Biden's Executive Order 14019 is Designed to Take Over Zuckerberg's Election Rigging Function

Walter Donway's article at The Savvy Street entitled Is Biden's Executive Order 14019 Designed for Electoral Wrongdoing? describes some of the provisions of this little discussed attempt to use the Democrat-dominated bureaucracy of the federal government to rig elections, including replicating much of Mark Zuckerberg's effort in the 2020 election.  The Democrats, despite being watched more closely this time, are still hard at work on one task -- cheating on elections.  They hide in the dark shadows of their constant false claims that Republicans are the threat to democracy.  In fact, there is no greater threat to legitimate government than rigged elections.

Getting out the vote efforts may sound like a good thing, but they are not when the effort, as in taking the Census, is directed in a partisan manner.  If you are only eager to count every person in Democrat-controlled areas, while ignoring those in Republican areas, you skew the apportionment of the House of Representatives and for many state elections as well.  If you only try to get out the vote in Democrat-controlled areas, you skew the vote in favor of Democrats.  In truth, low information voters are the ones you round up to vote and they tend to vote Democrat.  There is really no good to be achieved by having the government encourage people to control the government when they are not at least motivated to vote on their own.  If they are not self-motivated to vote, then they are surely not motivated to vote on sufficient information and with sufficient thought.  Rounding up the bread and circuses crowd to vote does not promote legitimate government -- it destroys it as surely as Rome was destroyed.

Is the State Sovereign?

States or governments are never sovereign -- they are at best legitimate. The individual is sovereign and rights reside only in the individual. The legitimacy of government is derived from its protection of the many and broad sovereign rights of the individuals within its territory of operation. It is this individual rights protection service that justifies the existence of government. To say that a government or state is sovereign is the equivalent of saying that all rights reside in the government and the state hands out such privileges as it sees fit to individuals. Those privileges can be revoked at the whim of the sovereign state. The sovereign state demands that the people serve it, while the sovereign individual demands that the state serve each and every individual. There is a world of difference.

Joe Biden has explicitly embraced the sovereign state that grants such privileges as it chooses to individuals and denies the sovereignty of individuals and their pre-state assertion of rights which governments are formed to protect. This viewpoint highly dominates those of the Democratic Party and is also held by quite a few Republicans. It is the basis for the belief that it is a proper function of the government to do harm to some as long as it can claim it is doing good for more people than are harmed or that it is doing good for the "least among us." This viewpoint removes sovereignty from the individual and effectively removes all of his rights, while opening the floodgates on an endless list of government powers. The only real limit on government power is that it is only legitimate to the degree that it protects the exercise of each and every individual's rights.

A brief comment on our federal government

In another forum, I made the following comment in response to a good comment on the Obama administration ignoring the Constitution, the Congress, the Courts, and general checks and balances.

The federal government sure has become a tyranny and become most illegitimate.  Americans need to be reminded that government loses its claim on legitimacy when it violates the sovereign rights of the individual to life, liberty, property, the ownership of one's own body, mind, and labor, and when it thwarts that individual's pursuit of happiness.  It was to prevent just this return to the usual condition of man as a suppressed servant of government that the Constitution gave the federal government so little power and tried to tie that limited power up in an inconvenient knot of checks and balances.

Unfortunately, the government has spent the last 125 years slowly untying the knots.  Each of the branches of the federal government have settled into patterns of behavior which maximize their power within a sphere of action while forfeiting their role as a check or balance to the other branches.  Then the check of state power has been dismantled by eliminating their appointments of Senators and by the unlimited bribing power of the federal government due to its control of the money printing presses.  That bribing power has been on rampant display on the issue of state exchanges for ObamaCare health insurance. It has also been used shamelessly to bribe the states to accede to federal controls on the K-12 education curriculum.  The federal curriculum controls are clearly designed to promote a bigger federal government.

American Exceptionalism in the Moral Foundation of the Declaration of Independence

The United States of America is unusual in that it became a nation comparatively recently and  its People have maintained a similar philosophy of government, at least implicitly, throughout its lifetime.  For decades, however, the Progressive Elitists have been working hard to change that philosophy to one more like that of most nation-states and their societies.  What is the keystone of the American philosophy of government and why would Progressive Elitists want to change it?

The Declaration of Independence clearly spelled out the central fact of the exceptional American Principle of Government.  Without this great and noble document, our Constitution cannot be viewed in its proper context and becomes a much weakened limit on the scope and powers of government.  The United States of America were declared independent of Great Britain on 4 July 1776 with a very exceptional purpose in the annals of nations.  Other nations simply had a government controlled by aristocrats, commonly in an alliance with high-level clergy, who were empowered to protect the people and take care of them, at least in theory.  Our first founding document, The Declaration of Independence, clearly and emphatically states that a legitimate government is the tool of the People as the holders of sovereign, equal individual rights to protect and defend their rights.  This is the first part of the exceptional American Principle of Government.


Let us read this straight from the Declaration of Independence:

WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.  Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are surfferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed.  But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.

Legitimate government secures our individual unalienable rights.  Government cannot take our rights away from us and it certainly cannot give them to us.  Our rights are the result of our nature as thinking individuals who must use our independent minds to survive and to choose the values that we will act to gain or to keep.  At that time, it was assumed that the nature of man was given to man by a god, so therefore God was the giver of rights.  Prior to the French and Indian War, or the Seven Years War in Europe, Americans had long been neglected by the government of Great Britain.  They had developed their own legislatures and had taxed themselves very lightly under local governments of very limited scope for a long time.  When Great Britain awoke to the fact that the Colonies had become rather well off and could be taxed to help pay off the huge war debt from the Seven Years War, they levied new taxes and sent of a swarm of new officers to the Colonies to tell Americans what they could and could not do.  By the standards of Americans then, the government of Great Britain had become illegitimate because it was violating the individual rights of the People.

The Constitution was ordained and established by the People as our second form of government in 1789 after they had found that the first form of government under the Articles of Confederation was somewhat too weak.  The People wanted a federal government more capable of providing defense, without too heavy a dependence upon the states.  They found it necessary to prevent the states from violating the property rights of the People and from prohibiting or impeding their trading with one another in commerce.  They needed a government more capable of dealing with foreign powers.  They needed a government to help them establish courts to handle disputes across state lines, nationwide postal service with post roads, patent laws, provide a common coinage, and common weights and measures so that the People in the various states might have some basic rules and means to develop more commerce with one another.

This was still a government of very limited scope and with a few, carefully enumerated powers.  This was not a government that gave the People certain rights.  It was the People, with their rights already in hand, who ordained and established the government.  That government had such limited powers precisely because the People knew that strong governments with wide-ranging powers become the greatest threat to individual rights.  Such governments always seek to expand their powers.  The People knew from history that freedom was lost in Greece and in Rome, for  instance, to  governments which had acquired too much power.  They knew of many other abuses of government power from British history.  The Americans were fortunate to know these things and fortunate to generally have escaped the indoctrination of government-run schools.

The Constitution has its moral foundation in the Declaration of Independence.  The Constitution had to provide for a government with no more than minimal powers and scope or the government operating under it would necessarily become an instrument to violate the rights of the individual to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.  This is the second part of the exceptional American Principle of Government, which was explained in the Declaration of Independence somewhat and enacted in the Constitution.  This must happen because the Rule of Law must apply to all, but few laws can be written to accommodate the highly differentiated and complex natures of thinking Men.  The Rule of Law requires that every law apply equally to every Man.

There are only a few laws that can comply with this requirement, however.  For instance, a law might say that no Man may initiate the use of force against another.  Such a law is consistent with the General Welfare since it is necessary for the protection of each and every Man's rights.  But once government takes on powers beyond the protection of the rights of every man, then every law becomes one to promote a special interest rather than the General Welfare.  For instance, a law of the form: Every Man with an income greater than $250,000 will pay a higher tax rate on his income than any Man with a lower income, is a special interest law, which violates the General Welfare by only addressing the welfare of those making less than $250,000 of income a year.  A law that requires a doctor to treat a patient who does not have enough money to pay for his treatment is another such special interest law which does not satisfy the condition that it provide for the General Welfare.  The doctor's right to his own Life and how he will spend the hours of it is violated.  He is not at Liberty to Pursue his own Happiness under such law.  This is a clear violation of the doctor's equal and sovereign individual rights.  The requirement by law that one must purchase a health insurance plan approved by government is a clear violation of the right of every Man to own his own life and to manage his own health care needs.  Some, for instance, might rationally be wealthy enough to be self-insured.  Others might have no need for a low-deductible policy or for mental health care.  Some may not need pre-natal care.  Individuals have differing needs and their values will differ accordingly.  Government laws under progressive governments deny these basic facts of reality.

The Constitution recognizes the importance of the Rule of Law applying equally to everyone many times.  It refers to the General Welfare as a requirement that must be provided for whenever any of the limited powers of government are executed.  The government is authorized to build military facilities, but it is not authorized to have the Speaker of the House give the construction contract to his son-in-law at three times the lowest responsible bid cost.  For him to do so, would be a violation of the General Welfare and of the Rule of Law.  The many laws that apply to all Americans except the members of Congress and/or their staff, are another example of special interest law in violation of the General Welfare and the Rule of Law.  Similarly, the award of government contracts only to those paying union wages is another obvious violation of the moral rule stated in the Declaration of Independence.

There is a presumption of liberty for the individual in both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  The long list of grievances against the interferences of Great Britain make this clear in the Declaration of Independence.  The entire effort to limit the powers and scope of government in the Constitution makes this clear in that document.  The long list of rights the government acknowledged in the Bill of Rights is another recognition of this fact, especially given the 9th Amendment which says:

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

This amendment clearly states that the government is not the source of individual rights.  The government has the duty to recognize and honor the unalienable rights of the every individual to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.  The Declaration of Independence even implied that there were other rights not covered by that very broad combination of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness when it precedes that list of rights with "among these are."  I am not sure what rights are not covered by that list, which does cover many rights not listed in the Bill of Rights, but this is another strong example of the presumption of liberty which legitimate government must not violate.

The Declaration of Independence is a critically foundational document of the exceptional American Principle of Government.  Its moral principles provide the real backbone to the Constitution.  If one can eliminate the Declaration of Independence from our understanding of our moral duty as citizens and as a definition of legitimate government, then the Constitution is greatly weakened and becomes more subject to changing interpretations and tortured mutations of constitutional law and precedent. 

The central purpose of the Progressive Elitist is to make government much more powerful and to put it to the endless task of providing goodies for an endless list of special interests.  That list presently includes government employees, labor unions, big financial and car outfits with special protection by government against their bad business decisions, trial lawyers, government-run school teachers, non-competitive energy providers, ethanol refiners and blenders, farmers with subsidized crops, tariff-protected industries, low income housing users, high income housing owners who want green space, zoning laws, and building codes to keep lower income people away from their neighborhoods, and the unemployed who like sitting at home on unemployment benefits.  None of this is consistent with the General Welfare or the Rule of Law.  It is just faction against faction to win special interests at the expense of violating the individual rights of others.

Obama very clearly explained that he does not like the Constitution which is a barrier to his central purpose of redistributing the wealth by taking some of the People's time, money, and property and giving it to others of his choosing.  Vice President Biden explicitly stated that there are no such things as Natural Rights.  Rights are given to People by the government he says.  Of course, this means that People do not have unalienable rights.  If the Declaration of Independence is wrong about that, then it is also perhaps wrong in claiming that the People have equal rights.  It is certainly wrong in the minds of such Progressive Elitists for the Declaration of Independence to define legitimate government as that government that protects the equal rights of the individual to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.  These two men are very aware that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution form a very strong front against their idea of government.  Indeed, Progressive Elitists very often claim the Declaration of Independence has no standing in the law.  How odd a claim this is given that it is the moral foundation upon which the Constitution rests.  But, as with a fortress, the Constitution is no stronger than its foundation.

The 9th Amendment has been virtually struck from the Constitution by Progressive judges.  Even the explicitly enumerated rights of the individual in the Bill of Rights have been split into categories which deserve strong protection and those which are mere after-thoughts.  Any right to pursue one's happiness through commerce is now completely subject to the whim of the government.  That means that the People have lost all of their economic rights, which most people spend many hours a day pursuing.  Clearly, such rights must be denied by a government that presumes to choose the People's values and to micromanage their lives with Central Planners.  This is the goal of the Progressive Elitists.  Obama is particularly derogatory about people who pursue their happiness in part by making money or creating wealth.  This predilection against commerce explains why he has proven so effective in destroying the jobs many Americans once had in the private sector.

Note also that the Declaration of Independence says the People have a moral duty to change the form of their government if it becomes illegitimate by violating their rights.  This is a very scary idea for a Progressive Elitist who desperately wants to dictate our values to us and force us to live in accordance with those mandated values.  He believes the People are generally unable to wisely choose their values and are not up to managing their own lives well.  He lacks the faith of the Declaration of Independence in the People.

It is interesting in this light to note the study by two Harvard University professors, David Yanagizawa-Drott and Andreas Madestam in which they found that

The political right has been more successful in appropriating American patriotism and its symbols during the 20th century. Survey evidence also confirms that Republicans consider themselves more patriotic than Democrats. According to this interpretation, there is a political congruence between the patriotism promoted on Fourth of July and the values associated with the Republican party. Fourth of July celebrations in Republican dominated counties may thus be more politically biased events that socialize children into Republicans.

There are plenty of Progressive Elitists in the Republican Party, but they tend to be less radical than those in the Democrat Party and fewer in percentage.  The impact of 4th of July parades on the People that pushes them toward the Republicans is due to there being less resistance among Republicans to the ideas of our Declaration of Independence.  These ideas are still more in sync with those of the Tea Party.  It is these ideas that make Americans exceptional.  The Democrats have a great deal of difficulty seeing American principles as exceptional because they have dismissed all of our American principles and hold none that are unique to America.  Their core values all hinge on an aristocracy of college-indoctrinated elitists running the country by controlling its all-powerful government.  This is a variant of the Medieval concept of government that long-preceded the Scottish and French Enlightenment philosophy found in the Declaration of Independence.  The peasants in their society are the many who received just enough indoctrination in the government-run schools that they will be docile in obeying the government they are told has only their best interest at heart.  Such docile peasants bear no resemblance to the Americans of our founding period.

It is a fine thing to remember the great deeds of our veterans on the 4th of July, but let us also remember that we are celebrating the great and critically important ideas of the Declaration of Independence on that wonderful day.  They are the moral foundation of our Constitution and they inform of us of when our government is legitimate and when it is our moral duty to reform it.  It is clear that our present government is not legitimate and that we must reform it.  We must carry this realization with us into the election of 2012 and do our duty as defined by the most exceptional and moral American Principle of Government.  It is time to stand for that American Principle of Government as the Winter Soldiers did in our Great American Revolution.

The Good and the Bad in the Lame Duck Congress Bill to Avoid a Huge Tax Increase

The Lame Duck Congress bill about to be approved by the Senate to prevent a huge tax increase mixes good measures with bad measures.  In evaluating the overall desirability of the bill, we need to remember that this is a Congress whose complete record is one of huge overspending and micromanagement of individuals and the economy by central planners.  The recent election will change the character of the incoming Congress in January, but did nothing to change the individual characters of the members of the Lame Duck Congress.  They remain at heart taxers who will spend still much more than tax revenues will allow.  The great news is that the big spenders will be constrained in the next Congress by a dose of more spending-responsible Congressmen.  In the meantime, this bill is much less bad than one would expect from this Lame Duck Congress, though far short of what it should be.

Some of the bill provision evaluations I will make below are not based on the model of a truly legitimate government.  They are based on the situation we live in with a federal government having tax and spending levels about three or four times what they would legitimately and constitutionally be.  They are also based on the fact that the reason we are in a deep recession still owes in large part to the Obama and the Progressive Socialist controlled present Congress.  These judgments are made in the context of these facts and out of concern for the present suffering of many Americans.

The Good:

• Extension for 2 years of the income tax brackets of the Bush tax cuts.
• Extension for 2 years of the reduced capital gains and dividends taxes of the Bush tax cuts.
• Extension of adoption expense tax credit.
• Continuation of the American Opportunity Tax Credit for college tuition for 2011 and 2012. Context dependent.
• Extension of the Child Tax Credit.
• Extension of the increased amount of the alternative minimum tax exemption and for nonrefundable personal credits.
• Continued elimination of the death tax on estates of less than $5 million.
•  100% expensing for small business investment up to $125,000 in 2012 and up to $25,000 thereafter.
• Deduction of State and local sales taxes, which rights wrongful discrimination against states with no or low income taxes.
• Research credit for businesses.
• 15-year depreciation for some leasehold improvements, restaurant buildings, and retail improvements.
• Mortgage insurance premium tax deduction extension through 2011.

The Bad:

• Extension of unemployment benefits for up to 99 weeks for another 13 months, thereby ensuring that businesses under strain pay for unemployment to remain higher than it otherwise would be.  Companies are not responsible for people being unemployed up to 99 weeks.  Anyone unemployed that long is lacking severely in self-initiative.
• 2% reduction in the 12.4% Social Security tax bringing it down to 10.4% and further underfunding the highly underfunded Social Security Ponzi Scheme.  This is almost a toss-up evaluation since the Social Security tax money is really treated as though it is general fund money.  It has been a fiction that it is dedicated to the Social Security program and this contributes to revealing that fiction.
• A 35% tax on estates valued at $5 million or more, which will badly damage many businesses and immorally attacks the results of many years of productive labor.
• Extension of the Earned Income Tax Credit through 2012, which is unearned income.
• Increased gift taxes.
• Incentives for biodiesel and renewable diesel.
• Credit for refined coal facilities.
• New energy efficient home credit.
• Tax credits and subsidies for alternative fuel and fuel mixtures.
• Extension of the cash grants of 30% for renewable energy projects with no profits due to lack of economic usefulness.
• Extension of ethanol production supports, which is a numskull program.
• Energy-efficient appliance credits, which should need no credits if they make sense.
• Alternative fuel vehicle refueling property tax credit extension.
• Exclusion from income of employer benefits for mass transit use and parking.
• Indian employment tax credit, which is clearly racial discrimination.
• Accelerated depreciation of business property on Indian reservations.
• Tax incentives for investments in the District of Columbia.
• Tax credits dedicated to Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and American Somoa.
• Work Opportunity Credit to business for hiring certain favored groups with high unemployment.

In addition to these provisions, there are many more.  Since the bill itself consists of a list of how a line or phrase in a previously passed law is changed, it is very difficult to assess just what the effects of many provisions are.  This is the studied way in which our Congress makes its activities transparent!  This practice keeps both citizens and Congressmen alike from reading the bills before the Congress.  We are really governed by the staff of the Congressmen and the lobbyists who assist them with the writing of these obscure documents.

This bill is loaded with nonsense that should not be in it.  At the same time, there are also many good provisions.  Compared to what we have seen in the prior actions of this Congress, this is a good bill.  It has too many additional spending components such as the extension of unemployment benefits and a continued commitment to the uneconomic and foolish alternative energy projects.  If it is passed as such, it will not be as good a bill as one which would likely be passed in January when the new Congress begins its session.  There are advantages to letting everyone know next year's tax rates, but this bill also has some sad pork in it.  At this point, I think it is pretty much a toss-up whether this bill is passed now or a better bill is passed in a few weeks. 

I am leaning marginally toward the somewhat better bill in a few weeks in the next Congress though.  That is also not without its problems.  The main problem is that one would like the new Congress to get right to work on spending cuts.  Unfortunately, the Progressive Socialists still control the Senate and occupy the White House, which means the improved Congress is not likely to be able to make cuts in previously funded programs.  Fortunately, this now Lame Duck Congress has not done its budget approval job and the new Congress will be able to do much more to constrain the current fiscal year spending than would otherwise be the case.  If the present bill to stop the massive tax increase is passed in this Congress, the next one will be able to more quickly get down to business on spending cuts.  It also needs very badly to cut the highest in the world American corporate tax rate.  That is not too bad an alternative situation.

9/12 Demonstrators Strike Terror in Progressive Elitists

On Sunday, 12 September 2010, I and my wife Anna joined the 9/12 demonstrators before the Capitol to protest against big government, wild, insane spending, and massive violations of the rights of the individual.  The crowd, on a rainy, wet day, was large, but not so large as at the 9/12 demonstration of a one year ago.  I suspect that many people stayed home to work to get Tea Party candidates elected to office.  Others, most likely learned from their earlier attempts that the current politicians in Washington, few of whom were there due to the election coming up in November, are so contemptuous of the people they rule, that they have no interest in the people's thoughts and concerns.  Therefore, it is wisest simply to toss them out of office.  Still, the crowd was large and I observed it from about 1 PM to about 4:30 PM.  I took 246 photos of demonstrators and will present some of those here.

Of course, we have from the good authority of the socialist media that such people as these demonstrators are racists, ignorant rednecks, neo-Nazis, all radical, intolerant Christian bullies, homophobes, immigrant haters, and violent beyond belief.  Let us examine some pictures of these people who would strike terror in the hearts of any civilized human being:

"Our Founding Fathers Warned Against National Debt," hmmm.... is that a well-known Nazi saying or what?  "We Can't Afford You."  Perhaps being too poor to be a good Nazi socialist is just a redneck thing.  Notice the many military-like uniforms, the blackjacks, the hobnailed boots, and the raised arms.  We would see the fangs, except everyone is looking in the direction of a speaker, probably a Hitler-like harranger and demagogue.

This gray-haired woman under an umbrella looks mighty threatening.  Quite interesting that on a rainy day she had the creativity to use her umbrella as a protest sign.  If she gets her hands on the controls of government, we had better watch out.  She will be a formidable foe to the Progressive agenda.  ObamaCare = Slavery and Got Personal Responsibility?  How could you be more threatening?

This smiling lady did not look sufficiently threatening to be holding such a subversive sign.  Imagine someone sending the message that people should read Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged.  Imagine telling people it is OK to be concerned about their own self-interest and to act on it.  Then there is all that horrible stuff about legitimate government from the American Declaration of Independence and even a notion that people have rights not granted to them by a beneficent government in the Bill of Rights.  Imagine calling our Mommy Dearest government a tyranny and illegitimate!  That it spends 70% of its expenditures unconstitutionally.  So, I investigated and found that she was simply holding the sign for a husband who was running around the demonstration taking pictures.  He is, no doubt, the evil one.  Then note also that the umbrella lady has also enjoined you to Work Harder: Millions on Welfare are Depending on You.

Here we have someone scaring the children, babies even, with the idea that their debt is huge.  How much kinder it would be to leave the baby in innocence until it discovers how much debt it owes, say, after graduating from college.  At least we know the government-run schools and the progressive colleges will not scare them with such hoary facts!  They are so kind and thoughtful, but not these wicked people!

How uncouth to imply that a Congressional Democrat is a socialist?  How can anyone complain about the government pulling money out of their wallets when they are doing so much good with while paying off Obama's supporters and enlisting them as special interests so they will support socialist policies?  Oops, I meant to say so they would support forward-thinking Progressive policies with central planning by the Mommy State to take care of those many, many Americans who are so helpless and pitifully in need.

Oh, another Uncle Tom.  Ahh.... maybe not.  He is probably a poor homeless, uneducated man who can't even read the sign he is holding.  Those nasty protesters probably paid him so much to hold that sign that he just couldn't resist.  This just demonstrates once again how right the Progressives are in knowing very well that black Americans are incapable of choosing their own values and living their own lives.  Look how they are just so vulnerable to the manipulations of the worst elements in our society.  We elitists must remember it is not his fault.  This is why we have a very, very big government:  To take care of him and to manipulate his vote before the nasty people do.

The woman in the wheelchair stood up briefly.  This proves she is probably an assassin waiting for a black Congressman to pass by.  You have to watch carefully for these sleeper terrorists that fill the ranks of the right-wing wingnuts.

Note the women with a young girl in the lower left.  She is holding a baby.  Is she just really, really irresponsible bringing these vulnerable innocents into the midst of these raving lunatic neo-Nazis?  Or is she an even more cleverly disguised assassin?  Note the sign quotes John Adams, that regressive firebrand of old, that claims that the Constitution is inadequate to a People who are not moral and religious.  You know, he almost got that right.  If he had said it is inadequate to a people who not moral, as we Progressives know no one is, and had left out the religious characteristic, he would have been a Progressive!  Of course, we Progressive do welcome religious people if they subscribe to the Progressive social program and if they understand that the Constitution is inadequate.

"Stop Convolutin' our Constitution."  My, she is even trying to sound like a redneck.  Doesn't she understand even that the Constitution is a living instrument of the Progressive Program?  What kind of education did she have?  Surely, not one in a quality school such as all of our union and government controlled schools are!  "Clean out Congress."  That sounds as though she intends to attack Congress with an assault weapon!

Wow, these neo-Nazis sure are effective in recruiting women.  This one is quite good-looking too, but I am sure her heart is black with evil.  Because she hates her black heart, she probably hates her black President.  Yes, that sounds like the right Progressive spin to put on this.

"Oust the Marxist Usurper! ...His Czars and Thugs!  Honduras did it!"  Wow, how extreme can you get.  These people have probably been reading too much of the radical Charles Anderson!  Why can't they understand that socialism will make everyone equal and provide for all their wants?  Why can't they understand that the State has to use Force to Make People do the Right Thing?  Why can't they understand the collective love of taking your neighbor's income and property and of making him give his time to community service.  Sure, sometimes we have to send someone sort of rough around to take his income or his property.  Sometimes we have to haul his retrograde ass off to jail because he would not obey the great will of the collective.  Sometimes we have to shoot someone.  But, mostly they get with the program and it is so good for everyone to be equally poor, except the elite leaders, who of course need to have more goodies than the rest so they can comfortably lead.  The President should have fine suits, while the people are more moral if they wear rags.

Oh no.  Apparently these three wandered into the midst of this dangerous, black-hating crowd by horrible accident.  It is unlikely that they made it out alive.  The wolves surely devoured them.  Do you suppose that pink jug is full of acid?  Gee, their bodies were probably not even found.  Their bones were probably even dissolved.  The werewolves probably drank all of their blood first.  How awful.  See why you blacks must always vote Democrat?  We give you the best police protection and the best educations.  We really take care of you.  And you owe us.  Never forget how much you owe us, the white Progressive elitists who put Obama into the symbolic Presidency.  The real power is in Congress.

Well, enough of this Progressivist commentary.  I saw no acts of violence and no angry arguments.  There were a few sentiments that this is a Christian nation, one sign against abortion, but not really very much of that even.  Mostly, the signs wanted less government, a constitutional government.  I only saw one sign opposing the Victory Mosque at Ground Zero.  As usual, the police were not needed, but the Progressive DC government and the Democrat Congress needed to pretend that they were.  The people there were a cross-section of America with people of all races there.  Yes, black Americans are in such thralldom to the Democrats, that they are underrepresented.  But, I get the impression that more black Americans are beginning to think for themselves.  There were rich and poor people.  There were grandparents, parents, young adults, and children.  You know, just your everyday group of terrorists.  Well, actually that is what they are, because they are terrifying the Democrat, socialist Congress and their minion politicians all across America.  Good for them.  The People have Awakened and Risen.  They want to cast off tyrannical government and replace it with a more constitutional, limited-power government, which respects their individual rights.

My 9/12 Protest Sign

My 9/12 Protest sign for the march from the Washington Monument to the Congress has two columns.  The first reads:

Read Ayn Rand!

Legitimate
Government:
•    Has Few Powers
•    Protects the Equal, Sovereign Rights of the Individual to Life, Liberty, Property, & the Pursuit of Happiness
•    Implied Individual Rights are Many
Individual Rights:
•    Constitutional Rights
•    Ownership of Body
•    Right to Earn a Living & Use Income
•    Freedom of Conscience
•    Freedom to be Left Alone & of Privacy
•    Freedom of Association
•    Individual Sexuality
•    Freedom to Trade
•    Freedom to Educate
•    Freedom to Hire


The second column reads:

Read Atlas Shrugged!

Illegitimate, Tyrannical Government:
•    Present Government
•    70% of Spending is Unconstitutional
•    Violates Individual Rights
•    Doesn’t Protect Rights Equally
•    ObamaCare Steals Your Body
•    Many Stimulus Plans Steal Your Income
•    Financial Controls Violate Freedoms of Trade, Contract, Hire
•    Coming CO2 Emissions Penalties are Pointless
•    Redistribution of Income is Immoral
•    Hates Enterprise & Self-Responsibility

Because there is a 60% chance of rain and it is raining now at 0430 hours, the sign is wrapped in thin clear plastic sheet.  It should hold up.  I hope many freedom-loving Americans will show up in a few hours, despite the rain!

Broader Lawsuit Filed Against ObamaCare

In addition to the lawsuits filed by Virginia and by Florida with another 19 states including Arizona, the Goldwater Institute has filed a private lawsuit against ObamaCare on a much broader basis than that of the state lawsuits which are mostly concerned about the traditional authority of the states to regulate health care.  The private lawsuit, Coons v. Geithner, makes the arguments that ObamaCare:

• exceeds the powers of Congress
• violates individual rights
• interferes with the authority of the states
• violates the separation of powers with a bureaucracy lacking sufficient Congressional direction and judicial review

The plaintiffs are Nick Coons, who owns a small business in Tempe, Arizona; U.S. Representatives from Arizona, Jeff Flake, Trent Franks, and John Shadegg; and by the Speaker of the Arizona House Kirk Adams and 28 other Arizona state legislators.  Obama, Treasury Sec.Tim Geithner, Health and Human Resources Sec. Kathleen Sibelius, and Attorney General Eric Holder are being sued.

Nick Coons will be forced to buy government approved health insurance by 2014 or face IRS fines.  He wants to continue to make his own health care decisions.  He also objects to the legislated violations of his medical privacy to an insurance company, the federal government, and others without his permission.

The three U.S. Representatives object to the lack of Congressional oversight of the Independent Payment Advisory Board, which will make assure that costs are controlled and will therefore ration care and care quality.  This board will also not be subject to judicial review.  Unfathomably, the law also says the board cannot be repealed except for a short window of time in 2017.  I cannot understand how a present Congress can override the intentions of a future Congress with any act other than a Constitutional amendment, which requires additional approval from the states.

The Arizona legislators claim they have been forced by the federal government to restore prior cuts they made to their state's relatively generous Medicaid benefits because the federal government had threatened to take away $7 billion in federal payments to the Arizona Medicaid program.  They say this violates their First Amendment rights to vote in the best interests of Arizona citizens.

The Obama administration is expected to request that the lawsuit be dismissed since the federal law will not be fully implemented until 2014.  U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson already rejected this argument in the state of Virginia lawsuit against the federal government.

While I am delighted that 21 states have challenged the federal government on its over-reach into an area traditionally regulated by the states, I am much more pleased with this lawsuit which seeks to directly defend our individual rights.  As I have argued repeatedly, it is impossible to make the case that we have an individual right to life and to the pursuit of happiness if ObamaCare is brought into execution.  We will not even be able to say that we own our own life.  We will not be allowed to manage our own health care to maintain our own lives.  We will not be free to help those we love to maintain their lives.  We will not be free to take medical remedies to ameliorate pain, so we will not be able to pursue our happiness in a most fundamental way.  We will not have the freedom to correct medical problems without the consent of the federal government, yet these medical problems may incapacitate us to pursue the interests and values we need to provide us with happiness.  In short, ObamaCare is a prescription all by itself for that illegitimate, tyrannical government we defined in our Declaration of Independence.  ObamaCare gives us much greater reason than our colonist forefathers had to dissolve our allegiance to that illegitimate government and to seek independence from its tyrannical grasp.  The several lawsuits and/or a supermajority in Congress capable of repealing ObamaCare are the last hope of saving our Union and our much beloved Constitution.

Choosing a President

Ask most people what criteria they use to choose a president and they will say something like:

• He should be smart.
• He should have experience.
• He should look presidential by looking good and being self-assured.
• He should make me feel comfortable and that I can trust him.
• He should care about the people.
  

In reality these translate into:

• He should not be really smart, because then he would not be like me, but the mainstream media should say he is smart.
• He should have been busy creating coercive laws, but know nothing about business and running other voluntary organizations.
• He should be a megalomaniac who is sure that he knows what is best for the rest of us and he should look like someone a good-looking woman might choose for sex.
• He should have a silvery tongue and be able to convince me to follow him off a cliff.
• He gives never-ending speeches claiming that he cares about people, but he gives money to special interests to get their vote and deprives everyone of their liberty.

Well, what should be the principle upon which a rational person would make his choice for president? It would be great if he were very smart, if he had real experience in living a happy and productive life, if he had self-confidence, but also understood that the job of the president is so overblown now that no one could perform that job well, that he has a clear understanding that he serves the people, and that he knows that the best way to care about them and to serve them is to govern in accordance with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. But note that none of the other characteristics is really important and useful unless he will act as President in a manner consistent with his role as set out in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. If he is smart, but he uses his intelligence to consistently seek more power over the lives of individuals, then his intelligence is in the service of the Devil. The same is true if he looks presidential or has years of experience turning out coercive laws. If people think he cares about them because he makes promises that government will deliver goodies to them, then he is dangerous and will soon control us all by making us dependent upon his goodies and fearful of his taxes and service mandates. If he has a silvery tongue, this is also a great danger if he uses it toward evil goals.

The Declaration of Independence placed sovereignty for the first time squarely in the hands of the individual. The individual has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And, yes, to his property, which word was left out because it was clearly already covered by the given trilogy of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Declaration declared that just, legitimate government became so only if it served the people by protecting their individual sovereignty by ensuring their inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Government and its leaders could and should be overthrown if they did not act in recognition of the inalienable rights of the individual, which all of the people enjoyed and which none of the people had to apply to government for. Their rights were inalienable and could not legitimately be denied by government.

The Constitution attempted to bring about the mechanisms of government which would help to direct government to fulfill its goal of protecting the individual's rights and thereby serving the sovereign people well. The Preamble sets this understanding up. It states that the Constitution is to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." The Constitution then embarks on enumerating a very carefully chosen list of powers held by the President, the Congress, and the Federal Courts. It is very obvious that these powers are very limited. Let us examine some of the powers that Congress was given:

• To borrow money on the credit of the United States
• To regulate commerce between the states, foreign nations, and the Indian tribes, where regulate meant to keep the states from interfering with free trade, as they had been doing.
• To establish naturalization and bankruptcy rules.
• To coin money and establish weights and measures.
• To establish penalties for counterfeiting.
• To establish post offices and post roads.
• To provide for copyrights and patents.
• To set up federal courts inferior to the Supreme Court.
• To define and punish piracies and felonies on the high seas.
• To declare war and make rules for captures.
• To raise and support Armies.
• To provide and maintain a Navy.
• To provide for calling forth the Militia.
• To tax for the purpose of performing the above powers. There was no implication that taxes could be levied and used for other purposes, though some soon claimed they could be and were opposed by such men as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and James Madison.

The President and every Congressman have a primary function of protecting the Constitution and its protections of the rights of the individual. The President is explicitly required to make the following oath: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States , and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." Any president who does not do so is illegitimate and a threat to the inalienable rights of the individual and clearly subject to overthrow by our birth certificate, The Declaration of Independence. Therefore, the most central principle for choosing a president is clear: He must be the man who will do the best job of preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution of the United States, whose central purpose is to honor the inalienable right of the individual to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness by maintaining government's very limited scope of action and leaving as much as possible to the individual choice of those who are the people.

Many people opposed the idea of establishing a Bill of Rights, since they said that the powers of the Federal government were so limited that they could not be used to violate the rights of the individual. There was no need to declare a right to freedom of speech, since it was clear that the government was given no power to limit freedom of speech. In fact, when the decision was finally made to put together the Bill of Rights, one of the original amendments, Amendment IX, states "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." This makes it very clear just how jealously the people claimed their inalienable individual rights!

Today, we should do no less. Today, we are much more threatened by illegitimate and overblown government than the colonies were by the government of King George III and a Parliament in which they had no representation. The actual encroachments upon the rights of the individual in the colonies were small compared to those we now experience in America. The level of taxation was microscopic compared to the present. The redistribution of wealth and the requirements for service were small in comparison. There are now many more limitations upon our right to lead productive and self-directed lives. We are allowed the freedom to make a much smaller fraction of our life choices now. The mere fact that a plurality of voters may choose to violate the Constitution and the rights of the individual does not lessen the horrible fact that the rights of the individual and his sovereignty are under brutal attack. This government, backed by this plurality of voters, is illegitimate.

Just as the most singly critical principle for choosing a President is whether he will preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, so is that also the most important criterion for choosing any member of Congress. We do an awful job of choosing those people as well as choosing Presidents. The people we have chosen have proven very adept at violating our individual, inalienable rights. This is no surprise, given that few of us recognize the most important principle for choosing our President and our representatives in the House and Senate. Most people have richly earned the loss of their liberty, but they must be damned for also losing that of the few who deserved their liberty and for losing that liberty for our Posterity!