KNOW YOUR ENEMY AND WHAT PROTECTS YOU FROM IT

Any government is the natural enemy of its people’s liberty and freedoms. The objective of those in government, even if they’re not aware of it, is to centralize government control and consolidate its power, depriving its citizens of rights and freedoms in the process. If a people have nothing to protect them from their government, they are nothing but slaves.

The writers of the American constitution knew that. They had just dealt with an oppressive government, so the constitution was to be a contract between the American government and its people that would itemize what the government could do, and specifically prohibit it from doing certain things.

In the debate over ratification of the constitution, some saw that the constitution as written was insufficient to protect Americans’ liberty, so they proposed a Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the constitution. It is probable that the constitution would not have been ratified without those first ten amendments. Those amendments embody our best chance to remain free from government tyranny.

The constitution afforded Americans not only protections against the government depriving its citizens of their freedoms, but protection against the will of a misguided majority acting in haste to take away the freedoms of the minority.

Because a majority can act unwisely in an emotionally charged situation, changing the constitution requires that a proposed amendment be ratified by three-fourths of the states to become law. In this way, during the time required for ratification, cooler heads can prevail and an unwise change be averted.

The greatest danger to Americans comes when the people react without careful reflection in a crisis or as the result of an emotionally charged event, and the government, seizing the opportunity to take away freedoms, quickly passes laws or executive actions that abrogate constitutional protections.

Now some government officials and private citizens are suggesting executive action and/or passing laws in contravention of one of the first ten amendments. If changing one of our basic protections to our liberty is a good idea, then it should be done by an amendment to the constitution, not by government fiat.

Americans will remain free only as long as they demand that the government hold fast to the terms of the contract that protects us: the Constitution.

WHAT JUST DIDN’T HAPPEN, AND WHAT WILL HAPPEN?

It’s the day after the national election, and nothing’s changed. Obama’s still in the White House, the Republicans still control the House of Representatives and the Democrats still control the Senate. Oh, and the Cheshire Cat is still grinning in the tree.

The official presidential campaigns spent over $1 billion and nothing happened except that the TV networks got richer. We still will have gridlock for at least the next two years. (Things could change in 2014. The Democrats could regain control of the House, and in the event, if they retain control of the Senate, then it will be a replay of 2009 and 2010, in which period we got Obamacare.) God only knows what we would get if the Democrats regain control of Congress in 2014. But surely Americans are not so stupid as to do that again; in the election yesterday they kissed Obama’s ass big time, but still elected Republicans to control the House. All politics are local, it’s been said. Lest you think I’m pickin’ on the Democrats, I assure you I believe that were the Republicans in the same position, the fallout would be as bad, if slightly different.

But there is one thing looming that could cause big changes: A lame-duck Congress. It is the time when it could really rape us, as if we haven’t been fucked enough by Congress in the past 12 years (at least).

The lame-ducks will consider extending the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, a law that employs secret and unaccountable FISA courts and bureaucrats that authorize the federal government to spy on Americans with warrantless searches and forces libraries and internet providers to give the government information they want about Americans. The House already passed the extension, so will the Senate save us from this abomination? Don’t bet on it.

Congress failed to pass what Campaign for Liberty calls “the crown jewel in the national security police state,” cyber-security laws that would require internet providers to allow the federal government to see behind everything on the net. But you can be sure that Congress will try to pass it in the lame-duck session.

Republicans always have been statists to a significant degree (Bush got that constitution-screwing Patriot Act passed with the help of his Republican congressional majority), but the Democrats that were anti-statists during Vietnam have become even more statist than Republicans! We still have the Patriot Act even after two years of a Democratic president who had a Democrat-controlled Congress! Curious, isn’t it, that those who once were anti-establishment now are the establishment.

My Democrat friends will say that in this post I am lying about the Democratic Party and impugning the newly reelected president-who-can-do-no-wrong. My Republican friends will say that I am lying about the Republican Party. They all will defend the Patriot Act, the FISA Amendments Act, and the proposed cyber-security legislation as necessary for our security.

But how, then, will we be secure from our own government? If none of this happens in the lame-duck session, I will have fallen down the rabbit hole.

SMUT’S HUNTING A PLATYPUS

“Smut,” I said, “you are a truly amazing dog. It took you a while, but your dogged persistence in searching for the Higgs Boson paid off!”

“Wasn’t really that amazing,” he said. “It just takes a lot of concentration, and I’m uniquely designed for intense concentration. You’ve watched me in retriever mode often, so you know what I mean. By the way, good pun.”

“What pun?” I asked.

“Never mind,” he replied. “It’ll come to you.”

“Well, congratulations are in order anyway. And after spending years on the Higgs, and particularly after your cancer surgery in January, you deserve to, ah, lead a dog’s life for the rest of your time.”

Ignoring my pun, he looked at me reproachfully and said, “Can’t do it, sport. If I only have a little time left, then I have to really concentrate to find the platypus.”

“What? What are you talking about?”

“The platypus particle, of course.”

“What’s that,” I said, clueless as to what he was talking about.

“Well,” he continued, “you know about leptons and hadrons, don’t you?”

“No. Should I?”

“Yes, you should. I’ll explain.”

He proceeded to explain in depth until I was completely lost in a morass of leptons, quarks, hadrons, positive charges, negative charges, and other mysterious terms I can’t remember. Finally, he appeared to be at the end of his baffling “explanation.”

“So, a particle could exist that is a bit like both leptons and quarks: a leptoquark.”

“Wait a minute, I said, I thought you were talking about leptons and hadrons.”

“You don’t listen, do you? I already explained that a quark is the basic building block of hadrons. Keep your car on the highway!”

“Oh, sorry,” I apologized, still baffled.

“So discovering a leptoquark would be like discovering a platypus, a mammal that’s furry somewhat like a beaver, but that lays eggs like a duck. See?”

No, I didn’t really understand that leptoquark stuff, but I can see that now he’s going to be intent on retrieving a platypus, something I think is very odd for a Labrador. I just hope he doesn’t try to use my credit card to buy a ticket to Australia.

ELECTION PREDICTION

Either Obama will win a second term, or Romney will win the White House. I feel pretty confident of that prediction.

Will I be pleased with either result?

Obama has presided over a disastrous first term, not just because Bush screwed things up, but because he, Obama, has screwed up worse. I know that a great many people who voted for Obama in 2008 intend either to vote for Romney in 2012, or not to vote.

Romney has spent his campaign trying to find the right thing to say to get elected, never mind that he hasn’t spent past years doing the right thing, so we have no clue what the hell he would do as president, except continue, like Obama, to promote corporate interests and, like Obama, to spend our tax money profligately.  (An aside to all those who intend to vote for Romney because they think he is the lesser of two evils: There is no lesser of these two evils.) And a great many who really wanted the Republican party to nominate someone other than Romney may not vote.

I, like them, will not be pleased with either Obama or Romney. What the campaigns are calling “a clear choice,” is no choice at all.

Those disaffected with the Democratic and Republican candidates should consider voting for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, who is fiscally conservative and socially liberal, but mostly for the preservation of our freedom and liberty. But I know they won’t. I cannot tell you how many people with whom I’ve talked say that they do not want to vote for Obama or Romney, but that a vote for a third-party candidate–even one with whom they mostly agree–is a wasted vote.

That isn’t true, of course. If you vote your conscience, it’s not a wasted vote. If all those disaffected people voted for Gary Johnson, what a statement that would make! If he were to capture a significant part of the vote, it would send a message to both the Democrats and the Republicans that Americans are tired of extreme partisan politics; that we want candidates to work for the good of all Americans, not just whatever faction or corporate interest they secretly represent; that we want politicians to listen to us and understand that they work for us, not the other way round, and that we want, above all, forever to be free from government oppression.

If Johnson were to come in second, beating one of the major party candidates in the vote, it would scare the shit out of both major parties. To the major party that came in third, it might mean that it no longer has legitimacy as a political party, and to the major party that won, the message might be “you’re next!” In either event, both major parties would scramble to pay attention to the voters, and that is what we want.

But, like I say, people are short-sighted and so timid that they will not have the guts to vote us out of the terrible mess that we’re in. People just don’t understand that the two major parties are confident that one of them will win this time, and the other one later, so they can continue this charade of being different while carting us down the path to fiscal destruction and social upheaval with impunity.

So my prediction stands: Obama or Romney will win, and America will lose.

THE FOURTH ESTATE IS DEAD IN AMERICA

When I was in the Air Force, I followed the Watergate story in the Washington Post every day until the rest of the news media caught up, and even then, the Post was my main source of news about Watergate. And as a journalist, I was proud of the Post for its vise-grip on the story, and its dogged determination to follow it to the end.

At the time, I never considered whether the fact that Nixon was a Republican had anything to do with the Post’s determination to dig out the facts of the story and print it regardless of its fallout; I just assumed that any journalist, and any news organization, would do that, whether the subject was a Democrat or Republican. Indeed, during the Watergate period, news media whose editorial policies were both Democrat and Republican followed the story to conclusion, as we would expect news media to do today.

But times have changed. There are sufficient questions surrounding the attack in Benghazi and the death of the American ambassador to Libya to make a real journalist salivate and dig relentlessly to uncover the truth. But is the Post doing that? No. And neither is any “news” medium whose editorial stance is pro-Democratic. They all should be ashamed of themselves. I certainly am ashamed of them.

That leaves Fox News as the only “news” organization digging to get the story, and one wonders if the events had happened under a Republican president if Fox News would be as lackadaisical as the Post is now in pursuing the story. One also wonders how diligent Fox News would be if the events had occurred after the election, and whether the pro-Obama news media will pursue the story more diligently after the election, should Obama be reelected.

The Washington Post and other media survive now as instruments of party or presidential propaganda rather than “news” media. It is the job of the Fourth Estate to protect the people from government by letting them know what the government is doing; by spotlighting the unconstitutional and other misdeeds of our government. Given that the media no longer performs those functions, what does that say about how long Americans can remain a free people?

YOU MIGHT BE A LIBERTARIAN

(Apologies to Jeff Foxworthy)

Do you think that it makes more sense to let a free market, in which competition among participants is the chief characteristic, offer everything from what we eat to the medical care we get, instead of government-mandated programs designed by anonymous bureaucrats that limit our choices based on the whims of politicians? Then you might be a libertarian.

Do you think the government should stop spending substantive amounts of money maintaining military bases in countries from Britain to Korea, and station all the troops at home, creating more money flow and jobs in the United States? Then you might be a libertarian.

Do you think the government should stop interfering in the affairs of other sovereign countries and instead offer to trade and deal equally with all nations? Then you might be a libertarian.

Do you think that the government should stop its expensive and unsuccessful war on drugs, legalize and regulate currently illegal drugs, and allow states to spend what would have been drug-war money on programs that help drug abusers? Then you might be a libertarian.

Do you think that it’s not the government’s business to define marriage and regulate who can marry, but that states should issue civil union permits to all who wish to enter legal partnerships, and that what constitutes marriage and who should marry is up to individuals and their religious institutions? Then you might be a libertarian.

Do you think that government should not decide who should be born and who should die? Then you might be a libertarian.

Do you believe that the federal government engages in activities beyond constitutional limitations, and that therefore taxation to pay for those activities is illegal and unconstitutional? Then you might be a libertarian.

Do you believe that the federal government’s continued borrowing and printing money to support programs that are both unconstitutional and beyond our means should be wound-down over time, and that Congress must make provision to eliminate the federal debt over time? Then you might be a libertarian.

Do you think that the preservation of individual rights and liberty for all Americans is more important than the threat of terrorist acts? Then you might be a libertarian.

Do you think that federal, state and local government pervasive surveillance programs are both intrusive and unconstitutional? Then you might be a libertarian.

Do you believe that Americans have an obligation to provide assistance to those who really need it, but that providing a government-financed living to those who choose not to be productive is neither a legitimate role of government nor within our financial means? Then you might be a libertarian.

Do you think that the rights and freedoms of Americans guaranteed in the Constitution cannot be maintained if the constitutional limits on government are ignored? Then you might be a libertarian.

Do you understand and disagree with the policies and actions of both Democrats and Republicans, and wish there were another choice? Then you might be a libertarian.

Learn more about libertarianism and decide for yourself if it’s a better choice for you and for America. And ask yourself if a Democrat or Republican would tell you to decide for yourself.

CAN FACEBOOK BE WORTHWHILE?

Is there some value to Facebook? Turns out that it could be a good forum for the sharing of social and political ideas and real debate on social and political issues. And it’s not likely that the debate will degenerate into state of crass and rancorous argument because posts are friend-to-friend. A case in point:

After posting this on Facebook in response to a post touting President Obama’s environmental initiatives,

I don’t understand why anyone would want another 4 years with Obama as president, or why anyone would want Romney as president. Both the Democratic and Republican parties are corrupt and bad for America, and if we want to survive as a nation going forward, we had better realize that this 2-party paradigm no longer works. If you are left wing or right wing, there are other parties that you can work to elevate. If you are a centrist or libertarian, I suggest you work to elevate the Libertarian Party. At some point, people will come to the realization that the system as it is doesn’t work, and begin to shift their votes to alternative parties or movements. Whomever you vote for, you can save the country temporarily by voting in congressmen and senators of the opposite party of the president. As long as the government is deadlocked, neither the president nor congress can do harm. But I suggest working for the long-term salvation of America and breaking out of the 2-party paradigm.

I received this response post from a friend:

…I have equal problems with Libertarians. Most of them seem to forget that this country was founded on two principles, liberty AND justice. Liberty has to be tempered by justice. The French had even more clarity on principles: Liberty, Fraternity (community) and Equality (justice). Community keeps justice from being rigid, and justice keeps liberty from being anarchic. Sorry, I think we are in this nation together, not as a collection of individuals, and I could never vote for a libertarian.

I have no argument with what my friend said in regard to the principles of liberty and justice; in fact, they are the ideals to which we should aspire, and some think that either the Democratic or Republican party advances those ideals. But I think that the Democratic and Republican parties both spurn those ideals, in spite of their attempts to convince us otherwise. Just look at the record–the real record, not campaign propaganda–for God’s sake! With that in mind, I responded as follows:

Justice? Where is the justice in Bush lying to start wars? Where is the justice in Obama deciding that he can kill American citizens without providing them their 5th and 6th-amendment rights? Because of these and other cynical and illegal acts by both Republicans and Democrats, I will not vote for a candidate of either party again. And your characterization of libertarians is off base. Libertarians want justice and liberty for all; that doesn’t make them uncaring individualists. To the contrary, libertarians understand that people in this country must work together for the good of all, but they don’t think that the juggernaut of a massive government bureaucracy advances that goal. Nor does it protect liberty; rather, it threatens it. Nor does it dispense justice; rather, it perverts it. Government must have effective limitations if we are to remain free. That is perhaps the principle relied upon most by the founders of this nation. I am a libertarian–not a Libertarian–and I think that I and other libertarians are more invested in our founding principles, and more caring of the whole community of our countrymen than are officials and candidates of the two major parties.

My friend hasn’t yet responded, but if there is a response, I’m sure it will be one that is well thought out, well delivered, and devoid of rancor.

Although it’s not seen on Facebook as often as it could be, dialogue like this is needed among people. It helps us to more carefully focus on what we believe, and to formulate our responses to questions and assertions. And, in some cases, we may find that respondents have better arguments. I’m humble enough to know when I’m wrong and admit it, and I know that most of my friends are that way too. Now if we could just get the politicians to use Facebook to calmly debate issues instead of relying on character attacks and hyperbole, then we’d be better off, wouldn’t we?