100 Plus Years of Crap – Part IV

Wilson – Woodrow or Dick?

SJWs please note – Before you dismiss Wilson as one of those old dead white males you have heard so much about remember that he is on your side so it is ok.

The Declaration of Independence is the foundational document of our country. The Constitution was erected from the bedrock of this document and formed our system of government.  Never in the history of the world was a government formed like ours, born from revolution a government from the consent of the governed: American Exceptionalism.

But what if you don’t believe in American Exceptionalism?  What if you don’t like that the Constitution established a system of government based on a separation of powers? What if you want power that is not constrained? What would you do?

As  I mentioned in an earlier post, you would: “Begin at the beginning, and go on till you come to the end: then stop.”

For Wilson, the beginning was a thought that government inefficiencies could be cured by study of the new science of administration.  People were spending too much time thinking about “constituting” governments and not enough time on running them.

In July of 1887, as a college professor he wrote a dreadful essay on the topic. The link is here, but please drink a lot of coffee before reading.

Long story short, he advocated for science to develop more efficient methods of instituting laws, using smooth professionals to administer it. He believed that “…in the oversight of the daily details…and means of government, public criticism is of course a clumsy nuisance, a rustic handling delicate machinery.”

Why a rustic?  Because back when the Declaration and Constitution were written things were simple.

Why delicate machinery? Because now things are complex.  So complex that old documents no longer apply.

Where he is getting all of these great inspirations?  Socialist Europe (primarily Prussia and France).

In his thinking to fully implement this “administration” you need professionals, experts; people who were highly educated and skilled in science and who could understand the complexities of the world and administer laws without the cumbersome dictates of the Constitution to slow them down.

But you could not administer laws by moving around checks and balances provided by the Constitution directly, the clods in the public may not like that. Instead, you should start by kicking the legs out by attacking the Declaration.

In 1911, President Wilson, gave  a speech  where he stated: “If you want to understand the real Declaration of Independence, do not repeat the preface.”  Because the Declaration “…as I recollect, did not mention any of the issues of the year 1911.”  It really is just a listing of grievances against King George which no longer apply and the preface is just not relevant. Individual rights are for simpler times, but we are now in complex times.

Indeed, the Declaration is a problem for Progressives. To Progressives there is no higher power than government, and only it can bestow rights.

If in the “preface” the Declaration talks of rights provided to us by God, then it has got to go.  To Progressives God is competition!  This can be seen currently in the undermining of the 1st Amendment and it flows from Wilson.

If you toss out the “Preamble” of the Declaration and disregard the old list of grievances that no longer apply, what do you have? Nothing really.

And if you have a Constitution built on nothing, then these so-called checks and balances established in the systemic construction of our government are built on – well, air.

And if you don’t really have checks and balances, then it is easier to increase the power of the rulers by using a mechanism of administration.

And if administrators can make the rules, enforce the rules and review conflicts with the rules – well that is the very definition of tyranny.

This is what Wilson was about, and why he is the father of the Progressive movement.  He is the starting point of our 100 years of crap (cutting TR some slack for the moment).

He is not done however, because for Progressives it is never done, but for now lets say:

Wilson – 0                 Dick – 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maine Question 3 – Citizen’s Initiative – Background Checks

According to the Maine Bureau of Corporations, Elections & Commissions: “Referendum Elections are held to provide Maine’s citizens an opportunity to vote on…Direct Initiatives of Legislation (i.e. Citizen Initiatives)…”.

So why is a mechanism designed to provide Maine citizens a way to influence directly laws in their state again being used by an outside group to impose a national agenda?

It has only been two years since the Humane Society of the United States, based in Washington D.C., pushed an initiative in our state in effort to advance their own agenda. That divisive issue cost Maine citizens a lot of time, money and effort to retain control over our wildlife management.

Once again Mainers are being forced to defend themselves from an outside group that wants to push its misguided gun control agenda on us though our Citizens initiative process.

Question 3 seeks to eliminate gun transfers between unlicensed persons by imposing background checks and criminal penalties. If your friend wanted to borrow your shotgun to go hunting you would both have to go to a dealer, submit to a background check and pay a fee. When the gun is returned, back you both go, pay another fee and submit to a check to get your own gun back. The same background check you needed to buy the gun in the first place.

These transaction costs in both time and money are a restriction on your property and your liberty.

Do background checks work? No. Nationwide, of the 2.4 million people who were initially denied from buying a gun, 96% were falsely blocked. In 2010, 76,000 denials led to 49 prosecutions. Do you think criminals buy guns that require background check?

What we really need is a way to stop out-of-state groups from using our Maine process to promote their agendas.

 

100 Plus Years of Crap – Part III

On this day in 1787 the Constitution was signed. While it would still take time for it to be ratified, this document, setting out a new form of government, giving rise to the term “American Exceptionalism”, was truly amazing.

So Happy Constitution Day!

But, we can not yet leave the topic of the Declaration of Independence which is the rock upon which the Constitution was built.

One of the pervasive criticisms I hear about the Declaration and the Constitution is that they were written a long time ago (O, and by slaveholders so it is all trash, but I will get to that topic later).  The world has changed, technology has changed, words have changed so these documents by old, dead, white men no longer has any relevance to our times.  Quaint and all but really, lets just move forward.

That logic is the bait for the trap the jaws of which we now find ourselves in.

In answer to that criticism I submit the following:

“About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceeding restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well disregard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter.”

“If all men are created equal, that is final.”

“If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final.”

“If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final.”

“No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backwards toward the time where there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. ”

“Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress.  They are reactionary.  Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient. than those of the Revolutionary fathers.”

I wish I had said that, but it was Calvin Coolidge in a speech for July 4th in 1926.

The enemies of the Declaration and the Constitution pervert the meanings of words and call themselves Progressives.  But as the above excerpt shows they are really reactionaries.

They are not interested in liberties, they are interested in power.

They don’t say, “Hey everybody, we want to go back to a time where we control you by using coercion and compulsion.” Instead they say,”We are Progressive. We want to move forward and away from these old ideas written by men, who owned slaves, who did not let women vote and who are basically super moldy. Things have changed, we need new answers to new human problems and these guys are, well, just a drag.”

Progressives.

Well, if you ever checked out Ecclesiastes (and if you haven’t you should it’s short) you will know that there is nothing new under the sun.

The principles in the Declaration and the Constitution are timeless.  They don’t change because a few years go by. Your IV amendment rights to be secure in your “…papers, and effects,…” don’t go away because your “paper” is now electrons and your “effects” are now computers.

Their real purpose is reactionary control so they have told a lie.

And Progressives always lie.

They have to.

But to show that takes time, so next time we will try to answer the related question:

President Wilson: Woodrow or Dick?

 

Never, Ever, Hillary. Ever.

It is unbelievable to me that anyone could vote for Hillary.  She is unquestionably the most corrupt politician we have ever seen.  Lies flow from her every time she opens her mouth.

I could not believe she is still pedaling that nonsense about her emails last week with Chris Wallace.

Just because the director of the FBI was a coward in not bringing charges against her does not absolve her of the fact that he laid out a play-by-play of why she was completely guilty.  There is no doubt under 18 U. S Code and 793 subsection f.

Yet she insists she did nothing wrong, it was someone else’s fault and she could not, as Secretary of State, distinguish if information in emails was classified or not. O, and spare me the intent B.S.

Such crap and nonsense.  Yet people still support her and would vote for her as President.

Listen, Bill and Hillary are a unit. You elect one you get them both.  And don’t forget, Bill, despite his other short-comings (cough-rape charge-cough) is only the 2nd President to ever be impeached.  Obstruction of justice.  Go figure.

So here is a short list of scandals that we have been subjected to over the years with HRC and Bill:

-Email server – Treason

-Benghazi – Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies and more Lies.

-Huma – trusted adviser tied to Muslim Brotherhood – Yikes!

-Boznia sniper fire – Lie

-Speaking fees – Pay to play with the Secretary and former and possible future President.  Look we have all heard her at some point, would you pay to hear that?  Well some do, they earned $153 million from 2001 to 2015. Ugh!

-Clinton Foundation – More pay to play

-Uranium to Russians – Her role in this security risk is unbelievable

-Haung, Trie, Chung – Illegal campaign contributions from foreign sources

-Renting the Lincoln bedroom out – Seriously

-Selling seats on Commerce Department International Trade missions – Show me the money and someone died

-Subpoenaed Rose Law firm records – Lost and then found in the White House. Hmmm

-Vince Foster and his missing files – Oops. Suicide and office files stolen.

-Filegate – FBI files on political enemies found way to HRC.

-Whitewater – Real Estate swindle and fund raiser

-Travelgate – Friends with benefits again.

-Cattle futures – This one is too funny. Read one article in WSJ on commodity trading and was then able over 10 months to turn $1,000 into $99,500 or an increase of 10,000%.  Really?  What does she need to be President for?

So all of that is just background.  Google it for yourself if you want.

And this dynamic duo wants to rule us all like a ring? And you would vote for that?

See you later 2nd amendment. Hello higher taxes.  Good-bye Liberty.  Nice to see you Tyranny.

We have a big problem here people. What are we going to do?  Think about it!

100 Plus Years of Crap – Part II

 

The beginning.

The Declaration of Independence , July 4, 1776

These were troubled times.  The colonies were under a lot of pressure from the King of England and the leaders in America had had enough.  So they wrote a document to make their case as to why it was necessary “…to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…”

They recognized that  “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” entitled them to a “separate and equal station” in the world.  That there were self-evident truths: “…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…”.  The Declaration goes on to say, “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”.

They said all of this and more a lot better than I can so you should go read it yourself.

This document set the tone and the foundation for the Constitution which would come later. They understood that there is a power higher than man and that each of us, all individuals, have rights that no government can take away.

They also said governments are created to secure these rights, but only by the consent of the governed.  Why?

These were men that were students of history.  They had read the philosophers of the Enlightenment and had studied the world’s governments up to that time.  They understood that individuals have unique points of view, needs and ambitions.  They also knew when societies come together, that these unalienable rights of individuals would come into conflict.  It’s human nature.

Governments, generally,  are meant to assist in conflict resolution but in order to do so, power must be transferred to them and laws made.

Society needs to have clear rules formulated so that everyone understands what conflicts are and what the consequences will be if the law is violated. This is especially important when you consider an individual’s unalienable right to Life.  An individual’s body is the most basic form of property, and clearly defined rules around property are essential for individuals to live together in society.

So why am I harping on all of this Declaration stuff?

If you don’t believe in a higher power there is no power above government.

If you don’t believe in unalienable rights, then all rights are arbitrary and are provided to you by the government (or not provided as they deem fit).

If you don’t believe that all individuals were created equally then government’s help is needed.

If you don’t believe that governments are instituted from the consent of the governed, then governments are instituted without the governed’s consent.

If you don’t believe in government’s role to protect your property with clearly defined laws, your laws won’t be clearly defined, the consequences of breaking them will be capricious and your property won’t be safe.

A slippery slope is started that will slide you all the way to the Democratic National Convention.

But we are not done yet.

100 Plus Years of Crap

In Alice in Wonderland the King said “Begin at the beginning, and go on till you come to the end: then stop.”

It is often difficult to see where beginnings may lead you, so sometimes it makes more sense to begin at the end in order give the beginning some context and then going on to the end is not so hard.

So to end with, last week the Democrats held their convention to nominate for President a person that should be a convicted felon.  They did this at a convention center (named for a bank) in Philadelphia and around it the DNC saw fit to construct a four mile long, eight foot high fence.  Even though Democrats often tell us that fences won’t keep anyone out, I guess they had their reasons.

Protesters outside burned American flags while inside the convention, there were no American flags, at least not at first. There were however, plenty of  Communist flags, Palestinian Flags and North Korean flags.  And sorry Mississippi, but your state flag looks a little bit too much like a Confederate flag. It had to go.

Inside the convention center police were not allowed to wear their uniforms.  A Dallas Sheriff who was speaking at the convention requested a moment of silence in observance of their fallen officers, but it was interrupted (alas) by two people shouting “black lives matter.” The invocation at the start of the convention was met with booing.

And lastly, the DNC had the mothers of people that had been shot in altercations with police tell their stories, including the mother of Michael Brown, whose run-in with the police gave birth to the “Hands up, don’t shoot” mythology.

All of this sounds very tolerant, pro-american, and hopeful right?

It makes you want to ask:  How did a major political party in America become so anti-American and how do we go about understanding all of these examples given above?

Next time we will begin at the beginning.

Liberty and Capitalism

What is Liberty and where does it come from?

John Locke wrote in part -“…we must consider what sate all men are naturally in, and that is a state of perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of all their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man.”

Liberty is the freedom for individuals to act in their own self interests as they determine them.  It is the ability to possess property and dispose of it without interference from others provided they act within the law of nature.

This idea found its way into our Declaration of Independence.  In the preamble of the Declaration it states: “[when one people] 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…that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Liberty is an unalienable right according to this founding document.  We are free to pursue what we will and this is a right that cannot be taken from us.

How is Capitalism compatible with Liberty?

Capitalism is an economic system that is based on the private ownership of the means of production.  This system, even as imperfectly as it has been implemented here in the U.S., has proven itself capable of providing high living standards and great wealth.  Our country’s history demonstrates the benefits provided to all individuals by this Capitalist system is unparalleled in human history. Why?

It is due to our system of government being based on the principle of individual liberty. This has allowed people the freedom to pursue what they wanted to. Entrepreneurs worked to improve the quality of their own lives by utilizing the private ownership of the means of production and in doing so, they improved everyone’s lives.

Railroads, telephones, electricity, cars, food, clothing, shoes and every other imaginable good and service was developed by someone that thought they had a better idea and had the freedom, the Liberty, to create it.

Attacks on Capitalism are Attacks on Liberty

Capitalism and Liberty have become inexorably intertwined.  Private ownership of the means of production is tied to the unalienable right to Liberty and the natural right to possess property unfettered.

When Capitalism is attacked, as it relentlessly is, what are the remedies sought? Regulations and government oversight.  Restrictions on an individual’s ability to possess property is an attack on Liberty.

And as we continually see, government intervention becomes plunder.

In Defense of Capitalism

What are the Benefits of Capitalism?

Capitalism is the economic system that has raised the quality of life for people far above anything imaginable before it.  It is the system that has provided for all of the industrial, technological and social advancements that has made the world what is today.

Compare even the poorest in our society today to the poorest in the feudal times. Comparisons of  infant mortality rates and average life spans demonstrate that people are better off today.  In fact, people are much better off today than they were even 300 years ago.

Another more recent comparison.   A study by “The Economist” from OECD data in 2013 shows a “Better-Life” index.  This is a compilation of 10 indicators  observed in various countries, to arrive at a quality of life index and it is split between the bottom 10% and the top 10% of a country’s socioeconomic status.  What does it show?

People in the in the bottom 10% have a better life in the U.S, than all but 3 of the 17 countries in the group.  Countries that are more socialist, like Germany, France and Britain have a lower standard.  In fairness, Sweden has it slightly better.

But wait there is more.  Our bottom 10% are better off than the top 10% of Russia, Portugal and Brazil.  By a lot.

Indeed, another study from World Bank data shows Americans in the bottom 5% of the U.S.’s income distribution are wealthier than 68% of the rest of the world.  Our poorest people are about as rich as the richest in India.  Why?

Capitalism, while not practiced perfectly here, is the engine that drives economic growth.  It is carried on by self interested individuals in the pursuit of profits and it benefits everyone.  The basic tenant of liberty in our country gives individuals the freedom to pursue entrepreneurial endeavors and  when they succeed, it benefits everyone.

Can a government controlled and centrally planned  system do better?  It does not appear so.

Angus gets it wrong again – this time on Iran

A few weeks ago Senator Angus King held a discussion at USM, with former Senator George Mitchell and Ambassador to NATO, Nicolas Burns.

Senator King stated that he has read everything about the agreement and that it is a good agreement.  He was on a radio sound bite over the weekend saying in effect that the only thing worse than Iran is Iran with a nuclear weapon.  He is making the case, both in the sound bite and in the meeting, that this agreement will stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

Once again, he is wrong, this agreement opens the pathway to one.

First of all, this agreement has side deals at the UN that the Senator, and indeed, Secretary of State Kerry have not seen and do not know what they say.

17 unclassified documents were added to 1 classified document to make it difficult for Congressional members and staff to read them. Same tactic that was used by the President on the Pacific Rim trade deal this summer.

Iran, as reported by the associated press, will be inspecting their own facilities.  Military sites are off limits.  If inspectors are allowed to look, Iran first gets a 60 day notice.

If these sanctions are lifted, Iran, the largest state sponsor of terror in the world,  will get over $1 billion released to them.  Can anyone doubt tat they will use these funds to further their support for terrorism and against the US?

This is a matter of national security.  Iran is driving to get a ICBM program  in place, so they can deliver a warhead to Israel and the United States.

In addition the Ayotollah continues to chant “Death to America!” “Death to Isreal”  Last week he said that Israel will know no peace until they are destroyed in no longer than 25 years from now.

Why does King think this is a good deal?

How can support for the Democratic party be more important than the security of our country?

He can’t.  He is defending the Democratic party over our national security.

Wrong again.

 

Testimony to State of Maine Legislators on Convention of the States

Testimony in support of H.P. 804

submitted by Mark A. Kilburn

Good afternoon Chairman Whittemore and Chairman Martin and distinguished members of the Committee on State and Local Government. My name is Mark Kilburn and I am a resident of Portland.

I have come today to speak to you in support of an Article V Convention of the States. I have two children, one 24 year-old graduate student and one 17 year-old high school junior and I am concerned about the current level of Federal government overreach and its impact on their lives.  I believe that common sense changes need to be made to the United States Constitution via well thought out amendments.

Change, as I am sure we all agree is hard and a little daunting.  It is stated in the Declaration of Independence “…all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”  I say this not because I believe anything needs to be abolished, but to demonstrate how reluctant people are to make any changes.  This reluctance often gives way to fear and misinformation.

Many critics of the Article V process have been using fear and misinformation by raising the specter of a “runaway” convention that will disregard its original charge and turn the Convention of the States into an unlimited convention, thereby exposing the constitution to complete revision.

This criticism is unfounded.  There is a process in Article V.  It confers the power to the states to force Congress to call for a convention on the application of two-thirds or 33 state legislatures to propose amendments.  That will require a tremendous amount of effort and debate throughout the country by informed citizens.  In addition, the state legislatures will be involved in selecting delegates to attend such a convention.  None of this will be done lightly, but is there another safeguard to prevent a runaway convention?

Yes. Article V also provides one.  The proposed amendments “…shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the several states or by Convention in three-fourths thereof…”  This again will require vigorous debate which, when done at local levels, will allow the electorate the opportunity to join-in and contribute.

In addition to these constitutional limits, there is the state legislatures influence over the entire process.  The states’ applications will define the scope of the convention.  The states will instruct the delegates.  The states will have the power to recall a delegate.   There will be a need to garner a majority of state committees at the convention.  A super-majority of state committees and legislative bodies will be needed to pass the proposed amendments if legislatures are chosen by Congress to ratify which is the likely method.

This does not even contemplate legal challenges that would backstop any inappropriate or unconstitutional amendment in the unlikely event that the above safeguards miss.

I believe government by the people and for the people works and is one of the great strengths of our system.  A Convention of the States under Article V is a constitutional method for us to restore our governmental system.

In my view, our constitution is being “amended” almost daily by actions being taken in Washington without these safeguards.  Why shouldn’t the state Legislatures be allowed, at least to attempt, to use a constitutional method to correct the current disregard for our constitution?

I respectfully ask you to support H.P. 804 and vote to pass it.