Current Observations Home Current Observations Home Current Observations Home

Closing Thoughts on The Americanism of Barry Goldwater

Sunday, April 30, 2006

Last night, I turned the final page on the book The Americanism of Barry Goldwater, written by Frank R. Donovan. It was an excellent book and I'm grateful to the author for writing it. The book gives us a look into the mind of Barry Goldwater and paints a picture of how Senator Goldwater viewed the socio-political scenery of his day.
I must admit to you that when I finished this book, I was overcome with a sense of dread. For in the closing chapter of the book, the author spoke of Barry Goldwater's growing concern with what he perceived to be creeping socialism in America and the American government. One must keep in mind that over forty years have past since this book was written and we have the benefit--or the curse, if you prefer--of hindsight. Many of the warnings and predictions made both by the author and Goldwater, himself, have come to pass.
I wanted to share with you a passage from the last chapter of the book to help illustrate for you what I'm speaking of. Chapter Eight, titled "Americanism Revisited," summarizes for us all the previous chapters and then closes with a warning of what is to come for the future of America if we don't move to stop the spread of socialism in this country:
    Under this pretense of "taking care of" the people, today's liberals would play God and slowly strangle Americanism. The welfare state has already imposed severe restrictions on the American people in their "pursuit of happiness."
    This road to socialism is the one that we must turn from if we would regain Americanism. In Senator Goldwater's opinion our present approach to "socialism through welfarism" is a greater danger than an outright effort on the part of the liberals to attain socialism through the conventional method of nationalism. The welfarism route is so insidious that its evils are not immediately apparent. Rather than the loss of freedom for the individual which it really is, welfarism can be presented as a form of humanitarianism--another confusion of labels. The liberals have a strong emotional appeal to voters with programs that are labeled as helping the needy but which are, in reality, steps in controlling the lives of those they presume to serve--and those who must pay for the service.
    In Goldwater's words: "The long range political consequences of Welfarism are plain enough. The State that is able to deal with its citizens as wards and dependents has gathered unto itself unlimited political and economic power and is thus able to rule as absolutely as any oriental despot."
    But the greatest threat to Americanism from welfarism is in its effect on the individual, rather than on the government. The philosophy that the government should provide, which was encouraged by the New Deal and is inherent in the New Frontier--the feeling that "the world owes me a living"--is a defeatist psychology which is the exact opposite of Americanism. This country grew great because its people were primarily interested in freedom and opportunity. Thirty years ago [1934] they were told that now things are different. The all-important thing is not opportunity but security--and if they keep the liberals in power the government promises to give them security. On every front the liberal planners have placed restrictions of opportunity on the individual in order to favor alleged security for the group.
    Security is inherent in Americanism; but it is the security of work and self reliance, not the security of protective paternalism which, in the final analysis, is neither secure nor protective. The government may seek to give the farmer a measure of security through subsidies; to give the elderly the security of a pension; to give some union workers security through preferential treatment; to give youth security through federally controlled education; to give the sick security through free medical care; to give the poorly housed security through urban renewal; to give the unemployed security through jobs financed by the government. But Washington can do this only so long as the people pay for it themselves. When the people can no longer pay the constantly increasing cost of the welfare state, government has no means of maintaining it except by a constantly accelerating inflation. And that may be nearer than we think.
    Those who are absorbed by the welfare state soon lose their taste for freedom, and, like the Italians under Fascism and the Germans under National Socialism, sink into a robot-like existence bounded by today's material sufficiency. Goldwater describes the effect of the state welfarism on the human character by saying: "It transforms the individual from a dignified, industrious, self-reliant spiritual being into a dependent animal creature without his knowing it."
After reading these words, written back in 1964, I would have to conclude that Barry Goldwater's message was right on the money. He was a man ahead of his time and the American public wasn't ready to hear the truths he spoke about--and the liberals were certainly threatened by him.
In completing this book, my final assessment would be to conclude: "By default, by birth, we're all socialists now." The American government has long since been overthrown by the socialists that Goldwater warned of; our republic has been replaced by the welfare state. Whether we want to admit this to ourselves or not, by calling ourselves Americans, we call ourselves socialists. These are the cold-hard facts of life. To be sure, those of us who will stand up for what we believe in, who will declare to the rest of America and its government that we are not socialist, we will be the ones not counted amongst their numbers, and we will be ostracized for it.
Being a libertarian, I, for one, will never embrace socialism. How about you?

More Thoughts From Goldwater

Saturday, April 29, 2006

    "The apostles of the Welfare State have been busy transforming that stern old gentleman in the top hat, the cutaway coat, and the red, white and blue trousers from a symbol of dignity and freedom and justice for all men into a national wet nurse, dispensing a cockeyed kind of patent medicine labeled 'something for nothing,' passing out soothing syrup and rattles and pacifiers in return for grateful votes on election day."

    In these words Barry Goldwater speaks--or perhaps snarls--his contempt for the creeping socialism of the liberals. He further condemns the welfare state and recalls a basic principle of Americanism by saying, "We believe any society which proposes to relieve its citizens of all responsibility--and thus condemn them to a perpetual state of childhood--is acting contrary to the best purposes of mankind. We believe every man is entitled to an equal position on the starting line in the race for personal achievement; but no man is guaranteed a preferred position at the finish line."

    James Madison expressed the same thought by saying, "The class of citizens who provide at once their own food and their own raiment . . . are the best basis of public liberty, and the strongest bulwark of public safety."

From The Americanism of Barry Goldwater, Chapter Four -- Americanism on the Home Front

Quote for Today (...or Any Day)

Friday, April 28, 2006

If you would not be forgotten,
as soon as you are dead and rotten,
either write things worth reading
or do things worth the writing.

~Benjamin Franklin

Snow Job

Thursday, April 27, 2006

While watching The Daily Show, Jon Stewart mentioned that Fox News commentator Tony Snow was named White House press secretary. My wife asked if she had heard this report correctly. I assured her that she had. She then queried, "Does this mean we really will be getting a Snow job from the White House?"
...clever little woman, no?

Inflation Control

Part of having a website that has the word "Observation" in it's title means that I have to open my eyes and watch what is going on in the world. This means that I need to be aware of different events from all over so that I can comment on them. This practice also allows me the ability to form hypotheses. That is what I'm going to do today.
As you all are aware, the price of fuel is going up, up, up. Everyone that comes into where I work complains about how much it costs to fill their vehicles and wonder when it will ever end. Some think that the big oil companies are crooks and should be run out of town on a rail. The folks that have Geo Metros that get a bazillion miles to the gallon smile smugly because they know that the price of fuel will have to get much higher before they'll feel the pinch.
While discussing this topic with one of my more ornery customers, an observation began to form in my head. Then, when I got home, I was reading the comments under a post at South Puget Sound Libertarian's blog that added to it. 655321 said:
Not related to this subject, but the Senate is going to go after petroleum companies in an attempt to "discover" any taxes they may have "missed."
To which Mark, the blog owner, responded:
Ah yes, the missing tax ploy. Call out Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson. They'll discover that the oil companies should have paid more taxes and gasoline prices will come tumbling down.
The needle, Watson!
This exchange got me thinking about a subject I had read about a number of months ago. It had to do with the Income Tax and how the Federal Government uses it to control inflation. By this I mean that the fed pulls money out of the economy by increasing the tax rate on taxpayers. By doing so, it contracts the money supply, forcing people to spend less.
Here's my hypothesis: What if the Federal Government and Big Oil are acting in concert to control inflation by manipulating the price of fuel to control the money supply? What better method exists of directly effecting the economy than by raising the price of fuel so high that people will forgo spending money on trips and toys, instead choosing to save (if possible) or do without? People are literally telling me they can see where they may be forced to make the decision in the near-future to fill their tank so they can get to work or to buy groceries.
"That's crazy!" you exclaim. Is it really? Consider this: In a speech given by Roy Blough, Director of the Division of Tax Research Treasury Department, delivered before the Tax Institute, New York on February 7, 1944, he stated: 
Accordingly, no apologies are necessary in considering taxation as a means of inflation control. Before proceeding to the discussion of the individual income tax as a method of inflation control, an introductory summary statement of certain conclusions about inflation, which for the present purpose serve as assumptions, may be found helpful.
1. Inflation used here as synonymous with inflationary price rise is not a curse visited by some supernatural power but groups out of human institutions and human actions and is therefore preventable and controllable if people, especially people in organized groups, understand its causes and phases and are willing to take the steps necessary to prevent and control it.
2. Inflation is characterized by a situation where consumers and business organizations are able and attempt to buy more goods and services than are available under conditions where the normal mechanisms for increasing supply and limiting demand are not operative, due to restrictions on increases in the supply of goods and accompanied by continued additions to the volume of spendable funds.
/1/ The restrictions are often not complete and the additions not unlimited, so that inflations are usually self-limiting without conscious control methods.
3. By inflation control is meant the deliberate action of an organized society to prevent, delay, or limit inflationary price rises through removal of the restrictions on supply and of additions to spending power that cause such price rises, or through modifying their impact on prices.
4. Some control measures are:
(a) Increasing the supplies of civilian goods through increased efficiency, increased use of natural and human resources, improved transportation and increased imports, as well as by diversion of resources from other uses.
(b) Decreasing, or limiting the increase, of spendable funds by (1) reduction in governmental expenditures which tend to increase such funds, (2) reduction or limitation of credit expansion for private purposes, and (3) appropriate taxation and borrowing measures.
(c) Reducing or limiting the efforts of consumers and business concerns to spend current income and accumulated savings, through priorities, rationing, patriotic appeals and through a policy of preventing price increases by directive.
5. Legal limitation of price, although a useful measure of control in avoiding increases in efforts to spend available funds, can be fully effective only temporarily in inflationary forces continue or other control measures are not taken.
6. Heavy taxation, although by no means the only method needed for inflation control when inflationary pressures are great, is a basic method which (a) reduces spendable funds, thus striking directly at causes, (b) encourages private loans to Government by indicating the serious intention of Government to control inflation, and (c) if applied on a rising scale which the spending public believes will continue to rise, discourages spending because of anticipation of higher taxes.
7. Different forms of taxation may be considered alternative or complimentary for the purposes of inflation control. If all taxes have the same anti-inflationary influence per dollar of collections, the control of inflation is not a consideration in comparing the desirability of taxes; but if the extent of the effects are different, the control of inflation becomes a consideration in comparing the desirability of different taxes in a period when inflation control is desired. For policy purposes it cannot be assumed without evidence or demonstration that different taxes and different rate schedules producing the same revenue will have equal anti-inflationary effects.
After reading this, and then re-reading it but substituting in 'higher fuel prices' where 'taxation' was cited, one can see where this hypothesis gains traction. Then, reflect on the events of the 1970's. Much of what we're seeing today has already happened before. We had creeping inflation, rising interest rates, and fuel prices that went through the roof. This is not anything new, just reworked. I propose that the Government, working with Big Oil, is trying desperately to control inflation before it gets out of hand. They've been slowly increasing the interest rates, but that effect isn't felt immediately. Fuel costs, however, are.
Consider this: by increasing the cost of fuel by no more than five cents per gallon, the U.S. Government can siphon from the economy 18.5 million extra dollars per day--or 6.75 billion per year--according to this chart. But it's much higher than that. Referring to the numbers on this page, the average price of gasoline is up 67 cents from a year ago and diesel is up 58 cents. According to the information at the right of the page, we're taxed at about 20% per gallon of fuel. Some quick math tells us that last year we paid around 45 cents per gallon in taxes. This year, we're paying around 58 cents more per gallon than last year. That means the government is taking from the market place an additional 52.5 million dollars per day in fuel taxes (or 19.1 billion dollars per year).*
What better way to immediately have an effect on the economy than by manipulating the price of fuel? In closing, let's consider what Mr. Blough said when summarizing his speech, but we're going to fix it up a bit:
In summary, the chief characteristics of the individual income fuel tax that have a bearing on its effectiveness as a device for inflation control arc those: The tax is a logical method of inflation control because it is measured by the chief inflationary force, namely, income consumption. The income fuel tax has a long history of successful operation. It is collected currently with receipt of income fuel...
For these reasons it can be [safely] concluded that the individual income fuel tax is an appropriate and effective instrument of inflation control.
It wasn't really too hard a stretch for me to come to this conclusion. And I wouldn't put it past the Government to try something like this.
*All computations were done on the fly. I make no guarantee of accuracy.

An Evening With Dr. Franklin

Wednesday, April 26, 2006

While working yesterday, I received a message from my mother that Dr. Benjamin Franklin would be having a junta in the next town to the south of me. A group known as the Friends of the Library, in Snohomish, had somehow arranged to have the good Doctor sit down with anyone and everyone who wished to hear his tale. Because of the short notice, I had to do some rearranging of my plans, but, in the end, it was well worth the trouble. After closing up shop for the evening, I quickly ate dinner and then made haste to get to the meeting.

The junta began at 7p.m. and lasted for about an hour. Dr. Franklin regaled us with his various adventures growing up in and around Boston. Did you know that his first foray into business was alongside his father in the family's tallow shop? As fate would have it, Dr. Franklin was ill-suited for candlestick making, and looked elsewhere for employment. At the age of 12, he became an apprentice to his brother James, a printer. Unfortunately, his many adventures in his lifetime are far too numerous to list them all here.

He did, however, explain how he came to find himself mixed up with the group of men who started the American Revolution. It turns out that Dr. Franklin was never really interested in independence from England, but wanted England to recognize that the colonies would be best served with their own parliament--being so far from Parliament in England. It was only after being humiliated in a session of the privy council and being branded a traitor did Dr. Franklin's heart change to embrace total independence from England. As he put it, "You can only hammer on something for so long before it begins to harden."

In an effort to not tell Dr. Franklin's whole story for him, I'll leave you with what I've written thus far. I wish, however, to impress upon you the importance of seeking to meet with Dr. Franklin at one of his local juntas. Trust me... It will be well worth your time and energy. He is engaging, enlightening, as well as entertaining. I especially enjoyed the generous question and answer period. Opening the floor up to questions from the audience, he answered in a way that only Benjamin Franklin could. Also, if you're an organizer for a community group, school, church or fundraiser, this is an excellent presentation for your event.

In an effort to aid you in locating a future event with Dr. Franklin, I'll provide you with a couple of links. The first is Hardwick's, a family-owned and operated hardware store located in the heart of the University District in Seattle, Washington since 1932, who sponsors him. There is also Dr. Franklin's blog where upcoming events are posted as well as his own website: In addition, this show is sponsored by the fine folks at the Interactive History Company, based in Everett, Washington, who's credo states, "To Improve Everyone's Understanding of History Through Interactive Education and Entertainment." After last night's event, I'd say they lived up to it!

In closing, I wanted to personally thank the man behind the costume: G. Robin Smith. It's never easy standing before a room of complete strangers, let alone opening yourself up to their questions. You've taken the time to research Benjamin Franklin and it shows in your conversations. Again, Mr. Smith, thank you!

Iran Says, "Screw You Guys! I'm Goin' Home!"

Tuesday, April 25, 2006

Iran has said recently that they will cancel their participation with the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty if the U.S. imposes sanctions on them through the U.N. Security Counsil. Iran continued by stating that if they withdraw from the treaty, they will then be free to give everything they know about nuclear energy to whomever they wish. And you know what? They're right. Unlike many in the U.S. State Dept., Iran has actually read their copy of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty:
1. Each Party shall in exercising its national sovereignty have the right to withdraw from the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country.
You see, once Iran signed on, they agreed to certain rules and restrictions on whom they could share their nuclear technology with. But, once the NPT and the restrictions are gone, they're free to do as they wish. Unlike the US Income Tax, the NPT is (truly) enforced through voluntary compliance. Iran can walk away from it at any time (with proper reason such as economic sanctions). Need I mention this particular outcome would be bad for the rest of the world?
But, this isn't why I post today. A coworker and I got to talking about city ordinances that tell homeowners what they can and cannot do on their own property, after we saw a vehicle pull in that said "Code Enforcement" on the side of it. We talked about such things like: you can't have a vehicle that remains stationary for more than 72 hours, or you can't jack up your vehicle in your own driveway to change it's oil. You know... stupid rules like that. I remarked that the city may be able to enforce such laws on public right-of-ways, but to tell you that you can't do this and such on your own property seemed a tad bit oppressive. He assured me that he was correct.
This got me thinking about how government's perception of "private property" has gotten skewed over the years. More importantly, this also illustrates the public's misunderstanding of property rights, too. The state, referring to all levels of government, believes that they essentially own everything. Citizens are in possession of property, but the state believes it actually owns everything. Therefore, the state is well within bounds to pull up outside your house to tell you how to live your life. They can tell you that you can't have junk cars on your property or sell tomatoes from your garden or run a small business out of your spare bedroom. You don't actually own it--they're just letting you use it as long as you follow their rules.
What does this have to do with Iran? The U.S. has taken the same approach with Iran. If you listen to the rhetoric coming from the mouths of U.S. politicians (such as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice), you're left with the impression that they feel they own Iran. They also don't like how Iran is conducting it's affairs with U.S. property, so it's going to force change upon them. Iran, on the other hand, looks at the U.S. and says, "You pompous asses! We've been here for well over a thousand years*. How dare you come to our borders and shout at us to stop doing what is well within our right as a nation to do."
You see, it's basically the same scenario, just with different actors.
Note: Iran used to be known as Persia before 1935.

America: From Freedom to Fascism

Monday, April 24, 2006

main America: From Freedom to Fascismqt_lowqt_highipodw_loww_highfl_lowfl_highschedulereviewsdirectoybio

Is Illegal Immigration State Created?

Sunday, April 23, 2006

Given the choice, which would you opt for: would you choose to sit on your butt because you're receiving welfare from the state, or would you find any kind of work that pays you enough to feed yourself? In my opinion, the average American would probably choose the former. That's why I believe the state has inadvertently created the environment by which illegal immigrants can find work and prosper in this country. You see, under normal conditions, the job market place would have a certain amount of hungry people willing to fill positions that no one else would be willing to do. Because the state has allowed poor people to feed off of taxpayer-funded welfare programs instead of going hungry, they turn to the state's handout, instead of the farmer's field for sustenance. I see it all the time. Individuals and families being supported by the state. You hear them reason that it would cost them too much to get a job because they would lose all the support they receive from the state. "Why should I give up all this free money to get a job?" they ask. That's a good question and it also exposes the imbalance artificially created by the state's various welfare programs in the job labor market.
The state has created the void in the job market that is being filled by illegal workers. Historically, poor people have been forced into doing menial jobs or labor-intensive jobs because there was, quite frankly, no other work to be had by unskilled individuals. Given the choice to either work or starve, they would choose to work. The state then stepped into this labor pool and said to these poor folks, "We'll give you monetary assistance, and food stamps, and housing assistance, and all the things that make your life better--for free!" The recipients of this state welfare think to themselves, "Great! The first thing I'm doing is quitting that crap job, because I just found me a sugar-daddy!" Why would anyone continue working at an unfavorable job when they could have all their needs taken care of by the all-powerful nanny state? So, they quit. Does their old job position disappear when they quit? No. The work still needs to be done. Their ex-employer still needs the ditch dug, or the dishes washed, but now finds it harder and harder to find willing workers. The state, through its welfare assistance plan, has destabilized the job labor market. To put it another way, the state is "hiring away" potential workers with a much better deal.
That's not the end of our story, though. We still need to balance out the job market place. We have on one side an employer who needs to fill a position and on the other side an employee pool looking for the best offer. After the state meddled in the job market with its welfare plan, the slice of workforce normally available to these employers is no longer there. Like I said before, the work still must be done and that's where "illegal" workers come in. They're hungry for work and willing to do just about anything for pay. Having snuck into the land of milk and cookies, they're forced out to the shadowy edges of society where they won't draw too much attention. After all, the last thing they want to do is get caught with their hand in the cookie jar. Knowing that if they're ever caught they'll be sent home, they look for work at the bottom end of the job market. These folks look for employment where the labor pool isn't fulfilling the needs of employers. They look for jobs that will add balance to the job market place because it won't draw attention from the authorities.
Why do they do the jobs that Americans won't do? Because they're trying to not get deported. They deliberately choose to work for these employers because they know that these employers are generally not going to report them to the authorities. If anything, many of these employers are sympathetic because they've also been oppressed by the state's regulations and meddling. After all, it was the state's meddling with the workforce that drove these employers to look at illegal workers in the first place. The demand for employees to do less than favorable work has always existed. Throughout history, there has always been "crap jobs" and those jobs have always been filled by the poorest of our numbers. That's just the cold-hard facts of life. The problem really isn't that Americans won't do these jobs, the problem is that there isn't the incentive for them to do these jobs. Just because the state has stepped in and removed from the workforce potential employees doesn't mean these jobs don't need to be done. Ask any employer who's hired illegal workers why he did it, and I'll bet you one of the reasons given is because he couldn't find American's willing to do it for the pay he was offering. Why would Americans choose to shovel you-know-what over cashing a welfare check? Why would anyone?
In conclusion, the state created this problem by removing American workers from the job market place. This state-created environment then enables more and more illegal workers to come into this country to fill these vacant positions. Additionally, by not adequately controlling the flow of illegal immigrants at our borders, the state has made it easier for illegal immigrants to come into this country. The state, never capable of recognizing it's own shortcomings, refuses to eliminate the artificially created environment that allows this problem to propagate. Instead of forcing Americans back into the workforce by eliminating state assistance, the state turns a blind-eye to the immigration problem. How long do you think illegal immigrants would continue to pour into this country if there was no work to be had once they got here? What we face today is the product of the state's various welfare programs that have been allowed to fester over many years. Illegal immigration is nothing more than an infection in the wound created by welfare programs. To put this another way, illegal immigration is a symptom of a greater disease, and the cure for this disease is quite simple. We need to allow the markets to work free from state's constant meddling. We need to get the state out of the workplace. We need to get the state out of the charity business. We need to get the state out of our lives, altogether.

Speech: "Government, Keep Out!"

Saturday, April 22, 2006

Performed by Jerry Hughes of the Accent Radio Network.

For more information on how YOU can help bring back a Bill of Rights culture, go to

For more on the "Government Keep Out" series of speeches, go to

MP3 format

They call us the world's only superpower. But life feels less "super" every day. Our incomes fall. Our debts rise. Our leaders tell us inflation is low. Yet costs for housing, fuel, and even food balloon beyond our means.
Haven't we had enough?
Our businesses close while we buy goods made by entrepreneurial Chinese. We call India to get advice about our Japanese cellphones. America's factories and millions of jobs have gone overseas. America moves from a manufacturing to a service economy and a nation doesn't prosper when we repair each others washing machines.
Haven't we had enough?
That same government spends trillions on an ever-growing array of programs, reaching tentacles into every part of daily life. Whether they call themselves Republicans or Democrats, politicians all share the same creed: "Spend more. Go into debt. Mind everybody else's business. Control everything -- and everybody."
Haven't we had enough?
Politicians take more than 40 percent of everything we produce and tell us they're going to spend it on programs that make things better. But things aren't getting better. They're getting worse. And what do the politicians say? "Give us more! And more! And more!"
Listen: We are being conned, cheated, had, lied to. This country's economic well-being and its freedoms are being plundered right before our very eyes by people more interested in their personal agendas than in our future. And we are falling for it.
Enough is enough.
It's time for ordinary Americans to get off our butts, say no to out-of-control government, and take our own country back.
We don't need to "reinvent government." We need to restore freedom from government.. We must get big government out of our way. Americans will build a fair, just, prosperous, stable, and free society again. We already have the tools. Including the most important tool of all. The Bill of Rights.
Go to the Internet or to your library and look at one short document. This document has only 482 words, and most of them are simple, plain language. A blueprint for building a free and prosperous society. It says that government can't take away our natural-born right to choose our own religion, speak our own mind, or assemble in protest.
This document says we have the right to defend ourselves and our freedom against tyrants. It says we can't be locked up forever without trial, that punishment has to fit the crime. It says we're entitled to our day in court, heard by a jury. It says our property can't be stolen from us by government. In just 482 short words, it says all that and a lot more.
But what it really says is "government, keep out." .
"Government, keep out." In all its simplicity, that is the key to freedom and economic stability.
It says government is to protect our freedom of speech: Yet today, the government sets up concrete-barriered, barb-wired "free-speech zones" that turn the very concept of free speech into a joke. We can be investigated by the FBI for innocent political activities.. Today our phones may be tapped without warrant. Our reading monitored. Our opinions and our activities tracked. In a free country, people are free to criticize without fear of reprisal. Political opinions are not a threat and the First Amendment tells government to keep its hands off them.
The Fourth Amendment says our doors shouldn't be kicked down on unchecked tips from informants. The Fifth Amendment says we shouldn't be forced into guilty pleas just so courts can crank millions of us through the system more quickly and it forbids random confiscation of property..
Government, keep out: These 482 words tell us government has no authority over what we voluntarily do in the privacy of our own homes.
Our court systems have become a travesty. Instead of justice, we have crank-'em-out plea bargains in which citizens incriminate themselves under pressure and prosecutors seek not fairness but high conviction "scores."
Today a bureaucratic government says, "The people are immature, violent children; and we can't be trusted with firearms." So it turns our right to self-defense into a government-granted privilege. Or in some places government outright forbids us to effectively defend ourselves against violent criminals. This, too, is nonsense. If average people can't be trusted with weapons, than neither can police officers, soldiers, or government agents all of whom come from us average Americans.
Government, keep out: The Second Amendment says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Note that: the right of the people, not the right of the government. And that's good. Because the people can be trusted -- more than any government can. And we are most trustworthy when we're taught every day to respect the rights of others and be responsible for our own choices.
And let us not forget taxes: There's a word for people who aren't allowed to keep and manage their own earnings. That word is "slave." True, we are among the most prosperous serfs ever to live. But the principle remains. If some greater power takes away our earnings and decided how that money is to be spent, that power is our master.
But you might say, the Bill of Rights has been around since 1791, and if it protects all these freedoms and forbids all these abuses, how did we get into this fix? How can the Bill of Rights be of any use if things have gone bad?
It is because we haven't protected the Bill of Rights. Because we haven't used the Bill of Rights. We have not lived it. We have not loved it. The fault isn't in the document. The fault is ours. The government trespassed, and we allowed it.
There is an answer. There is a solution. In the future, put every law and regulation, both existing and proposed, to the Bill of Rights test. Does a law violate any part of any amendment in the Bill of Rights? Then out it goes. Does a regulation exceed the specific, limited, delegated powers given to the government? If so, then wipe it away forever.
In a truly free, healthy America, if any government action doesn't meet the Bill of Rights test ... out it goes. This is the way to restore freedom and prosperity for all.
The problem is government. The solution is less government.
The solution is personal responsibility and initiative.
The problem is government. The solution is us. We the people.
The solution is freedom.
The problem is government. The solution is a Bill of Rights culture.
Enough is enough. All people who genuinely want to be free must say it and mean it: "Government, keep out."
If not for ourselves then for our children, grand-children and generations of Americans to come.
Enough is enough. "Government, keep out."
Enough is enough. "Government, keep out."
Please say it with me... Enough is enough. "Government, keep out."

For a copy of the Bill of Rights, in 15 different languages, visit the website

Opinions expressed on this program do not necessarily reflect those of or its members. Talkin’ to America is a production of

© 1997-2006 JPFO

White House Hypocrisy

Friday, April 21, 2006

Chinese President Hu Jintao paid a visit to Washington D.C. to meet with President Bush to discuss nuclear proliferation and energy policies as they work for closer U.S.-China ties. From this NPR article:

With the White House in a sea of U.S. and Chinese flags, President Hu and his wife, arriving in a large black limousine, were accorded full military honors. The two presidents reviewed a fife-and-drum corps, and a 21-gun salute was fired as a military band played the American and Chinese national anthems.

President Bush spoke first, praising China as peaceful and prosperous. But he also called for more freedoms for China's citizens, saying the country "can grow even more successful by allowing the Chinese people the freedom to assemble, to speak freely, and to worship."

When it was President Hu's turn to speak, a woman standing on the top level of a viewing stand set up for the press began to shout loudly, yelling in Chinese that, "President Hu, your days are numbered". In English, she shouted, "President Bush, stop him from persecuting the Falun Gong," referring to the spiritual movement banned by the Chinese government.

Hu stopped briefly but continued his remarks. In several minutes, uniformed Secret Service agents removed the woman, still screaming, from the South Lawn. The protester was later identified as a reporter with credentials issued for a Falun Gong newspaper.

Today, we learn the protestor's name is Wang Wenyi, aged 47. She was officially arraigned in court on charges of  seeking to "intimidate, coerce, frighten or harass Chinese President Hu Jintao, a foreign official in the performance of his duty." David Bos, Wang's court appointed lawyer, made a motion to dismiss the charge but this was rejected by Judge Deborah Robinson. Continuing from this AFP article we learn that:

Bos said the charge made the first amendment of the US Constitution, which protects freedom of speech, "just evaporate."

He said the statement of facts did not support the charge. "There is no evidence whatsoever that the defendant tried to intimidate or harass the president" of China. He said there was not even evidence that Hu heard the shouts.

What an absolute travesty! Here we have President Bush chastising the Chinese leader for not allowing Chinese citizens the right to express themselves then turns right around and punishes someone for doing exactly what he was advocating. Is it any wonder why the rest of the world despises the United States when we are so blatantly hypocritical? This woman called upon President Hu to stop his persecution of the Falun Gong and now she's being prosecuted for her actions. This sends the message to the world that while American Presidents talk about the need for governments to respect their citizen's rights, it doesn't actually practice what it preaches. It's all for show.

The IMF's Push for Universal Healthcare

Thursday, April 20, 2006

A little while back, we learned that Massachusetts took the soviet plunge by adopting universal healthcare for all it's citizens. Referring to Mark's commentary on this topic at South Puget Sound Libertarian, we learn that:
Massachusetts has passed a law that requires people to have health insurance. If the State deems that you can afford to pay the premium, then you must pay or you will be fined. If the State decides that you are unable to afford the premium then you get coverage anyway at the expense of local businesses and taxpayers in other states through transfer payments from the Federal government. Liberals, of course, are overjoyed at this and think the Massachusetts law will serve as a model for the rest of the country. They and statist conservatives equate this legal mandate with "empowerment". They are obviously functionally incapable of understanding the distinction between coercion and facilitation.
Massachusetts lawmakers removed the freedom of choice from consumers. They no longer have the choice to pay as they go. To sweeten the deal, they told the "poor and down-trodden" that they would also be covered through state-provided healthcare coverage, paid by you and me. (That's to say, you get to pay twice.) You can learn more about the Massachusetts bill by going here.
At the time that I was reading about it, I had wondered how long it would be before we saw this monster rear its head again. You see, these things have a modus operandi to them. I'll explain. The socialists in the state and federal governments want so badly to have national healthcare. National healthcare is the last piece of the puzzle to instituting a true socialist government in the United States. They have every other component from the Communist Manifesto save universal healthcare. To achieve their goal, they must get states to implement their own versions. Once a sufficient number of individual states create their own unique programs, the socialist at the federal level would step in, declaring that they must nationalize the program to bring uniformity and equity for all citizens (claiming a mandate from the people, I'm sure). But, it has to be started at the state level to appear "grass-roots". If it were done top-down, they would be called out for trying to implement socialized medicine.
So, what does the International Monetary Fund have to do with this? The IMF has taken the next logical step by declaring that the United States must implement some form of national healthcare to protect it's citizens. In a press release, Mr. Rajan stated:
In a globally-competitive economy, it is very important that you insure the individual. You have a safety net for the individual because of the serious risks of losing your job, and so on. Do not protect the company; do not protect the job; but protect the individual. That is the kind of mantra we should have in this situation, which means you have to have some form of universal healthcare. It is very, very hard in this competitive economy for so many, 40 million plus Americans to be uninsured, of which 8 million are children. So, you need universal healthcare and you need strong educational systems. The challenge of improving education in the United States, especially in poor areas, is extremely important.
So, the point I am trying to make is that it is not so much about protecting those jobs that we should be focused on, but protecting the opportunity, the ability of individuals to have that opportunity and to have a safety net to fall back on. In a sense, our policies are toward advocating that kind of a more flexible system rather than a rigid system which will hold up for some time, protect a few and then collapse, leaving people without recourse.
In my opinion, the IMF, World Bank, and United Nations have become arms of the greater socialist agenda. With programs like Agenda 21, they are constantly pressuring all levels of government around the world to implement more socialist forms of government. One of the stated goals is to get universal or national healthcare for all citizens. While on the surface it sounds like a noble cause, one must ask the question: At who's expense? Healthcare has to be provided by someone. Unless you're going to provide it at gunpoint, someone is going to have to be compensated for their services. That's where all the working-stiffs come into the picture. The "have's" get to provide for the "have-not's" through taxation. Now we see the miracle of socialism: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. The one major problem with this concept occurs when the participants decide they all want to be on the receiving end of the equation instead of the producing end. It's not sustainable. In fact, it's nothing more than wealth redistribution by force.
Unfortunately, idiots abound when it comes to redistributing your wealth. They say things like:
The outdated notion that healthcare is a privilege and/or a commodity is the reason why our healthcare (including mental health) system is in such chaos. The rest of the world has universal healthcare for its citizens. Only the U.S. refuses to accept the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a document adopted by the United Nations in 1948.

We the people must begin looking at the lack of healthcare as the grave issue that it is. Until we accept healthcare as a right, the movement will never expand! (Signed by Frank)
"The rest of the world..." Do us a favor, Frank, and go jump off a cliff! Basically, Frank is advocating theft of private property by using the threat of government force to relieve you of your possessions. If Frank wants to provide Americans with healthcare, he can do it out of his own pocket. I have no problem with that. But he doesn't. The thing Frank doesn't realize about his beloved "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" is that the rights it purports to declare are not unalienable. In other words, they can be taken away at any time... without notice... for no reason whatsoever. Don't believe me? Let's take a look, shall we? From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we read:
Article 2
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
Article 25
1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
Sounds pretty rock-solid... until you understand how lawmakers view entitlements. After reading the above, one is left with the impression that they have all these glorious rights because they're entitled to them, right? That's how common folk read law. Lawmakers read it another way. They see it as a government-granted privilege that can be revoked at any time. Let's look at how lawmakers really view your entitlements. I found this excerpt contained in a Q&A of Hearings of the House Committee on Rules:
[E]ntitlements are rather like discretionary programs that have "gone to heaven." They hold a permanent "free pass" good until the end of time (or until the rare instances when their entitlements are revoked) for as much funding they need.
Notice that there was no stated reason for revocation of entitlements. Just that there may exist a "rare instance" to cause lawmakers to revoke them. The entitlement of rights expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are nothing more than government-granted privileges that can be revoked without notice by the United Nations. This goes for healthcare, too. Again, universal healthcare is nothing more than the last feather in the cap worn by socialists trying to implement their agenda in the United States. I predict that we will next see a concerted push by more and more blue states to implement universal healthcare. Stay tuned...

Bumper Sticker

Tuesday, April 18, 2006

I was reading a post (I Have an Uncle Who Lives in Taxes...) over at Birdblog that inspired the following candidate for a bumper sticker:
I hope you like it!

Exxon's Over Compensation

Monday, April 17, 2006

The Exxon Valdez sits on Bligh Reef in Prince William Sound, Alaska, after the giant tanker ran aground in March 1989, spilling 11 million gallons of crude oil. (AP)


Ten years ago, a jury ordered Exxon to pay what now amounts to $6.5 billion for damage to the fishing industry. While many fishermen have gone bankrupt, the case remains tied up in appeals and Exxon hasn't paid a penny.
(Click here for source document.)
Exxon Mobil Corp. Chairman and CEO Lee Raymond is shown in this May 2005 file photo. Under Mr. Raymond, the company's market value increased fourfold to $375 billion, overtaking BP as the largest oil company and General Electric as the largest American corporation. For his efforts, Raymond, who retired in December, was compensated more than $686 million from 1993 to 2005, according to an analysis done for The New York Times by Brian Foley, an independent compensation consultant. That is $144,573 for each day he spent leading Exxon's 'God pod,' as the executive suite at the company's headquarters in Irving, Tex., is known.  (AP Photo/Donna McWilliam)
AP Photo: Exxon Mobil Corp. Chairman and CEO Lee Raymond is shown in this May 2005 file photo. Under Mr. Raymond, the company's market value increased fourfold to $375 billion, overtaking BP as the largest oil company and General Electric as the largest American corporation. For his efforts, Raymond, who retired in December, was compensated more than $686 million from 1993 to 2005, according to an analysis done for The New York Times by Brian Foley, an independent compensation consultant. That is $144,573 for each day he spent leading Exxon's 'God pod,' as the executive suite at the company's headquarters in Irving, Tex., is known. (AP Photo/Donna McWilliam)
(Click here for source document.)

Consider this argument Exxon is making in order to get out of paying local fishermen for damages:
Exxon disputes reports that the remaining oil is still causing harm to the environment.

"Quite frankly we're not surprised the oil is still there in many ways," says Dr. Frank Sprow, Exxon's vice president of Safety, Health and Environment. "That's a good sign - it shows the oil hasn't migrated out and had the potential to do damage."
To me, this says:
  • they've known from the very beginning that they did not get all the oil ("Quite frankly we're not surprised"),
  • they've acknowledge that their oil is still not completely cleaned up ("the oil is still there"),
  • they've deliberately tried to deceive the public with spin ("That's a good sign - it shows the oil hasn't migrated out"), and 
  • they've recognized and admitted that oil contamination is harmful to the environment ("the potential to do damage").
How can Exxon continue to dispute reports that the remaining oil is still causing harm to the environment when their own vice president of Safety, Health and Environment has publicly acknowledged the very evidence proving the existence of environmental damage? So, while Exxon basks in the windfall profits of the last couple of years, it would be best if they would also take care of their financial responsibilities, too. The last time I looked, the ship that poured all that oil into Prince William Sound was owned by the Exxon company. Being in the oil business means they're responsible for all the oil that comes out of their ships, by accident or not.

AJC - Advertising For War

Sunday, April 16, 2006

ajc_iran_ad.jpgThe American Jewish Committee has paid for a full-page advertisement in The New York Times expressing their concerns that Iran may end up getting the bomb. From their ad, are we to construe that Iran now has a nuclear weapon that can be delivered via a missile? I know that's not the case, but I know because I took the time to research the facts. The only missiles (such as the Shahab-3) that are currently in Iran's arsenal are conventional--meaning non-nuclear. AJC must be relying on the fact that most Americans are either too ignorant or too busy to research the facts surrounding this issue and therefore will believe the implied message that Iran has nuclear weapons. Americans generally rely on the U.S. Government to be honest and straightforward with them when it comes to matters of foreign policy, military intervention, and their justifications for war. We must conclude that by publishing such ads, AJC hopes to gain public support for furthering its agenda by trading on the inherent fear American's have of being "nuked".
So, What would the AJC have us do? From their ad, I would have to guess they're in favor of a military strike on Iran to prevent it from building an arsenal of conventional weapons (knowing Iran possesses no nuclear weapons). This leads me to ask the question, if Iran has not attacked a neighbor in over 250 years, why would anyone care if they stockpile conventional weapons for their own security and defense? They've demonstrated no physical aggression towards other nations. I will admit that Iran has recently made crazy threats to the effect of wishing to wipe Israel from the map, but they have yet to act on their words. We must also consider ads such as the one pictured here when assessing Iran's verbal assaults on Israel. Israel, by some estimates, may be more of a military threat to its neighbors than Iran. It is widely believed that Israel possesses around 250 nuclear weapons and has never signed a Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (unlike Iran).
Where do I stand on this issue? I believe that Iran has every right to defend itself. I believe Iran has every right to pursue nuclear energy for the production of energy. I believe that Iran has every right to enrich uranium for the use in nuclear reactors, solely for the production of electricity. I also believe we have every right to be suspect of Iran and should be allowed to fully review and inspect its nuclear energy program at any time we wish. Iran has signed the NPT allowing us that right, and they must abide by it, or withdraw from it. Furthermore, I do not believe that Iran has done anything extraordinary to give us grounds to drop bombs on their country and I am fully against any preemptive military strikes into Iran. If Israel wants to pursue that course of action, they had better be willing to deal with the consequences of their actions. I fully oppose any military or monetary bail-out of Israel if it bites off more than it can chew. In addition, if the American Jewish Committee wants to start a war with Iran, they can do it on their own dime. I absolutely oppose the financing of another illegal war with public funds.

News From All Over

Saturday, April 15, 2006

This is going to be another one of those posts covering several topics because there's not enough that can be said about any one to fill a page on it's own. One quick observation before I dive headlong into what brings me to the keyboard: With the price of gas hovering right at or above $3.00 a gallon, does it not seem that Americans are nowhere near as outraged as they once were at the thought of paying this high a price for fuel? This goes to prove my observation that you can do almost anything you want to people as long as its done slow enough not to cause severe pain. Let them get used to the ever increasing levels of discomfort and they'll let you rob them blind. Heck, most times, they'll even concoct their own justifications for why you're fleecing them. People are funny that way... Just ask the IRS!
On the way to work, I like to listen to KOMO on the radio because I get news without the ranting of right- or left-leaning commentator. I just want the facts--not all the mouth-frothing that KIRO or KVI mixes in. So, there I was listening to the news when the bit about National Headlines comes on. The mouthpiece told me that several retired generals have called for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's resignation. They cited a number of issues, but mainly it was over the debacle in Iraq. Then the reporter said that it was just a coincidence that all these arm-chair generals called for his removal. A coincidence? Several generals looking at the same body of evidence and arriving at the same conclusion does not make a coincidence. That would be like saying that it's just a coincidence that a jury of twelve happened to arrive at the same verdict after reviewing the same facts and evidence of a trial.
After I got home, I looked this up online and discovered that the person who originated this quote was one of the retired generals. From an Associated Press article:
One of those calling for Rumsfeld's replacement, retired Gen. John Batiste, earlier Friday called the recent series of critical statements "absolutely coincidental" and said he did not know of any coordinated effort to discredit the defense secretary.
The article goes on to identify those who are calling for the removal of Rumsfeld: retired Army Maj. Gen. John Riggs, retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, retired Army Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack, retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, and retired Marine Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold. (Now, that's a lot of brass!) I want to point out that just because these guys haven't formed into a cohesive and unified body in no way discredits their assessment of the facts. They're all intelligent men in their own right. Furthermore, the fact that they all reached the same conclusion independently goes a long way to illustrate what a crappy job Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is doing.
Thumbnail view. Click for larger image.Next on my list is an old article with an online poll that is still active. The poll askes the question, "Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment?" You can take the poll by clicking here and read the associated article by clicking here. The article was written back on December 21, 2005 and is titled Spying, the Constitution - and the 'I-word'. At the close of the article, the author makes some observations about what he anticipated would happen. One in particular caught my eye:
Arguably the most interesting - and influential - Republicans in the Senate right now are the libertarians. They're suspicious of the Patriot Act and, I am guessing, pivotal in any discussion of the NSA and others' spy efforts. Most are Westerners (Craig, Hagel, Murkowski) and the other is Sen. John Sununu. He is from New Hampshire, which, as anyone who has spent time there understands, is the Wild West of the East Coast. All you have to do is look at its license plate slogan: "Live Free or Die." It'll be interesting to see how other nominal small-government conservatives - Sen. George Allen of Virginia comes to mind - handle the issue.
I didn't know we had libertarians in the Senate. But that's not the main point I wanted to make. It's the last sentence where the author wonders where all this will lead. To me, it looks like we have ended up with 534 bed-wetters. (I reserve judgement on Sen. Russ Feingold for his attempt to Censure the President.) What's really interesting about this poll is how many people are in favor of bringing impeachment proceedings against Bush. The last time I looked, the vote count was just shy of 250,000 and the margin was 86% in favor of impeachment. Here's a question for you: If the purpose of Congress is supposed to be a representation of the will of the people and the will of the people shows that four out of five people think the President has done something worthy of impeachment, why is all of Congress sitting on their thumbs? If they won't do what the people want them to do, why bother sending these clowns to Washington? If they refuse to do the job for which they were hired for, they need to be fired!
Speaking of impeachment... I've been following a developing story that has an ex-AT&T employee handing over to the Electronic Frontier Foundation documents exposing the NSA's spying program and AT&T's cooperation in setting up secret rooms which enable the NSA to eavesdrop on countless electronic conversations. Folks, this one looks bad for AT&T and the NSA/GovCo. From the article:
The Electronic Frontier Foundation said it obtained documents from a former AT&T technician showing that the National Security Agency is capable of monitoring all communications on AT&T's network.
"It appears the NSA is capable of conducting what amounts to vacuum-cleaner surveillance of all the data crossing the Internet, whether that be people's e-mail, Web surfing or any other data," whistle-blower Mark Klein, who worked for the company for 22 years, said in a statement released by his lawyers.
I hear this little voice in the back of my mind quoting someone from government, "We're not interested in conversations between you and you're aunt Mable. We're only interested in the goings on of al Qaeda." It would seem that -- spoiler alert -- they lied! They've been blanket eavesdropping the whole damned time. It gets worse:
The suit claims AT&T company not only provided direct access to its network that carries voice and data but also to its massive databases of stored telephone and Internet records that are updated constantly.
AT&T violated U.S. law and the privacy of its customers as part of the "massive and illegal program to wiretap and data-mine Americans' communications" without warrants, the EFF alleged.
Klein said the NSA built a secret room at the company's San Francisco central office in 2003, adjacent to a "switch room where the public's phone calls are routed." One of the documents under seal, Klein said, shows that a device was installed with the "ability to sift through large amounts of data looking for preprogrammed targets."
Other so-called secret rooms were constructed at AT&T sites in Seattle, San Jose, Los Angeles and San Diego, the statement said.
The question right now is whether the judge will do the right thing--allowing these documents to be unsealed so that the case can continue, or will he succumb to pressures from the Bush administration--screwing the American people out of their right to privacy. All my money is riding on the latter. There's no conceivable way that anyone connected with our corrupt government is going to allow it to be crippled by something of this magnitude. The argument will be made that government's "compelling interest" to protect the American people does not allow them to unseal the documents. My prediction: The people will get the shaft and government will grow in size and power.

Conservatism vs. Libertarianism

Friday, April 14, 2006

As a follow-up post to The Americanism of Barry Goldwater, I thought the following comparison would be fitting. This piece, by Jacob G. Hornberger, puts the period on the end of the sentence about how far the beliefs of the conservative party have drifted away from where they once were. After reading this comparison, it becomes evident why I hear more and more people exclaim that they find it increasingly difficult to tell conservative and liberal platforms apart. That is to say, the two parties are becoming more and more alike as time passes. I couldn't agree more with this assessment.

Conservatism vs. Libertarianism
by Jacob G. Hornberger, April 12, 2006

The Conservative:

I'm a conservative. I believe in individual liberty, free markets, private property, and limited government, except for:

1. Social Security;
2. Medicare;
3. Medicaid;
4. Welfare;
5. Drug laws;
6. Public schooling;
7. Federal grants;
8. Economic regulations;
9. Minimum-wage laws and price controls;
10. Federal Reserve System;
11. Paper money;
12. Income taxation and the IRS;
13. Trade restrictions;
14. Immigration controls;
15. The postal monopoly;
16. Foreign aid;
17. Foreign wars of aggression;
18. Foreign occupations;
19. An overseas military empire;
20. A standing army and a military-industrial complex;
21. Infringements on civil liberties;
22. Military detentions and denial of due process and jury trials for citizens and non-citizens accused of crimes;
23. Torture and sex abuse of prisoners;
24. Secret kidnappings and "renditions" to brutal foreign regimes for purposes of torture;
25. Secret torture centers around the world;
26. Secret courts and secret judicial proceedings;
27. Warrantless wiretapping of citizens and non-citizens;
28. Violations of the Constitution and Bill of Rights for purposes of "national security"; and
29. Out-of-control federal spending to pay for all this.

The Libertarian:

I'm a libertarian. I believe in individual liberty, free markets, private property, and limited government. Period. No exceptions.

Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. Send him email.

The Americanism of Barry Goldwater

Thursday, April 13, 2006

This last weekend, I picked up a book at my local second-hand book store. The book is a discussion about the views and beliefs of Barry Goldwater. I've seen Barry Goldwater's name come up in many a discussion, but I'm personally not familiar with him or what he stood for. I decided to read this book to help familiarize myself with the man. So far, I'm very impressed.
As I was reading, I came upon the following passage that I thought was profound. It says a lot about how far the beliefs of the conservative party have drifted away from where they once were. I've seen the association made that Barry Goldwater was more a libertarian--or at least had libertarian leanings--than most of his conservative peers. After reading his Ten Characteristics of Conservatism, I can see why this was said. Being a libertarian myself, I tend to agree with most of what he felt "true conservatives" should hold true to. The following illustrates why it is so important for people to be deeply anchored in their values and beliefs. After all, given enough time it really doesn't take much effort to be blown off course. (I'd estimate about 40 years.)
Barry Goldwater equates today's conservatism with the philosophy based on the natural rights of man--which was the lodestone of liberal thinkers who created Americanism--and he maintains that this philosophy, whether it be labeled conservative or liberal, is timeless. In refuting those "enlightened critics" who claim that his views are out of date, he says, "The charge is preposterous. The laws of God, and of nature, have no dateline."
Barry Goldwater has been more explicit about what conservatism means to him in each of the areas of government where it comes in conflict with liberalism. He has talked about it repeatedly, written about it fully. There is no reason for anybody who is able to read or willing to listen to be confused about his views. Perhaps he summarized the conservative creed best in a speech which appeared in The Congressional Record on September 20, 1963. He said:
The conservative movement in America is bristling with controversy, political fireworks, new ideas, splinter groups of all kinds and a crying need for definition of its basic characteristics, roots, ideology and purpose. In this paper I plan to define ten marks of conservative political thought in America.
The conservative believes that each individual citizen possesses the total responsibility for his life, his obligations, and the consequences of his actions and beliefs.
In the long run, earned profits are the surest sign of the responsible behavior by all who make up a legitimate enterprise in a free society. Any person can demonstrate the morality of profits to himself by working hard for a year and achieving the goal of having enough money left over in his savings, after all his expenses and obligations have been satisfied.
Conservatives believe that if individual rights and the choosing of goals are kept in the people's hands, this Nation has its best guarantee of progress, peace, economic growth, and justice for the individual citizen.
Conservative thought demands a legal and political structure which insures free competition, redress for injury, fair trial, equal rights of participation, and the right of a citizen to protect his home and his property. We do not believe in any kind of second-class citizenship, nor in restricting people in any way for reasons of race, color, or hereditary characteristics.
Conservatives are keenly aware of their responsibilities to family, community, state and society, and they discharge them. They pay the bills for our society, keep the machinery of civilization in operation, create new growth, build career opportunities for others and help those who need help. You will find them managing most effective businesses, charities, and constructive associations to advance society.
With the maxim that you can't get something worthwhile for nothing, conservatives affirm that individual freedom, the greatest human right of all, is tied to its twin--our revolutionary responsibility to extend and preserve freedom within and outside our borders.
Our belief in the checks and balances of our republic impel us to regard any concentration of governmental, economic or social power as dangerous to the society. For this reason, conservatives would cut down any monolithic, arbitrary power over the whole of society whether it resides in the Government, the State, the church, in a company, a union or association.
A modern conservative recognizes and welcomes change. He wants to get on with the job of figuring out how to deal intelligently with today and tomorrow. He believes in the perfectibility of human society and works for it in a practical way.
In a free society, conservatives believe that individuals, cities, States, the Federal Government, and every kind of industrial and commercial enterprise cannot survive unless they balance their books realistically. Responsible individuals and organizations pay their debts, live within their incomes and provide reserves for their future needs. Irresponsible people court bankruptcy by 'betting on the come,' or incurring obligations for future generations to pay off. In the last 30 years, our largely liberal governments have demonstrated this liberal belief that the piper never has to be paid. This cannot work.
If men, organizations, or States oppress or exploit human beings, refuse to behave with honor and integrity, repudiate their debts and commit crimes against their fellows they cannot be treated as equals to those who maintain the constructive values of human civilization. Their actions bespeak their degeneracy. Conservatives would seek to establish social instruments that enable society to deal with spoilers for what they are--the living representatives of the lowest and most destructive human impulses.
*This excerpt was taken from The Americanism of Barry Goldwater. It was written by Frank R. Donovan in 1964 and published by MacFadden Books.

Powered by Blogger |



Who Links