ON THIS MEMORIAL DAY

On this Memorial Day I think back on the lives lost defending my right to pen this pondering. That I can sit in my easy chair and cry for political reason to return to the "land of the free and the home of the brave," is a heady thing.

Independence day lies on the horizon, even as we memorialize those who valiantly gave their lives for these fruited plains. An independence won against the last vestiges of feudalism. Of a country determined not to walk the path our forefathers were forced to endure under the British Crown: search and seizure of personal property, confiscation of arms, punishment for any who dared to speak out, and censorship of the press.

So many infringements wrought against the personal liberties of each and every American: signs of an ancient and prolific system of human control — feudalism.

Yet today, as I read the headlines and watch the shameful acts of our duly elected officials, I do not see Marxism or Nazism as other claim. I see the slide back into feudalism, where the few decide the "good" of the many. Where property and industry can be seized by edict. Where treaties and words of honor are exchanged for expedient gratification in the securing of political power and appeasement, where those favored by the crown are granted rank and privilege despite the rule of law. I see "officials" grasping every means at their disposal to circumvent the Constitution they have sworn to uphold.

My heart goes out to those who have defended this nation, to the families left behind, and in memory of the legacy they have loaned to each subsequent generation, loaned with their blood and toil. "Thank you," seems a hollow expression in the face of such noble acts.

May we, the recipients of your ultimate sacrifice, not squander your sacred gift.

DEAL OR NO DEAL?

It was an ah-ha moment this week when I pieced the following question together. Why on earth would we want or need to have the healthiest segment of our population in the health care system?

Speaker Pelosi made is sound very magnanimous, that America's twenty-six year-old “children” are now covered, and no doubt, there are those in the 18-26 age bracket who have serious health issues and costly care.

But the vast majority of 18-26 years old men and women are very healthy. I know I was. I visited an emergency room once for a stupid accident I caused (my thumb lost an argument with a fan). Other than that, I didn't even have a doctor. It wasn’t something I was worried about. And with a very low household income, I wouldn’t have bothered with a doctor unless it was a REAL emergency. Doctors became important to us when we started having babies, and babies do need doctors.

My guess is that my situation is pretty true universally among those the government now deems “children.” The healthy don’t mess with health care.

According to The National Conference of State Legislatures: “Young adults age 19 through 29 are the largest growing age group in the country at risk of being uninsured. Young adults account for about 13 million of the 47 million Americans living without health insurance. That amounts to approximately 30 percent of the U.S. population between the ages of 19 and 29 being uninsured.”

Every time we hear the number of uninsured it fluctuates dramatically, but let’s assume the 13 million figure above is correct, give-or-take. Now let’s do some easy math: 13 million “children” now insured by federal mandate means that these healthy kids, who will likely have little need for doctors or hospitals, will now pay-in about $3,000 a year. Multiplied times 13 million and we add a tidy $39,000,000,000 to the cash-strapped coffers.

That was my ah-ha moment. The political reason behind insuring the healthiest portion of our population has less to do with compassion than it does with confiscation, to the tune of $39 billion. They will be paying in, hardly drawing on, and thereby subsidizing (a.k.a. socializing) the system for everyone else.

Oops wait a moment, my kids are not responsible for that coverage — I am. Guess I won’t be putting more in the 401k. Guess I won’t be remodeling that kitchen. No vacations once the kids leave home. Nope, I’ll be responsible for my twenty-six year-olds’ health insurance, all of them.

Such a deal, no?

HYPER-INFLATION AND YOU

Here's a video with a lot of political reason. It's almost an hour long, but if you're like me, you'll find it captivating (though the intro is a little cheesy). Even so, I hope you'll watch and learn, but more importantly, that you will get ready.

LET'S LEARN FROM OUR MISTAKES

One of the great failings of the Obama candidacy was that no one questioned his associations, those who surrounded him and helped shape his political reason. Only after the fact did anyone care about the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko, William Ayers, Van Jones, Andy Stern, and of course, Ms. Elena Kagan.

Yes, the same Elena Kagan now being considered to replace Justice John Paul Stevens on the U.S. Supreme Court.

What of Kagan's associations? In her 1981 thesis entitled To the Final Conflict: Socialism in New York City, 1900-1933, she acknowledges, "Finally, I would like to thank my brother Marc, whose involvement in radical causes led me to explore the history of American radicalism in the hope of clarifying my own political ideas."

Of course, that does not explicitly declare that she herself is a radical, but identifies her sibling as one. How radical? How close are they? What part does he play in clarifying her own political ideas today? Do we want a radical that close to a member of the Supreme Court.

It's not damming evidence, but Barak Obama's associations were overlooked in his bid for a limited-term office in the White House. What about Elena Kagan's? Let's not repeat the same mistake on a lifetime appointment. That would lack political reason.

". . . American radicals cannot afford to become the own worst enemies. In unity lies their only hope." — Elena Kagan

SO WHAT'S IT GOING TO BE MS. SPEAKER? Still on the same privacy bandwagon?

Old and new are about to meet at a political nexus point, and I am left wondering what became of sanity? The Patriot Act and legislation being entertained on financial reform are about to collide. Not the laws themselves, but certainly the drama behind them.

First a look at what the Left had to say about the Patriot Act.

Five years ago, Nancy Pelosi posted some very real concerns she had about the Patriot Act, a George W. Bush policy hated by the Left, yet renewed intact by the Obama administration (and suddenly, those opposing political voices got very silent, and with political reason).

In 2005, in a rebuttal entitled Reauthorization of Patriot Act a Massive Invasion of Privacy, Ms. Pelosi wrote: “We must also preserve the balance between security and civil liberties and recognize that not all of the tools that law enforcement officers want are tools that they legitimately need” (bold mine).

Her concerns went on to include such language as, ““This is a massive invasion of the privacy of the American people, not just some idle threat,” and “We must always remember as we protect and defend the American people, we must honor the oath of office we take here when we are sworn in to protect and defend the Constitution and the civil liberties that it contains. We have an obligation to do better for the American people.”

Now a look at the financial reform legislation being introduced by the Left.

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) comments on CNSNews.com: “The Democrats’ new bureaucracy poses a threat to our privacy.” It appears that financial reform will give the government the power to take a look at anyone’s finances:

“Individuals could be required to provide the new agency with written answers—under oath—to any question posed by the bureau regarding their personal financial information.”

Of course it’s all under the guise of needing to know what’s going on in the financial world for the sake of “peace and security,” but carefully consider . . . government agencies will now have total access to every receipt and every expense, every time you use an electronic form of payment: credit card, debit card, or check.

Cash is not a consideration at this point, as hard currency is difficult to tie to an individual’s transaction activity. But then . . . isn’t that a good political reason to do away with cash altogether?
So Ms. Pelosi, how are you going to protect the American citizenry from this new assault on privacy? It’s a slippery, Orwellian slope you and your peers are placing this nation on.

Stop it. Stop it now.

NO MR. PRESIDENT, YOU DON'T SOUND PARANOID: hope-on-a-rope

This latest diatribe on American freedom expression are, in my opinion, the first signs of a man nearing the end of his hope-on-a-rope.

Google reports: 

"With iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations, -- none of which I know how to work -- information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation," Obama said.

Further evidence of the tension and paranoia are seen in the statement:

"All of this is not only putting new pressures on you, it is putting new pressures on our country and on our democracy."

I seem to remember one Hillary Clinton shrilling: "We are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration!"

I also remember a presidential campaign only two years ago when the feeding, leaking, and tweaking of "controversy" onto the information highway was standard operating procedure—and with political reason. I guess now that the shoe is on the other foot the highway is not so much fun.

Enjoy the ride, Mr. President. You helped blaze the trail.

PAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN

On May 1, the news was rich with stories of legal and illegal Hispanics marching to protest Arizona's tough stand on illegal immigrants. The media report that "thousands" added their voices in opposition to Arizona's law, legislation which is being considered as well in Texas and California. At issue is the notion that anyone in the U.S.A. being asked to "present papers, please," stirs up memories of Nazi Europe.

But while our politicians are planning boycotts and rallying to oppose Arizona, they are speaking out of both sides of their mouths—again.

While this state law is being opposed on the streets, The Hill reports that our federal legislators on April 30, presented their own plan for a Federal I.D. card. Appointed the "BELIEVE SYSTEM," every citizen of this great nation of ours will be required to present this digitally encrypted ID card, a kind of government permission slip for employment, medical care, and so on. The card will absolutley represent you the individual as your fingerprint is digitally represented.

Please do not miss that: every citizen will be fingerprinted, a privilege hitherto only reserved for criminals who have been stripped of their liberties by the State.

So while Arizona is being lambasted for Nazism, the real socialists are busy in the nation's capital. While you're distracted by what's taking place out West, the East encroaches deeper into your life. While we are being warned of the dangers of Nazi-style identification by the left, the left is planning to require them of all citizens.

There is political reason behind this move in Washington, but is the BELIEVE SYSTEM hope and change you can believe in?

BE AFRAID, BE VERY AFRAID

Every year as tax-time edges nearer to my checkbook, I am confronted with fears. Not fear that I may have paid too much or too little, both of which are a common reality. In the grand labyrinth of our tax code, has anyone ever paid in exactly what they owe?

No, this gut-turning dread comes from a fear of my government. Yes, "We the People" fear Washington. Fear that one day men in black suits driving black SUVs, bearing IRS badges will show up at my door. When the Internal Revenue Service is involved, the rule is "guilty until proven innocent."

Until now, that dread has been seasonal: tax-time. But times, they are a changin'.

With the IRS assuming enforcement of health care, and hiring tens of thousands of agents with the mandate of "health care or else," that gnawing little voice in the back of my head will speak to me—and you—all year long, year after year. Every time you go through the rigamarole of signing up for health insurance, use your flex account (if the benevolent government lets you keep one), each time you visit the doctor, need a prescription, or have to show your shiny new government-issue heath care card, there will be that momentary, "What if it doesn't work this time?" moment. "What if I'm turned down?" "What if someone didn't file the right paperwork in triplicate and the computer says I don't deserve this treatment?"

I can't wait for that moment when I actually say, "Gee, I remember when I only had to deal with the IRS once a year. Boy those were the days!"

Now there is change you can believe in.

RELEVANCY

I have recently become a fan of Red State—ever since I found their app for my iTouch. Kudos to Vladimir, Moe Lane, Jeff Lukens, Erick Erickson, and all the contributors!

A recent entry, "EPA: Mission Creep on Steroids," got me thinking about relevancy, and for good political reason.

I too remember the trash strewn along every highway, dying fish in the Great Lakes, smog so thick in Los Angeles that I could not see the airport from the tarmac. America fell out of love with the land. There were other startling realities that grabbed people's attention: the bald eagle was going the way of the dinosaur, along with geese, ducks, and the buffalo. A river—you know "water"—had caught fire.

As Red State wisely points out, much of that has changed, "The air and the water are cleaner," and some small credit goes to the EPA (private citizens and businesses were already busy taking responsible action. The EPA was something of an after-thought). But if the air is healthier, the water purer, the forests are bustling, and the wildlife flourishes, what is the EPA to do?

Scramble for relevancy, that's what. They have to find a political reason to exist and if they've done too good a job, their relevancy is at risk.

Most aging entities, be they people or institutions, reach a point at which they have accomplished most of what they set out to do and begin to questions the meaning of life—to question their own relevancy. That's where the EPA and many "services" of Washington are today. Only by intruding into our lives do they get to remain relevant.

As the nanny state grows and grows, as the government assumes control over more and more entitlements, from college loans to health care, from air bags in our cars to HD TVs, they remind "We the people" that they are relevant by-gum, and they desperately need for us to believe it too.

If we had said "no" to governmentally mandated high definition television, Washington's relevancy would have been neutered. Had we said "no" sooner and louder to thousands of unread pages of legislation, those who govern us would have become more and more irrelevant, and they cannot stand for that.

AT LAST, A POLITICIAN WHO SPEAKS THE TRUTH!

Recently, Congressman Phil Hare (D) of Illinois was addressing the new health care legislation. When asked about the law’s constitutionality, the representative spoke what was quite refreshing, he spoke the truth. No masks, no evasions, no beating around the bush to avoid the answer. Congressman Hare simply said, "I don't worry about the Constitution on this."

For me however, this raises a question of political reason: did you not, Representative Hare, swear an oath to uphold the Constitution? Article 6 states that congressmen, “shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.” The exact verbiage of your oath of office was: "I, (name of Member), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same . . .”

The duty of your office requires you to “worry about the Constitution on this.” In fact, your primary concern when debating any bill should be its constitutionality. So yes, you should “worry,” Mr. Hare. It is your job to “worry,” sir, your sworn obligation. Due process is about upholding the law—and in this case the Constitution—not finding ways around it, bending it, or breaking the rules.

If you do not have enough integrity to uphold your sworn oath, then you have no business being a congressman.

VICTORY’S MASQUERADE – PART II

4.) Voices of opposition are to be ridiculed. To exercise the constitutional right of free speech and question what this administration is doing is to open oneself up to all kinds of name-calling: terrorist, right-wing fanatic, throw-back, unintelligent, mind-numb robot, Nazi, and tea-bagger. All part of the mature response that comes from being associated with the tolerant Left. But their ridicule appears to be having an affect.

A recent survey by Wenzel Strategies shows that Americans are more guarded in what they are willing to say openly. Freedom of speech, it would seem, is perceived to be under serious attack. As soon as the IRS, you know the “guilty until proven innocent” arm of the benevolent government, takes charge of health care enforcement, I should expect that guardedness to become even more prevalent. Let the tax-payer beware.

It is also interesting to note that the news coverage of the recent federal raids on the Hutaree militia are continuously referring to the group as the "Christian" militia. Not the "right wing," not the "illegal," not the "terrorist" militia but the "Christian" militia. Mainstream Christianity, neither Catholic nor Protestant, would identify the Hutaree as exemplifying sound biblical principles, particularly if as alleged, they were plotting sedition and the intentional murder of innocent citizens. But by constantly referring to these alleged terrorists as "Christian," the faith as a whole suffers and believers may become even more guarded in their speech.

From the Tea Bag movement to average conservatives, from "Christian" to Republican, ridicule and suppression from the Left is becoming more and more apparent as we are painted as being dangerous and intolerant.

Consider this video:



It is time for a little political reason in the marketplace of ideas.

VICTORY’S MASQUERADE – PART I

I have taken this week to consider all that I have seen in the passing of the health care bill. I watched what we called “debate” on C-SPAN, I listened to pundits on both sides of  the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (P.L. 111-148), and paid attention to the speeches eager to find glimpses of political reason.

Now that it is law, I hope Americans discovered what I did:

1.) Victory in this case had nothing to do with party affiliations. The G.O.P. was clearly on the losing side. That does not imply the wrong side, mind you, but they were the obvious minority. The Left’s opposition were not the Republicans. They had been rendered politically impotent. The meaningful party of "no" was comprised of Democrats. The opposing voices were members of their own party and the vast majority of America’s citizens who did not want the all-encompassing scope of this bill to become law. The popping of the champagne corks proclaiming victory came at the cost of—and in the faces of—their own party members and the voting constituency they swore an oath to represent. Let the reader beware.

2.) Opposition is irrelevant. It became quite clear that political reason and political integrity was abandoned for expediency. Circumventing convention and due process to pass a bill at any cost has proven that those in power will do whatever it takes to achieve their agenda. Their oath to uphold the constitution meant—and means—nothing. If there was a way around doing things conventionally, it was (and will) be exploited. Let the reader beware.

3.) The legislative branch is being neutered. Once a person or a government body walks down the path of compromise, driving them down that road becomes easier and easier until it becomes commonplace. The House and Senate have taken the walk on the dark side, stretching the purpose of reconciliation beyond its intent to appease the president. They circumvented the system, the checks and balances, and threw their reputations under the bus. This will not be the last time. Expect the White House to crack the whip more, forcing Pelosi and Reid onto that road again and again, until Neutered Street intersects with Irrelevancy Avenue. Patriots beware.

Political Reason will pick up with PART II, so check back soon.

MORE OF THE SAME CHANGE

During the 2008 campaign, the charge routinely levelled against the Republican ticket was that a vote for McCain-Palin was a vote for 4-more years of failed Bush policies.

Let’s see if we can identify a few of those dreaded policies which had to be avoided:

1. "Out-of-control" deficit spending
2. That dreaded Patriot Act that infringed on American privacy
3. Too many secret meetings and back-room deals conducted behind closed doors
4. Unilateral decision-making that negatively affected our allies
5. Excessive use of Executive Orders
6. Holding enemy combatants in a Guantanamo prison (instead of a mainland prison)
7. An Oval Office that acted in spite of the will of the populace
8. Escalating war efforts in Afghanistan
9. A chief executive who used the process of reconciliation to get its way
10. A president who spent his time on everything BUT jobs
11. A president who avoided press conferences
12. And others

What was the political reason for avoiding John Sidney McCain, again? Now that President Barak Hussein Obama has been in office, aren’t we glad we avoided more-of-the-same for all that “hope and change?”

NOW WE KNOW: THE PRESIDENT IS ANTI-SEMITIC

Let me make sure I understand this. Since the president's inauguration the hue and cry has been that those who speak out against the policies of Barak Obama are racists. This argument is an attempt to emotionally hamstring and silence opposing views. No one wants to be accused of being a racists.

As a child of the 60’s, I remember all too well the violence that held our country in a chokehold. I witnessed it firsthand. I have also seen those tensions relegated to the history books as Caucasians have, on the whole, moved beyond racist attitudes.

But let us hold onto that thought for a moment; that to oppose President Obama is to proclaim one’s racist ways. There is a political reason to prop up such propaganda, but for those out there who hold fast to this dogma, let us see how it stands up to scrutiny.

This week the international press reported over and over again how Barak Obama deeply humiliated Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. The issue? Israel’s construction of homes in a largely Arab section of her capital city, Jerusalem.

Given the premise that to oppose a national leader’s policies constitutes racism, must it therefore follow that President Obama is an anti-Semite? Clearly he opposes Netanyahu’s position on Jewish settlements. Further, by demanding that these settlements cease, Barak Obama insists on racial segregation: keeping peoples apart rather than bringing them together in community—a throwback to failed American policy over the last two centuries.

To add further injury to insult, our commander-in-chief refused to dine with Jews, Benjamin Netanyau and his staff. How else could this rude behavior be interpreted other than as anti-Semitic?

Following the established pattern, that opposition to a national leader is a clear and present indication of racism, then I guess we must also confess that the president of the United States is guilty of anti-Semitism.

The shoe is now firmly on the other foot and it feels quite uncomfortable.

I did not make these racist rules, the Left did. I did not start the folderal that to oppose a leader’s policies is equal to being a racist. I am however, applying the same political reason they have promoted, which of course, demonstrates no reason at all.

So let us be done with this once and for all! Those who speak out against the policies of Barak Obama or the Democrats are not racists lashing out from a place of emotional desperation. To falsely accuse fellow Americans of such behavior only casts a dark cloud on those who profess such shallow nonsense.

WHAT WE HAVE BECOME

I received this note from a friend of mine this week, and share it now with you.—J. H.

“In my youth, there were groups of passionate protestors who believed that their national leaders were taking America down the wrong path. They feared that the federal government had taken their rights away, was becoming too powerful, and was flat out ignoring what the people wanted. They went to rallies, they shouted to the rooftops, and even though they were ridiculed by the leaders and the media, they ultimately brought about political change.

“Today, those protesters are in Congress and the White House. They are making sweetheart deals above our heads, they belittle those who disagree with them, and they ignore those who protest. CNN says 56% of Americans believe the government has become so powerful, it is an immediate threat to our rights and freedoms.

“I guess we become what we fear. And I fear what we have become.”

—A. Bartmess

MALAISE OR INSURRECTION?

Today, at the recommendation of a trusted source, I read The Coming Insurrection by The Invisible Committee (ISBN 987-1-58435-080-4). From what I can gather online, the response to this book is all across the board, from pundits to professors either singing its praise or denouncing it as "evil."

This English translation from the original French is, without a doubt, well-written. The use of language is often compelling. The vocabulary is above average. The play on what many people fear may be going on in their own society is well executed. At times the text address very real issues head on and forthrightly, topics which deserve further exploration.

Written about the French landscape, its subject matter resonates very well for the U.S. As our administration has moved from bank crisis to health crisis, from auto crisis to housing crisis, from debt crisis to who knows what new crisis the boy who cried wolf will profess tomorrow, the words on page 14, "Crisis is a means of governing. In a world that seems to hold together only through the infinite management of its own collapse," sound every bit as relevant for Washington as for Paris.

Similarly, when I read, "For a century and a half, the national school system has been producing a type of state subjectivity that stands out among all others" (p. 37), it can be difficult to remember that the authors are not addressing strictly American issues.

And on the whole, I was pleased to see that the woes of the world were not left to rest at the feet of the Christian church, the standard crutch for blame-laying. Certainly Christianity has had Her struggles with corruption and oppression, but the authors either did not see the church as a factor, or at least not as a relevant factor.

Even so, the final analysis of the book left me not merely skeptical, but gravely disappointed. Whether comparing the Israelites under Pharaoh in the book of Exodus or the plights of New York street gangs,  their conclusions that we live in an imperfect world are hardly new. The complaints, as real and valid as they may be, lead them to a very destructive and self-important decision, that to fight back they must destroy. That anarchy will lead to some utopia. That communes will some how rise above the timeless human tendency toward laws, order, and eventual corruption.

Sadly, as many times as the insurrection they espouse has been tried in the annuls of human history, that utopia never rises from the embers like a hallowed phoenix, but instead, rears its ugly heads as a deceptive doppelgänger, leading to the same eventual imperfect system, with imperfect rules and subjugation as any other manmade institution. Their solution, which can only thrive on the very political and financial systems they so vehemently denounce, can only lead to the same end.

Is it a dangerous book? If someone reads it, becomes excited and says, "Yea, let's rebel," without a thought to what comes after, then yes, it is a very dangerous book. The Coming Insurrection artfully guides readers, potentially sympathetic or impressionable readers, to that motivation. It spells out, in no uncertain terms that the world is a mess and needs help.

But for all its guidance toward militant anarchy, the book offers no thought or sagacity as to what comes after an insurrection: the brutality, the turf wars, the power struggles, and then the inevitable rebuilding of society along the same social evolution as has occurred in every century, in every millennia of mankind's habitation of this blue marble we call home. Their argument, ultimately, lacks political reason.

It is worth reading. It is worth understanding just how far "they," the Invisible Committee and those like them may be willing to go to accomplish their ends. But even so, the very idea of a "committee," invisible and hiding in the shadows, handing down directives to their followers is anathematic to the gospel they preach. Even in The Coming Insurrection's attempt to throw off the confines of society, they give birth to the next, setting the cycle in motion once more.

King Solomon said it best, "Vanity of vanities, all is vanity" (Ecclesiastes 1:2).

If you are so inclined, and want to save a few dollars or keep a few dollars from reaching the invisible authors, you can read the entire text at http://tarnac9.wordpress.com/texts/the-coming-insurrection/