ability to be a star when he visits college campuses, and he wants to remain welcome at cocktail parties in NYC. Given the purge of CNBC, I guess independent thinkers will have to start watching Fox Business News.