Tag Archives: Obama administration

Mar 6 2014

The Repeating Cycles of Social Time


A Major War is Coming!

Strauss and Howe in their 1997 book The Fourth Turning An American Prophecy outline how social or political time runs in cycles. There is much they have to say in their book and much of that goes all the way back to the Roman times where they find the name for this cycle from the Romans and it’s a Saeculum meaning a long human life of 80 to 90 years. This Saeculum is composed of 4 generations of about 20 some years each. Read the book for the full analysis which is very compelling but for here the salient point is near the end of each Saeculum there is a major war, no exceptions.

The cycles they identify go back to England and the war of the Roses 1459 to 1487 and since then there have been five complete cycles and we are now in the final stages of the sixth cycle which according to them ends around 2025 plus or minus a few years. This period that we are now in is the fourth turning (a turning meaning going from one generation to the other in the Saeculum) hence the name of the book. They can pin down the basic times that all this occurs because these changes have repeated themselves for 555 years now.

The last three major wars going back from the present were: WW II from 1941 to 1945; the American Civil War from 1861 to 1865 and then the American Revolution from 1775 to 1783. The civil war started 86 years after the American Revolution; WW II started 80 years after the Civil War started. The scary thing right now is that 80 years from 1941 is 2021 which is a likely start for the next major world war. However over all the Saeculum’s since the War of the Roses have been getting progressively shorter so that 80 years may not be a good guess.

Straussand Howe are not the only ones to see the pattern but even still they go to great lengths to show why it occurs and how many other sociologists have also seen all or some of the pattern they have identified in their book. I read the book after it came out in 98 or 99 and thought it was interesting and put in on my book shelf. After 9/11 I went back and read the book again since I remembered that they talked about that kind of an event happening around 2005. Since then I’ve read it a couple more times and I am now convinced they are right on and a major war is now eminent.

So based on current events (read my previous post on the Ukraine) which seem to parallel the years before WW II started, actually in 1938 in Europe, we can make a case for the next world war to start any time from 2016 to no later than 2022.

Mar 3 2014

What to do with the Russians?


But the real worry is what about the Chinese?

This president came into office just over 5 years ago with the “Stated” goal of making a “Fundamental” change to America.  Whether the American’s believed him or not he was going to do just that!  Progressives’ like Obama and his appointed minions believe that America is the problem in the world and that our large military scares everyone and that is why they do not like us. I would not agree with this proposition one bit, but but my opinion is irrelevant I’m not in politics either here nor there. However, that doesn’t mean I cannot understand what is going on in the world for I have studied the subject of global politics from both the military and civilian perspectives.

To the rest of the world what has Obama done? Well a partial listing follows: First a world apology tour for “us” being so bad; then he cancels the anti missile agreement with Poland, then he cancels the US manned space program, he does not negotiate a status of forces agreement in Iraq; he does nothing with the green movement in Iran; he begins to cancel DOD advanced weapons programs soon after assuming office; he encourages the Arab spring; he ignores Iran’s nuclear program for all practical purposes; he gives the impression that he does not like Israel; he proposes major reductions in US nuclear weapons; he announces that all American troops will be out of Afghanistan in 2014; he does nothing In Syria or prior to that in Georgia; he was AWOL after the Benghazi terrorist attack, he has his EPA continue to make regulation that start to close down major sections of the U.S. economy; then he announces that the U.S. military will be significantly reduced and more military programs are to be eliminated.

Foreign leaders with real world experience see a U.S. president with no experience dismantling the US military as fast as he can. They will obviously take advantage of this as real leaders always do.  So it’s no surprise that Putin is doing what he is doing which is to attempt to reestablish the old U.S.S.R. as there will be no military action against him; since the EC has no military and is dependent on Russian e.g. Putin, for their natural gas so there really is nothing that they can do other than complain.

The real issue is not Russia reassembling its empire but what will China do?  The logical thing for them is to see how the world acts or doesn’t act to the absorption of at minimum the eastern Ukraine into Russia.  If Putin gets away with this and its hard to see how he will not given the box that Obama has put himself in, unfortunately along with the rest of the country, they will likely make a similar move in their sphere of influence with those disputed islands with Japan or maybe even a much bigger target Taiwan.

The American Eagle has clipped wings and can no longer fly.

Feb 28 2014
Image

Tribute to those that Serve!


PassingtheColors

Feb 20 2014

Does God have a Place in Government?


The Founders Believed that it was Required

We have been conditioned today into believing that in the United States of America there is a wall between the church and the government — “The Separation of Church and State” — as it is now called.  Further we are told that this comes from our founding documents so it must be true — but is it? In searching those documents we find that those words or any derivation of them do not appear in any of the founding documents. But we also know that the use of the words God or the Creator (used inter-changeably here) and a fundamental belief in God was very important to the founders and that they reference God a lot in their writing and God was very prominent in all the public buildings; Federal, State and Local until after World War II. So how did we get from a nation founded on the belief in God to a secular state that can’t even acknowledging the existence of God?

Much, but not all, of this change can be traced to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and its influence on the legal system up to and including the U.S. Supreme Court.  The ACLU was founded by Crystal Eastman, Roger Baldwin and Walter Nelles (an interesting fact is that Nelles has ties to what becomes the infamous ‘Students for a Democratic Society’  from the 60’s) who were all avid socialists and in all probability, communists at heart, if not in practice.  It could be said that they used their beliefs in what is called social justice today, to destroy the influence of religion since religion was deemed to be bad by Karl Marx, the founder of the principles of communism and the precursor of modern socialism.  Since the communist movement was very strong when these three were growing up this is a likely connection. Why else would so many of the court cases promoted by the ACLU be used to drive a wedge between the religious people of this country and their government; especially in the public schools of the country? The result is that ever since shortly after the end of WW II, we have been moving away from God.  God is no longer “fashionable”.

By what logic could this transformation be done? There must have been something that those wishing to change the American System found to give them an opportunity to make the change they desired. And there was; in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to a Baptist Association he wrote: “… I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.” Jefferson reflected his frequently as a speaking theme that the government is not to interfere with religion.

Jefferson in his misused reference was of course referring to the national or federal government which was proscribed in the First Amendment to not interfere with religion and specifically not establish a “state” religion.  This Amendment, part of the ‘Bill-of Rights,’ was written to keep the federal government out of the states and local communities where they, the local government could do as they pleased.  Meaning the people there could have their local government participate in religious activities without being dictated to, one way or the other, by the federal government.  Since for almost 200 years this principle held and the federal government used religion itself although non denominational it is hard to see how this has been turned around to what we have today.  We are constantly hearing how some religious item such as the Ten Commandments are being removed from public buildings as being offensive to the citizens. How did they get there then and be there for so long? Further if the founding fathers didn’t agree with how this issue was handled in the first few decades of the republic they would have changed something; since they did not this is prima fascia evidence that the ‘new’ interpretation is false.

However, with the ACLU now in full get religion out of the government mode they used Jefferson’s comments, out of context, to argue a case at United States Supreme Court and they were successful in 1947 by a 5 to 4 ruling in the Everson vs Board of Education case in stopping a state from using public funds for transporting student to a faith based school. The result of this ruling is directly responsibly for all that followed.

This view is absurd on face — since we know that in political theory the belief in a Supreme Being was a major requirement to have a viable Democratic Republic. This view is in all the political writing of the eighteenth century and very clearly stated by those writers for example Adam Smith and John Lock since only a moral (religious) people could vote for representatives to their legislative bodies and end up having representatives that were moral. In most societies dating back to earliest recorded history, people got their sense of morality from religion.  Therefore, if we did not have morality in public life, the representatives we elect would become corrupt and the government would become oppressive.  We see this corruption happening now in our country and it is my opinion that this is a direct result of removing God from the public conscious and in fact making belief in any God a target for ridicule and cheap humor by politicians and certainly those in the media and entertainment industry.

So, that gives us the basis for the rest of this discussion on God and Government and why the two cannot be separated in the sense that it now is; that is if we are to continue to remain a free people.

At the core, there are only two kinds of governments.  The first is based on the existence of a “creator”, or prime mover.    The second is purely secular and proposes a “random spontaneous life” argument. Monarchies, democracies, republics and dictatorships, free markets, communism and fascism all have their roots in one of these systems.  But first we need to understand the basis for where the law used to govern us originates.

After reading many books and other material on government: John Lock, Adman Smith, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Pain, Thomas Hobbes, Charles-Louis Montesquieu and Jean-Jacques Rousseau to name a few, we find that some basic principles as to God and Government can be developed.  I have drawn my conclusions and beliefs from these writings and present my interpretation below. However, any mistakes in interpreting their views are entirely of my own invention.  Due to time and space restrictions, I have regrettably omitted many others philosophers and scholars that have contributed over centuries to the principle views held during the eighteenth century when our country was founded.  I mean them no disrespect and it’s only my late coming to this subject that prevents me from a more complete listing.

The first form of government is that which is based on natural law and natural law is that which man can see in nature, though the use of reason, because the Creator, God, put it there when he created the universe.  Man in the state of nature (meaning there is no government) is sovereign in himself; in that he has made no oath to serve another man nor entered into any compact to share that power so he alone can control what he does or does not do.  This is what gives the meaning to the sovereign which is simply put that there is no law above the person that has the sovereign. Therefore this man in nature has the sovereign power and it must come directly from God.  He is his own master free to do as he pleases within the framework of what the creator made available to him.

In this state of nature with no government all men are therefore equal and they control their own lives, what they do or don’t do. They do everything they do in the belief that it is in their self interest to provide for their existence (food, water, shelter etc).  But men soon found that two could do more than one and three more than two and so they would share the fruits of their combined labor in some agreed upon manner.  This might work for one or two or even three men but in a larger group of men, who would decide on the division of labor and division of the fruits of their labors?  In all probability the strongest and/or the smartest would get the others to cede power and authority.

At that point what is called a ‘social contract’ was formed, and since protection would be one of the primary goals of this contract, that was typically the reason that this person was given the right of leadership.  In so doing, individuals had effectively transferred their sovereign to that leader and he now held ‘only’ what they had given him by consent.  By the early eighteenth century it was thought that once the sovereign was given to a leader, it stayed with that leader or his heirs permanently.  However starting with the Magna Carta and solidifying in the mid 18th century other ideas became prominent and they were very different.  The new belief was that if those that made the laws (called the magistrates) did not serve the people, then the people had the right to take back the sovereign power and form a new government. The historical logic and writing of this is a bit more complex than what I present here but in general that is the core principle. The US War of Independence and French Revolution, although very different, are prime examples.

From this line of thought comes our Declaration of Independence and the first two paragraphs are shown next.  I have added bold to the key provisions.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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 sufferable, 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.

What follows next in the Declaration is a listing of the grievances which aren’t necessary for this discussion, and so we skip to the last paragraph.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

From this we can state the following, in the Creator based form of governance:

ONE. There is a Creator — a God that created the universe and all that is in it.

TWO. The Creator gives us our rights through natural law, such as: the right to life, liberty and property. These rights being God given cannot be taken away.

THREE. We cede the administration of those rights by our government in return for the government’s agreement to protect us and insure equal justice.

FOUR. The agreement between the People and the government is the social contract and in our case is embodied in the Constitution.

FIVE. The proof of the above is in the oath of office of elected office holders and military personnel, especially the officer corps.  They swear an oath to defend the Constitution, not the government.

SIX. Therefore the sovereign that the people possess resides not in the government but in the Constitution itself.

SEVEN. The People cannot give the government what they did not have and so a government based on the sovereign given by the people cannot do anything that the people did not specifically give the government or that they had in their power to give.

EIGHT. The Constitution can only be changed by the process defined within it and so since a procedure for change is contained in the document there can be no justification for interpreting in anyway other than the way it was originally written.  It is a living document.  However, only the people can change it, not the legislators the executives or the judges. A Constitutional change can be made by a 2/3’s vote of approval of the various States so the people can change their government any time if they desire.

NINE. If a politician does not follow his oath to defend the Constitution and in fact states that he believes that it is no longer valid, he has broken his oath and must be removed from office.  The procedure for doing this is impeachment.

TEN. If the government does not follow the guidelines of the Constitution it is the duty of the citizens either to elect new representatives or to form a new government.

This then is the basis of our form of government which is called a Federal Republic or sometimes a Constitutional Republic.  We are a federation of states with elected representatives and they govern based on the limits of power we have given them as defined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.  It was assumed that those elected would be believers in God, primarily Christians of any of the various denominations.  Since the country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles for a Judeo-Christian people, The Constitution as written would only work for a society with those values.  If the People’s beliefs have changed then the form of the government would have to change as well — this would be a fundamental change.

The other form of government is very different. This form is not based on a belief in God but is purely secular in nature. This is not to say that the people don’t have religion, only that it plays no part in their government.  In this form the sovereign resides in the government and how it got there matters not.  There may be elections and there may not be, but one thing is common and that is that there is a “ruling class” and a “class that is ruled”.  Those in power come from the historical vestiges of wars, revolutions, dynasties, feudal societies or wealth.  The common man may or may not live reasonably well but he is the common man and a change in class status is uncommon and unlikely.

Typically in these governments the documents that form the government are not fixed nor are they based on natural law.  This means that those that rule can change anything they desire for any reason they desire.  They can do this because there are no real limits placed on them as might exist in a true Constitutional government.  Their usual oaths of office are to swear allegiance to the primary ruler; be it a King, Queen, Emperor or Party Leader.  You can see that if an oath is given to the ruler then there is no recourse available if that leader turns bad.  An oath is an oath and must be honored.

In this form of government the people have no real power, the rulers are hand picked from among those in the ruling class and the government appoints a much higher percentage of the workers in the legislative branches and local administrators in the various functions of government.  This is not to say that these people are oppressed or without any benefits, for that is not the case in most governments today.  But the amount of true freedom they have depends on the exact form of their government which can be a social democracy an aristocratic democracy and or one of the other forms such as would be found in a communist state or even a monarchy or a dictatorship.  Outside the United States this is the form most other people live under.

In any event, they have no God given rights of any kind, only those rights that the state and its ruler allows them to have; today meaning ‘Positive Rights’ as exposed by our current president. These forms of government are not stable.  They may last for a hundred years but few last much longer without some form of revolution or civil war that changes the form of that government. Some would say that we had a civil war so why are we different?

The difference is that the issue of slavery was put aside initially to gain freedom from the British Crown.  Because slavery, which was common in the world, (in fact the word Slave comes from Slav, due to the fact that in the Middle Ages a vast number of Europeans were regularly taken into slavery by raiding Ottomans’ and Arabs and carted off to Africa and the Middle East) was an anathema to a system based on freedom, there was considerable opposition to it that needed to be resolved before the new country could move forward. This was largely resolved by the Civil War, although cultural artifacts remained for years afterward.  Further, the essential form of our government did not change.

From this we can state the following in the Secular form of governance:

ONE. There may or may not be a Creator, but whether there is or not is not material to the governance of man.

TWO. Once a government is formed by a people, that government has ‘all’ the sovereign power and can make any laws that it choices to.

THREE. Therefore there is no ‘real’ limit to the power of this form of government.

Four. Whether there is a founding document or not is not relevant in this form of government since the government has the absolute sovereign which can not be taken back other than by a revolution.

Five. All the rights of the people come from the government and are only what it allows them to have.

SIX. In most if not all cases the public servants swear an oath to the head of the government not to their founding documents.

SEVEN. Further, since there is no direct link to a creator there are no natural laws and without natural laws there are no fixed morals.  This is called moral relativism.

EIGHT. Without a moral base there is no way to measure good or evil and without a way to measure good and evil a leader or ruler can justify any action they desire in that it is only his opinion as to what is good for the country that counts.

NINE. The lack of a frame of reference for the morals of the people in this form of government mean that at some point the government will become oppressive.

TEN. In these kinds of governments there is strong trend to a state of minimum personal freedom.

So in summary, we have the first model of governance which allocates power in this order: God, the individual, then government. We have a second model, Secular Governance, which allocates power first to the government then to the individual.  In the first form God is the primary source of power and in the second form the government is the primary source of power.  Since we know from thousands of years of history that men can be corrupted, and they often are, why would anyone want a government based solely on the wishes of what a man would want?

Some would say today that we are an enlightened people now and the old ways of the founders and the restraints of our constitution are no loner needed.  To them I say they are wrong.  History has repeated itself many times with great republics formed and then lost to the corruption of men and their government.  There can be no rational basis for this belief other than one of our ignorance of history.

We can either believe in the ways of Christ, which were non violent in the New Testament and can be summed up in the statement, “Do onto others as you would have them do unto you” or you can have a belief that men can make better rules of living and behavior then those of nature’s Creator.  You can either believe in God or believe in man as the source of understanding, but not both.

The Founders believed in a Christian God as found in our Bible.  The government they established was one that had those beliefs at its core.  Being men we are not perfect and so neither was our conduct neither in the formation of the country nor in the application of our government.  However, despite our faults and misdirection in our Constitution we formed the best system yet devised by man.  And, during the debate on the form of that document, a major impasse came to be with arguments back and forth and hard positions being taken.   With no compromises possible Benjamin Franklin proposed that they all pray to God for guidance.  They all went to a nearby church and did as he suggested.  Coming back the mood was completely changed and compromises to the things that separated them were found.  In short order thereafter we had the Constitution; so was this the work of God or do we want to believe that it was pure chance?  Given the results of what that divinely inspired document produced, at least until now, it is clear that we were destined to be a force of good in the world — the Beacon of Freedom that all looked to for guidance.  We do not need to be fundamentally changed.

Ronald Reagan, “You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children’s children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.”

Feb 20 2014

Justification of a Modern Government


From Aquinas to Rousseau

This is a very brief summary of the basis of our government and in my opinion this process started in earnest between 1259 and 1264 in Paris France when St. Thomas Aquinas (1225 -1274) wrote Summa Contra Gentiles (The Summa Against the Gentiles) which is considered to be a seminal work perhaps the best of the middle ages.  In this work he blends the then newly discovered works of Plato and Aristotle, which had been lost to Europe since the fall of Rome, along with Roman law and the teachings of Christianity into one work. There is no doubt that he was a man of very high intellect and even today, 750 years later, his work should be read by anyone interested in the foundations of and the justifications of law and government.

He left no stone un-turned discussing theology, ethics, politics, just war, sexual ethics including birth control and abortion and even property rights.  Although many of us today would take exception with some of his views we can all agree that his writing on the subject set the tone for what was to follow between then and July 4, 1776 over 500 years later.

This blog is not about historical political theory so we’ll skip forward almost 400 years and look at three great thinkers that shaped the modern state. First to Thomas Hobbes (1588 – 1679) and his LEVIATHAN, or The Matter, Forme, & Power of a COMMON-WEALTH Ecclesiastical and Civil Published in 1651.

Then John Locke (1632 – 1704) and his Essays on the Law of Nature (1663-64); An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1671- 90) and The Two Treatises of Government in the former, The False Principles and Foundation of Sir Robert Filmer and his Followers, are Detected and Overthrown The later Is an Easy Concerning the True Original, Extent, and End, of Civil Government (1689).

Then finally to Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712 – 1778) who is best known for his Discourse on Inequality (1755); Discourse on Political Economy (1755) and On Social Contract (1762).  The writings of these men are instrumental to the logic and basis for the writing of the Constitution of the United States.

Hobbes wrote in Leviathan his support of a constitutional monarchy and that it was the natural order to have a strong authoritarian monarchy. He proposed that man had agreed to this in a ‘social contract’ wherein man acknowledged the monarchy in return for the protection that gave him.  This view was based on the premise that without a strong government man would be no more then a lone individual living by his own wits and subject to no law or rule; therefore he could do solely as he pleased.  He called this being in the state of nature.  The following quote from Leviathan “Chapter XIII.: Of the Natural Condition of Mankind As Concerning Their Felicity, and Misery” is one of the best known passages in English philosophy; it describes the ‘natural state’ that mankind would be in, were it not for the political community.

“In such condition, there is no place for industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving, and removing, such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”

So according to Hobbes:

In this state, people fear death, and lack the things necessary to commodious living, and the hope of being able to work to obtain them. Therefore, man accedes to a ‘social contract’ and establishes a civil society to avoid this.

Society is a population living beneath a sovereign authority, to which all individuals in that society cede some of their rights for the sake of protection. Abuses of power by this authority are to be accepted without question as the price of peace. There is no separation of powers in this view as we know them.

The sovereign must have total control over civil, military, judicial and ecclesiastical powers.

Locke writing twenty or so years after Hobbes came to a very different view developing what would be called today a liberal republicanism and a foundation for a republic.  He was probably the biggest although not the only political theorist to influence those that wrote the U.S. Constitution.

Locke takes a more optimistic view then Hobbes writing that in the state of nature man is characterized by reason and tolerance not always brute force as could be inferred from Hobbes. However he also believed in the social contract between men and their government but in a more limited sense where the government had a responsibility to the subjects and that if exceeded actually gave the subjects the right to rebel.  Locke went on to state that in a natural state all were equal and independent and they all had a right to defend themselves.  This was the basis for the words in the 1776 American Declaration of Independence, “life Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” in the preamble.

Locke believed in the right to private property; the accumulation of wealth (qualified); and in the principle that labor was the basis of property.  He also developed the principles of money and monetary policy and the relationship to trade.  His views on money probably had an influence on Adam Smith and his seminal work The Wealth of Nations published in 1776.

Lock also wrote that education was very important stating that, “I think I may say that of all the men we meet with, nine parts of ten are what they are, good or evil, useful or not, by their education.”  In that same line of thought Locke wrote that “the little and almost insensible impressions on our tender infancies have a very important and lasting consequences” then he argued that “associations of ideas” that one makes when young are more important than those made later because they are the foundation of the self.”

One other thing that Locke believed in was ‘religious’ freedom and equal rights.  Further Thomas Jefferson used Locke views when he wrote a bill for religious freedom in Virginia.  Locke like Hobbes believed in Natural Law which was the belief that there were moral principles that were set by nature (God) and were therefore valid every where.  Natural law is not to be confused with common law or case law which are laws which are not universal and are based on ‘local’ judicial recognition.

One of Locke’s more controversial ideas was that because of the ‘social contract’  between the people and the governing body the legislative branch of government that if those representatives went against the wishes of the people that the people had the ‘right’ to rebel against their government.  What is new about this is the right of the people to withdraw from the ‘social contract.’ However, Locke did not take this to go as far as overthrowing the monarch unless that monarch had broken is obligation to defend the country.

Rousseau is the developer of the liberal democracy principles which is a third way of looking at the ‘social contract’ and ‘natural law.’  Rousseau born in Geneva which was a Republic had a different view and took what Lock had developed and went further eliminating the monarchy at least in part.  Rousseau published his The Social Contract in 1762 fourteen years before the American Declaration of Independence. The work begins with, “Man is or was born free, and he is everywhere in chains, One man thinks himself the master or others, but remains more of a slave than they.”

Rousseau argues that the sovereignty (or the power to make laws) should be in the hands of the people. The terms he used then are different today but what he said was that the power to make laws rested in the people and the people allowed the legislators (that represented them) to make the laws.  This would be a true Representative Democracy but Rousseau stated that this system would only work in a small city state like the Geneva he grew up in.

Rousseau also wrote, “…that the general will exists to protect individuals against the mass, not to require them to be sacrificed to it.” This was a recognition that a pure democracy would not work.

Rousseau was one of the first to propose developmental education dividing the process into three stages.  The first stage is from birth to the age of about 12 when Children are guided by the emotions and impulses.  In the second stage from 12 to about 16 reason starts to develop.  Lastly from 16 onward the child develops into an adult and should also be required to learn a manual skill even if high education is pursued. He also states that at the age of 16 they are ready for a companion of the opposite sex.

An explanation of terms due to language change:

The ruler of a territory could be the Monarch the Prince or today the President

The legislative body could be an Assembly the Magistrate or a Delegate today a representative or senator

Democracy is where all eligible voters vote directly on all issues

Representative government is where the people elect a person to represent them on legislative maters

Feb 11 2014

Why do People Do What They Do?


The Hierarchy of Needs

Abraham Maslow, a very famous mid twentieth century psychologist, developed a concept referred to now as Maslow’s “Hierarchy of Needs” in 1943 in a paper he wrote A Theory of Human Motivation. Maslow’s concept was that humans would react to their environment in a particular and structured order to satisfy their internal drives or needs which he called the self-actualization theory.  He further showed this as a pyramid with things like air and water at the bottom and things like personal gratification at the top on the pyramid.

His logic is that air is required for life above all else and therefore that need must be satisfied first.  Next, we must have water and food and then an environment that’s not hostile to us.  Once these basic or core needs are met we get into more personal needs such as love and respect.  These personal or social needs always come after the physical but can become very important if we feel secure that the others have been met and are not in danger of being taken away.  There are the five levels to Maslow’s self-actualization theory.

Level 1 Physiological needs, such as hunger, thirst, and sex

Level 2 Safety needs such as security, stability, and order

Level 2 Belongingness & love needs e.g. affection, affiliation, identification

Level 4 Esteem needs, such as needs for prestige, success, self-respect

Level 5 Self-actualization needs, such as realizing potential

The first two levels of Maslow’s Hierarch of Needs go a long way to explain basic human nature.  For example the movement of Mexicans into the American southern boarder states with Mexico.  The reason being, that differences in the first two basic levels are the reasons for the occurrence of immigration.

From the forward of this book is the fact that the individual will always do what his or her best interest. The logic and theory for this was adequately proven in the book Wealth of Nations first published in 1776 by Adam Smith. And further this is supported by Level 1 & s from Maslow’s work. All attempts to disprove the theory of free markets a central feature of the theories proved by Smith have failed.  They all fail, including the works of Marx and Keynes, because all the examples that are used are not ones where there is a real “free” market.

The second fact, also discussed in the forward to this book is that after many centuries of trying just about every conceivable kind of political or governmental system imaginable we find that there are really only two basic kinds.  The book The Five Thousand Year Leap written by Cleon Skousen gives an excellent explanation on the reasons for this.

The first based on the rule of a single party usually through the leadership of a strongman.  This person could be a King or a President for life and has immense personal power but still must have the support of a group of close confidants that carry out this dictates.  Historically this form of government appears to be the most “common” form of government that has every existed. In this form of government the people exist, only, to support the government, they are subjects.  This form develops from either an attempt at Democracy or form anarchy after the collapse of a government which was until the formation of the United States with its Constitution the only other possibilities there were.

Today the only other form of government that is possible is something new and it is a system based on a set of laws and principles that form the basis for the legitimacy of the government, a fixed constitution.  The U.S. Constitution is the best example of this form being the one that has lasted the longest, so far, since it was designed to be very hard to change. In this system the federal government is there solely at the will of the people and is there solely to protect the people not to rule them. However, there is a great risk here for if this system does not have very strong, not just adequate, checks and balances the politicians will over time turn this system into the government of a strongman, backed by a ruling party.

Why these previous paragraphs are so important is that the principles identified can totally explain the reason for the movement of people from one place to another, be it from one side of town to the other or from one country to another. The movement occurs because of either economic or political restrictions or both on the individual where he or she is and that the individual see’s that he or she can live better someplace else.

If there are no restrictions on movement then the movement will be quick and if there are restrictions the movement will be slowed.  But in either case unless there are significant and insurmountable physical barriers be they natural or man made the movement will not be stopped.

Being a person with a strong technical background it would be logical to be able to put this into a set of principles much like those that are used in science and engineering.  In this case we will use the form used for the explanation of the laws of thermodynamics (which is about the movement of energy – heat).  There are three laws of thermodynamics which we will not go into this is not about engineering. The engineering form (Three principles or laws) used to explain thermodynamics by scientists and Engineers does seem to fit well when also trying to explain the motivation behind the movement of people so that is why it was used here.

The First Law of Motivation can then be stated that the principle factors determining the core of human behavior are predominantly genetically fixed. This is adequately explained in Maslow’s theory of the hierarchy of needs so further discussion here is not needed.  Therefore it can be stated that we are dealing with basic principles of motivation that apply to all humans.

The Second Law of Motivation can then be stated as individuals will move to the place that satisfies the greatest number of their needs in the order explained by Maslow.  Or stated a different way we can say that individuals will always move to a place that allows them to move up Maslow’s pyramid. That flow will be from the least to the most and will be inversely proportional to the strength of the resistance to that flow be that resistance natural or man made.

The Third Law of Motivation is that if there is no individual freedom and there is no opportunity where the person is and there is therefore no way to move then there is no motivation to work or be productive as there is no personal advantage.  This will create a stagnant society where people will only do the bare bones necessities to survive and no more.  Further it will take prodding by the government to get even that done.

The Second Law of Motivation explains why there is and has always been a movement of people into the United States.

The Third Law of Motivation explains why the old U.S.S.R. collapsed when its work force could no longer be coerced into being productive citizens.

The Second Law of Motivation explains why U.S. Citizens almost never move out of the country even when that are extolling the virtues of other political systems.

The Third Law of Motivation explains why in a welfare state there is no incentive for those at the bottom to move out.  All their first level needs are taken care of by the state.

The issue that we face now with immigration legal or illegal is one where the standard of living in the United Sates combined with the higher level of personal freedom that we have makes for a powerful magnet to those not so fortunate.  This is especially true at the border between Mexico and the United States where the disparity is large.  The only thing that has prevented a title wave of Mexicans to enter the country is the desolate land that must be crossed over much of the southern border.  Even still and despite the dangers a high percentage of the hundreds of thousands that start the journey eventually make it across.

The U.S. Mexico border could have been sealed long ago if the government had wanted to.  Would it have been expensive, of course it would have.  That isn’t the question the question is why it wasn’t done.  Three reasons prevent a barrier from ever being built.

One the Democrat Party sees the Mexicans as a source of future votes since they will vote at some time in the future in a higher percentage to them then to republicans’ because of entitlements. 

Two the Republican Party sees the Mexicans as a source of cheep labor and that they could be used as leverage to hold down labor costs for companies. 

Three both saw them (the documented and undocumented) as a cheep source of personal servants to do their menial work and take care of their children. How many politicians have been caught not paying taxes for having au pairs, nannies and other domestic help?

Under President Ronald Reagan an attempt at solving the problem was tried with amnesty and a promise of better broader security. The border security never happened and without securing the border the flow is never going to stop as the Second Law of Motivation explains.  The lure of moving up Maslow’s hierarchy of needs was too strong since they, the Mexicans, were on the bottom in Mexico and there was no way they could move down any further, they were already on the bottom, and they also didn’t believe they had any chance to move up where they were.

To stop the flow is not possible but there are two ways to significantly slow it down. One is with a very solid and formidable barrier that makes it very difficult to make it across.  In addition we would need cleared zones, on the U.S. side, that are off limits to everyone so that anyone in them can be detained.  This would require relocating Americans and a significant military presence.  Something like the barrier between the east and west in Europe after WW II is what would be need, only keeping people out not in.  We also know that, that was not 100% effective.

The other method would be to change the differential in the standard of living between Mexico and the U.S. Raising that of Mexico reduces the incentive just as lowering that of the U.S. does. Lowering the U.S. standard is the more practical since raising the standard in Mexico is not what the politicians there want. Either or both minimizes the flow in accordance with the Second Law of Motivation.

If we don’t build a barrier or if we don’t lower our standard of living to be more in line with the rest of the world then we are faced with the problem of having created a very unfair system of immigration.  The reason for this is not enough Mexicans (we’ll use that term for all of Central America) are allowed in nor could there be as we would need to allow many millions in to stop the illegal flow.  And Mexico is not interested in helping with the problem as the flow of people north is a pressure relief on them politically. And besides with the growing Mexican influence Mexico City has a growing influence on policies being established in Washington.

Feb 10 2014

Universal Suffrage


Good or Bad?

Suffrage is the term given for the right to cast a vote.  In a pure Democracy everyone of the established voting age or any other qualifier can cast a ballot.  Then all it takes is for one side to have one vote more then the other side in order to win, which is majority rule.  In addition in a pure democracy all the citizens with the right to vote would vote on all issues directly.  Rousseau wrote about that kind of Democracy in his The Social Contract since he was very familiar with this kind of government from Geneva where he grew up.  Obviously this system only applies to a small area or town.

That direct voting by the citizens on everything has always been considered to be both bad and impossible especially at the Federal level and so when the Constitution was written only men (predominately white) with property were allowed to vote. But that restrictive view was not universal and so a few years later under President Jackson, who believed that voting rights should be extended, they were. Therefore by 1840 universal white male suffrage (and some blacks) was the norm, and nearly all requirements to own property had been dropped.

This expansion of the voting franchise continued unabated until 1971 when by that time all Citizens over 18 male or female and of any race could vote.  Whether that was good or not it was the law of the land through the amendment process to the Constitution (14th, 15th, 19th, 23rd, 24th and 26th Amendments plus various legislative acts).  The United States was the first major country to have full suffrage for women starting with a few states as early as 1869 and completed when the 19th amendment was ratified in 1920.

The problem with this expansion of the franchise was not with any of the various groups that were added but with an ever increasing lack of understanding by the voters on whom or what they were voting for. There were two parts to this:

The first problem was the education system which stopped teaching the principles of government.  This was by far the worst problem for if the Citizens no longer understood their system of government then they could be manipulated by those seeking power.

The second problem was the formation of political parties that took advantage of this and created block voting where it didn’t matter who was running or what the issue was — it was a vote cast only for the party.

With the very lose voter registration process and vote manipulation (this maters a lot when the vote is close) going on today we have created a system where the winner is chosen more by popularity and money then anything that really counts. Who has the best “spin” and/or the most money gets to win today with the TV, radio and the web (social media) as powerful means of communication. An interesting tidbit about the entertainment industry, Plato in his Republic understood that the Arts could influence elections and that therefore they must be strictly controlled so as not to corrupt the Citizens, he would be appalled at what comes out of Hollywood today..

But there is more as we have a representative system of government as the Citizens with the right to vote do not vote directly they vote for Representatives. In the Federal system as originally setup the Citizens voted for someone to represent them in the House of Representatives known as the Peoples house, for obvious reasons.   The House with the Constitutional mandate to prepare an operating budget for the Federal government was given this task so that the Citizens could control the spending since it was their representatives that were responsible for the budget.

This was a much debated system with concerns that the Citizens would find ways to have the federal government find ways to spend money on them, the citizens.  So to counter this tendency the Senate was established (for other reasons as well) and they had to concur with the House on spending bills.

Now the Senate was originally set up to be filled with appointed Senators two from each state.  The logic being that the several states would appoint seasoned and experienced Citizens to these positions.  It was probably assumed back then that these would be wealthy land owners and they would represent the upper class of the country while the House was for the common man.  A check and balance system again.

So with this system both ends of the Citizens were represented the common man and the wealthy man. And they had to work together to get anything done.

But over the last couple of elections cycles this system has been subverted by the Democratic Progressives and the current occupant of the White House Barak Husain Obama the first president that actually instructs the Senate to refuse to bring up House passed Budgets. So instead of doing their job they demand that their spending ideas be taken and no debate is allowed.  The president approves of this process since he does nothing to stop it and instead demands that the House Republicans give him what he wants. This is probably unconstitutional but since the Public education system has produced several generations of students with no real understanding of the process and so the media can blame the House for not giving Obama what he wants. Which is absurd since the House is the peoples House and it is their main responsibility not the Senate nor the Presidents to produce a Federal Budget.

James Madison, “We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.”

Feb 10 2014

Self Rule Verse a Ruling Class


Why America is Different

America and its unique Constitution was an experiment in self rule.  The way the country was put together was something never tried before on this scale and with the freedoms established.  Yes we did have some of the Greek city states and the original Roman republic but they did not give anywhere near the freedom that was established here under our Constitution.  The rest of the world watched in awe as the Republic was formed and then actually worked.

Alexis de Tocqueville a young Frenchman visited the United States in 1831 with his friend Gustave de Beaumont for a nine month visit which would have been longer had he not been called back to France. After going back to France he wrote and published a treaties called Democracy in America the first Volume I Part 1 and Part 2 in 1835 and the second Volume II Part 1 through Part 4 published in 1840.

An English translation of the First part was published in America in 1838 by Henry Reeve but Tocqueville did not think it was completely accurate.  A much later version by Francis Bowen In 1945 corrected some of this. The writing here used for reference the Penguin Classics version published by Penguin Books London in 2003 translated from French by Gerald E. Bevan with an introduction and notes by Isaac Kramnick.

Tocqueville’s writing skills and his passion for the subject make his writing a must read for any serious student in the theory of self rule.  Democracy in America was an instant hit in France and set de Tocqueville up for election to the French Chamber of Deputies and a distinguish career thereafter.

What Tocqueville found in America, was that the freedoms that existing in America after the first settlers arrived had created an awakening of a spirit in the Citizens and that it was his opinion that this was because the colonists were initially left to fend for themselves.  They were no longer restrained by artificial rules and regulations imposed on them by the Aristocracy which then ruled all of Europe in one form or another.

So they set up their own system of government based on Townships which Tocqueville credited for the eventual establishment of our present form of government. Once they had become free of those ‘old’ shackles they went on to better their lives by working hard and improving their conditions.  They did this because they could keep the fruits of their labor — they had the right of property and “local” control of the property.

These liberated American Citizens were also very aware of their government, much more so then we are today.  They understood the principles and what it meant to be free to succeed and also free to fail, but the opportunity to succeed outweighed the risks of failure. It could be said that the Citizens of America back then and without any expensive public education understood their form of government better then do even those with advanced college educations today.  I know that I did not really understand out form of government until the ‘90s. That basic understanding was one of the surprises that Tocqueville experienced while here in America. It was a surprise because in his France the subjects and even some of the Aristocrats knew very little about their form of government.

During the period he was here he did note that women did not have the right to vote but then in Europe almost no one had the right to vote so what was here was a lot better then in his native France or anywhere else for that matter.  Also free black men in the North had the right to vote but were subtly discouraged from doing so. Interestingly Tocqueville wondered if this freedom was good and whether self rule would work in the long run.  He believed that an Aristocracy might be required to get the benefits of Art Literature and Science since there was a difference that came with being high born.  More on this thought later.

Obviously that was not true as later works in America both in the arts and science would prove.  So If nothing else we now know that freedom and self rule produce more benefits to the Citizens then does any other kind of system that attempts to manipulate the results no mater the reasons good or bad, meddling is meddling.  Every obstacle that Tocqueville thought of as to why America would not work was overcome.  The problems we have today started when the things that make us great were gradually taken away.

The importance of knowing what is going on today in Washington is the result of a push by the progressives (some in each political party but mostly they are Democrats) to establish a new ruling class in America.  A ‘ruling’ class is made up of select group of people that have (mostly) inherited wealth and thereby have attended the best schools and know all the right people.  Foremost they believe, because of their station, that they know what is good for society.

Most countries even today have either a ruling class or an aristocracy (class) which is not much different except for the titles that the nobility give to their supporters with an aristocracy.  These people believe that by the very nature of their birth and privileged education they know better then anyone else what is good for the “common” man.  This is what Tocqueville down deep believed — probably because he was one of the privileged few, and he was having a hard time accepting that this views were wrong even when he saw what was going on here.

When there is a ruling class, whatever they are called, you will find that most of the important politicians are of that class. Certainly not all politicians but the ones that are in the real positions of power in the government most definitely are. They also fill the management ranks of the government bureaucracy and make sure their supporters fill the lower ranks.  These people are all well paid for the positions they hold and most retire with large pensions and connections that allow them to live well for the remainder of their lives.  In the United States today they mostly come from the north east States.

Once a ruling class is established it is almost impossible to remove especially with the number of bureaucrats in Washington and the movement of politicians in and out of the public and private sectors for lobbying.  With over $3.5 trillion dollars flowing through Washington on a yearly basis today that amounts to $10.0 Billion per day or almost $7.0 million per second of potential money up for grabs. That is a lot of temptation and incentive to grab as much as one can as Milton Friedman wrote about in his book Free To Chose.  And then more recently we have the book Extortion written by Peter Schweizer where he shows us how in great detail the politicians are able to skim off large amounts of money and retiree very wealth.

Once a ruling class is established the country becomes theirs and legislation is always designed to benefit them first and the Citizens or subjects second.  Not all those in the upper class are a part of this ruling class but as time goes on the ruling class will get larger and larger by nature and require greater and greater amounts of skim off the top of the federal budget.  At some point these kinds of system either collapse or turn into a monarchy/dictator style system. There is a good book written by Angelio M. Codeville on this subject The Ruling Class: How They Corrupted America And What We Can Do About It. A portion of this book also appeared as an article in the American Spectator in the July 2010 – August 2010 issue.

There is little doubt that what is going on today in Washington is the push to establish a ruling class in this country.  All the legislation and regulation that has been pushed through starting with the New Deal, then later whenever they could, was designed to slowly take away the rights of the Citizens as listed in the Declaration of independence the U.S. Constitution and all its amendments. We are now at the final stage of that process — we will either overcome the progressives and reestablish the republic or we will become subjects to them and the republic will be no more.

Benjamin Franklin, “Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature.

Thomas Pain, “What we obtain too cheaply, we esteem too lightly; ‘tis dearness only that gives everything its value. Heaven knows how to put a price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated.”

Feb 9 2014

Is a Change in our form of Government Coming?


The Real Reasons for Health Care & Immigration Reform

There are many serious debates going on in the country today, especially as we have an election coming up in November 2014 that could have major implications for the future of the country.  In this off year election, as it’s called, every member of the House of Representatives is up for reelection and 1/3 of the Senate.  The outcome has the potential to change the course of the country for the good or the bad.  There are three possible outcomes: the first is that the House remains under Republican control and the Republicans pick up enough seats that they gain control of the Senate; the second is that there is no major change in the makeup and the House remains under Republican control and the Senate remains under Democratic control; the third is that the Democrats gain control of the House and that they maintain their control of the Senate.

The core issue to be decided is the Obama administration going to be allowed to complete the “Transformation” of the country that he stated after he won the 2008 election and took office. Obama will probably be known, in history, as the least “qualified” person elected to this office out of the 43 that proceeded him, having only the barest minimum specified by the constitution. His reelection in 2012 was more by the incompetent management of the Republican Party than the support for his policies although it must be said that his message of more “free” stuff (Redistribution of Wealth) was very powerful to the underclass which he significantly added to, by the way, during his first four years. The question that begs an answer now is, have the American citizens woken up and are no longer mesmerized by the sweet talking progressive salesperson?

The debate over the unequal end result of life which occurs for many reasons such as heredity, station, motivation and luck has been going on for all of recorded history, some 5,000 years.  The American experience of less than 250 years represents only 5% of that body of political experience.  Many empires and kingdoms have lasted for thousands of years however none of them had a free citizenry.  Only in America had the common man been allowed to do his own bidding not that of some master.  The result was amassing as in less than 200 years we became the preeminent power on the Globe which simultaneously creating a way of life that was the envy of all.  Keep in mind that even considering the programs started in the mid to late ‘30s the Federal government was still restrained by the Constitution and the Bill-of-Rights; so the Federal government cannot claim that all the growth that occurred before that had anything to do with Federal policies.

Not until the late 60’s did foreigners’ began coming here “primarily” for the “benefits” not the “opportunity” that existed here. The massive influx of people from Europe that occurred from after the civil war until the beginning of the Vietnam war came here for the opportunity not the benefits (free stuff) as the benefits did not exist until after President Johnson (LBJ) created them in the form they now are. Unlike previous waves of immigrants today’s immigrants are given special treatment and benefits such as “welfare,” “The anchor baby” and “The dream act” policies that actually give illegal’s more benefits than citizens. Since nothing can ever be totally “free” the existing citizens are paying for this out of their earning (taxes); such that if you can sneak across the border and get here the rest of us will pay you to live here, get health care and get education at no cost to the illegal.  It’s a very good deal for them but not for us.

An argument has been made that we need the workers: but at the same time we are told that the workers we need are technicians, engineers and other professionals that can do the hi-tech jobs of the future. On face there is a very large disconnect here for the majority of those we allow to come here by our policies are uneducated for sure no technical skills and speak no English. In other words there are millions of illegal’s that have no chance of being productive members of our hi-tech society.  Whether their children will be so qualified or not is not the point they are not and for the most part will never be. So on face the propositions before us in Immigration reform are preposterous.

Since we have the Federal Government, which is now controlled by the progressive wing of the Old Democratic Party, telling us that two mutually exclusive ideas must be followed something is amiss.  The need for hi-tech workers does just not jive with bringing in illiterate non-English speaking immigrants. Therefore we can only assume that there are other reasons than those being started. The most likely being that if the existing crop of illegal’s were given any form of amnesty (meaning they could stay here) then it would be a very easy step for a future congress to grant them citizenship.  Since these are predominately uneducated people (no fault of theirs) they will be dependent on the federal Government and vote Democratic in overwhelming numbers.  Even if it would be 60/40 to the Democrats favor it would mean the end of the Republican Party. It would more likely be 75/25 or worse and than the Republican Party would be extinct.

Free health care from the Affordable Health Care act known as Obama Care is now going to add to the draw of third world people to come here one way or another.  No political or economic system can sustain these kinds of policies for long without bringing economic destruction.  By the end of this year the Federal Government will have added $10.0 trillion to the national financial obligations (T-bills are only one form) in only 6 years. Since foreign investors presently pick up 50% of the U.S. debt in the form of T-bills the continuation of this uncontrolled spending trend along with anemic jobs growth will soon make any U.S. investment problematical and some change in our form of government will be required.

When one studies Political Philosophy, especially the classic Greeks i.e. Socrates, Aristotle and Plato one finds that there are only a very few forms of government that are possible. Further there are patterns to transitions between them since no single from lasts for very long.  These “basic” forms are:

A. The people are ruled by one person which can take two forms …

A-1 MONARCHY
One ruler, restrained by law  who tries to serve all the citizens of a state.
Example: Queen Elizabeth the First.

A-2 TYRANNY
One ruler who uses his power for himself or for some special group.
Example: Adolph Hitler or Joseph Stalin.

B. The people are ruled by a few people which can also take two forms …

B-1 ARISTOCRACY 
The rule by a small elite of the state’s best people chosen by ability or achievement.
Example: America after the revolution for about 30 years. 

B-2 OLIGARCHY
Self-interested rule by a group chosen for their wealth or social caste.
Example: Post revolutionary France.

C. The people are ruled by themselves which can also take two forms …

C-1 POLITY
The rule by the majority of the citizens but controlled by constitutional law to protect the rights of the minority.
Example: Great Britain or The United States 

C-2 DEMOCRACY
Rule by majority. It uses its power to oppress the minority. Small groups manipulate the masses to get what they want.
Example: Ancient Athens

You can see that the only difference between C-1 and C-2 is a “strong” Constitution” which the founding fathers knew and that was their stated purpose when they created it. Over the past several decades those that desire power but were frustrated by the Constitutional limits decided to get rid of those limits by first instituted a re-education system in the American schools. The tools they used were multiculturalism, political correctness and sustainable energy.  That is now completed and the final transformation is now being instituted with all the talk of the old and obsolete Constitution and according to our current president the need for a “Bill of Positive Rights” meaning what the government can do for you.  The current talk of by-passing Congress with a pen and a phone are also part of this change. The completion of this change in beliefs will move us from C-1 to C-2 which is the opposite of what most would think.

Once this happens, and it is very close right now, according to the Classical Philosophers we move from the “C” class to the “A” class of government. The normal transition would be from C-1 to C-2 to A-2, the transition will be quick and unless the Republican Party will wake up and embrace the “Tea” party the transition to A-2 will be completed by 2020. The reason it will be quick is that it is generally believed that the from C-2 is the most unstable.

There is only one way to stop this transformation and that is for “all” conservatives to band together and keep the House and take the Senate. The goal should be to create a coalition of conservatives in the Senate comprising 60 members. If that could be accomplished than the President could be removed from office by the Impeachment process. Although that would put Joe Biden in office it would be for a very short time and in 2016 a new president could be elected that was not interested in changing our form of government.

However, even if the 60 number could not be reached in the Senate, if the Republicans got the majority, anything over 50, than Obama would have his hands tied to the point that we could at least put changes on hold till 2016 and prevent more damage from being done.

Feb 3 2014

GINI Index Explained


Hard to believe this …

The importance of the GINI index to intellectuals and others of the liberal or progressive persuasion cannot be dismissed. This popular index is used to rank countries as to how good a place to live they are by organizations such as the UN the World Bank and our own CIA. Those of us that believe that the American way of life is the best ever devised by man would place America at the top of any list of countries — American Exceptionalism — is what be believe in. We would however be very, very wrong. The chart below is based on our own CIA’s ratings and it places us way down the list at about 100 out of the 149 rated countries. Places like Cambodia, Uganda, Iran and Macedonia all have better ratings then America. The CIA gives America a GINI of 45.0 and to put that in perspective Kazakhstan has a GINI of 26.7 and that makes them the 9th best place in the world to live (lower is better). How can this be?

gini-coefficient-map1

Most Americans would find this very hard to believe for just using common sense if this GINI index were true why would just about everyone in the world be trying to get into the United States both legally and illegally? For example India with a 36.8 GINI rating is ranked as 59th verses the American ranking of 100th — almost twice as good as America. So based on the GINI rating why would anyone move from a good place to a bad place? If the facts don’t match the theory there is one conclusion that can be made and that is that the theory (rating in this case) is wrong. This should be to no surprise to those of us that have a great distrust of things coming from agencies controlled by those seeking personal power.

One of the core precepts used to make this factious rating redistributing wealth can be understood by looking at what Milton Friedman wrote in his 1962 book Capitalism and Freedom. The answer can be found in Chapter X The Distribution of Income on page 171 of the fortieth anniversary edition. But first before we get into the explanation we must first understand why the rating exists at all. It’s actually very simple those that desire power need to find ways to justify their desires to the common man. Since America was so far above all the rest of the world they had to find some way to make it seem like it wasn’t as good as “we” thought it was. There was one segment of the Boomer generation that thought they knew a better way to run the country and when their revolutionary ideas failed in the 60’s and the 70’s to take hold in the general population they took a different tack.

The Education System and Politics was their path to the power they desired. Previous generations did not have their beliefs so all they had to do was wait till those that believed in America were retired and/or dead. The strategy was to out live the previous generations and manipulate the younger ones through propagandized education while they moved up in the ranks of the government at all levels. Most of us did not see this shift we were to busy living and raising our families. But we awakened after the election of 2008 put a believer of central planning and socialism in as president of the United States of American. The answer was the Tea Party, which changed the complexion of congress in time to stop further damage but not enough to reverse what was already done. The job needs to be finished this November.

Friedman has written many excellent books on the subject of economics and politics and when you read them you quickly find they are well thought out, the arguments logically developed and the conclusions sound. The issues are discussed putting both sides on the table and then he goes on to prove definitively that the only way to get a truly free and just society is to get government out of the peoples life’s. The key here is the fact that government is run by people and people have personal agendas and those are almost 100% self-serving. The founders understood that and that is why the powers they gave the federal government were so limited.

The opposite of what we have is America is central planning and limited freedom and that is what most of the rest of the world has — but we have seen that it just doesn’t work. Hundreds of million of people were killed in setting up these systems all through Europe and Asia over the last hundred years, and where are they now? These systems all had at their core an economy that was run (directly or indirectly) by their federal government, the names of the systems were different but the practice was the same in each case. We understand that and reject the concept but those that want to rule are clever and they found a way to get what they wanted through the back door while we weren’t paying attention. It started with changing our history and even the definition of words so things seemed to be different than what they really were. Keep in mind George Santayana, who, in his Reason in Common Sense, The Life of Reason, Vol.1, wrote “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Starting in 1913 with the creation of the federal reserve and them in earnest with Social Security and quickly running through The Great Society, Medicare, Medicaid, The Department of Education and many other programs and Departments we now have government (federal state and local) running (directly and indirectly) over 40% of the American economy. When the health care system take over with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) of 2010, is completed in a few more years the government will be running almost 2/3 of the economy. When that happens we will no longer be citizens we will be subjects of those that rule us.

Now the explanation of why the GINI index is what it is and how it is used to justify the Federal government taking over more and more segments of our country using every trick in the book and even some new ones as those who desire power transform the country into one that is run out of Washington.

The GINI index has many factors but the one that seems to give many counties a bad rating and others a good rating is the one that measures income disparity between the classes. This factor measures the difference between those at the top, the 1% today, verses those at the bottom, the 99% today. For example lets say the bottom segment of country A earns on average $5,000 per year and the top segment earns $50,000 so there is a difference of 10:1 which is low and that gives country A a high rating. Now we have country B where the bottom segment earns on average $10,000 per year and the top segment earns $250,000 so we have a difference of 25:1 clearly this is a great discrepancy between the top and the bottom and so country B gets a lower rating. Based on those earnings numbers and the resulting GINI rating, policy is developed to reward country A for being good and penalizes country B for being bad. But is this even a valid measure and if it isn’t of what good is it?

Friedman gives an example like this in his book and then explains what if country A has a cast system with no mobility between the classes. This is not speculation many countries have de facto cast systems where if you are born poor you stay poor. These countries are almost all poor economically because of their system of no freedom no private property and a strong central governments run by rulers that have no reason to change anything. He goes on to explain that country B has freedom, private property and limited federal government. This gives the people the incentive to work hard and make something of themselves. Sure some make a lot of money and get to the top and some don’t. But all are better off even with this income spread for the bottom of those of country B have twice the earning power as those in country A. But more importantly those in country B can be born at the bottom and through hard work and effort end up at the top. The upward mobility is the key.

But there is another factor here often over looked. When you graduate from high school or college you enter the work force at the bottom. You maybe making a reasonable amount but you also expect to move up and be earning more later in life. So you are in a lower income group when young and in a higher income group when older. The point is that the people in a free society move up and down the income groupings over time. The top today is not made of the same people from 20 years ago and the bottom is made up of different people as well. Those seeking power and using class warfare try to made us think that people stay in a group all there life — maybe they do in some countries but most do not here.

Clearly we are in country B and most of the rest of the world are in countries like county A; the prove of this is not found in the GINI index but with people that come here because of the opportunity they know is here. They voted with their feet and that is the only vote that counts.