The current fight over debt ceiling in the halls of government in Washington D.C. has polarized our trustees in a way that is rarely seen in modern times. With the President of the United States calling for compromise and excoriating his partisan opposition from the bully pulpit, he demonstrates the frustration of his inability to frame the debate and power his agenda into prominence before the debt ceiling deadline arrives and his leadership (despite his favor among the large mainstream media outlets) becomes more of an issue in public opinion than the refusal of Republicans to increase taxes in response to their mandate from the 2010 election and the tea party surge. It is emerging as a battle between opposing Ideologies that have tilted the American ship since the beginning: the left, which seeks to maintain the incremental growth of government size and power, and the right which has awakened from its slumber of strategic compromise to see the precipice of an inescapable economic Rubicon.

• Debt, in terms of government budget, is an accumulation of yearly deficits.
• Deficits are measures of revenue falling short of measures of spending.
• A debt ceiling is a limit on the aggregate bonds that can be issued to cover congress’ constitutionally authorized borrowing on the credit of the United States ,which compensates for spending beyond the budget designed to delineate the funding for government programs and legislation.

These three things are a looming cloud over our fiscal health as American politicians argue over how to continue to spend like it won’t matter tomorrow and still get elected next year.

The Debt is rapidly growing beyond our capacity to produce enough to even pay the interest on the borrowed money.

The Deficits are short –term manifestations of the long –term problem

The debt ceiling is the credit card limit on borrowing to pay what we have already spent.

But the politicians in Washington continue to increase the spending with no hint of realistic compromise on those checks written,(to voters) which represent their guarantee of re-election.

But the productive are finally beginning to see the disconnect between what is earned and what is taken , to be given to others.

Greece has emerged as an example on the world stage of how not to conduct the finances of a modern nation. As the people  discover that their entitlements are limited , and the free ride on the backs of the productive in society is coming to a forced close,(manifested in waste cuts ) the “entitled” are beginning to reach out in desperation for the nearest Molotov cocktail to affect the change that will catch the attention of the “keepers of the checkbook”.

Here in America, the waste continues as politicians are only on the verge of coming to any realization that there may be limits to their own fiscal excesses. A looming election year has napes bristled and the juxtaposition of that deadline with an abysmal employment rate and a rapidly approaching debt ceiling deadline has created a political frenzy inside the beltway.

The conservatives (some of them) finally seem to understand their marching orders from the electorate, who demanded in true tea party fashion last November that the compromise with excessive spending government expansion is over. The voters have unleashed their rage at the misappropriation of Federal funds. The waste has caught up with the domestic output. The Credit card bill is too large to ignore. And with the glaring violent example of a collapsing Greece to remind us, the consequences of bureaucratic gluttony cannot be propitiated any longer.

And ,of course, the Liberals in denial and resorting to wealth envy and class warfare to maintain the gravy train, continue to apply for yet another credit extension and decry the evil of those who would try to talk some fiscal sense as “the destroyers of schools and the elderly”, all the while refusing to reduce even the most ridiculous of pork programs. No, all of the “non-stimulating “ stimulus and the new and untested Federal takeover of an entire sixth of the economy (medical care) cannot be tampered with. Never mind those historical government cost over-runs,  never mind those historically failed attempts at wealth redistribution and the blatant absence of private sector spending and hiring.

The coming election weighs heavy on the left, and the desperation of the bureaucrats is palpable. Even the President has emerged on television to scold the right for failure to work towards a positive election campaign for the Obama administration. Their new problem is that the people are unemployed and are paying attention to what may affect their possible job status next year. The people are weary of the misspending as it begins to affect the hiring class and the real “trickle down” becomes a pinch between the fear of investing and the coffers to compensate running dry.

The writing on the wall now has translators and the bureaucrats are finding it much more difficult to tag acceptable excuses to the patrons of their grand graffiti.

The scare tactics are backfiring on the political class who, in the past has pitted the rich and poor in a great charade against one another to obfuscate the plunder. But when the bureaucratic tyranny begins to sicken the goose, the golden eggs become more and more scarce. The workers are realizing that having a job working for the “evil rich” is better than waiting on an unemployment check that may never arrive. The Trustees have squandered their trust, and the productive have caught on. When the gravy train approaches the (Laffer ) curve, if the brakes aren’t applied soon enough , the derailment will cause us all to Greece the landing.

Patrick Pittman

July 26, 2011

Transcript of Obama Speech from White House 7-25-11:

Via the White House press office:

Remarks of President Barack Obama – As Prepared for Delivery

Primetime Debt Speech

Monday, July 25, 2011

Washington, DC

As Prepared for Delivery –

Good evening.  Tonight, I want to talk about the debate we’ve been having in Washington over the national debt – a debate that directly affects the lives of all Americans.

For the last decade, we have spent more money than we take in.  In the year 2000, the government had a budget surplus.  But instead of using it to pay off our debt, the money was spent on trillions of dollars in new tax cuts, while two wars and an expensive prescription drug program were simply added to our nation’s credit card.

As a result, the deficit was on track to top $1 trillion the year I took office.  To make matters worse, the recession meant that there was less money coming in, and it required us to spend even more – on tax cuts for middle-class families; on unemployment insurance; on aid to states so we could prevent more teachers and firefighters and police officers from being laid off.  These emergency steps also added to the deficit.

Now, every family knows that a little credit card debt is manageable.  But if we stay on the current path, our growing debt could cost us jobs and do serious damage to the economy.

More of our tax dollars will go toward paying off the interest on our loans.   Businesses will be less likely to open up shop and hire workers in a country that can’t balance its books.  Interest rates could climb for everyone who borrows money – the homeowner with a mortgage, the student with a college loan, the corner store that wants to expand.  And we won’t have enough money to make job-creating investments in things like education and infrastructure, or pay for vital programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

Because neither party is blameless for the decisions that led to this problem, both parties have a responsibility to solve it.  And over the last several months, that’s what we’ve been trying to do.  I won’t bore you with the details of every plan or proposal, but basically, the debate has centered around two different approaches.

The first approach says, let’s live within our means by making serious, historic cuts in government spending.  Let’s cut domestic spending to the lowest level it’s been since Dwight Eisenhower was President.  Let’s cut defense spending at the Pentagon by hundreds of billions of dollars.  Let’s cut out the waste and fraud in health care programs like Medicare – and at the same time, let’s make modest adjustments so that Medicare is still there for future generations.  Finally, let’s ask the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to give up some of their tax breaks and special deductions.

This balanced approach asks everyone to give a little without requiring anyone to sacrifice too much.  It would reduce the deficit by around $4 trillion and put us on a path to pay down our debt.  And the cuts wouldn’t happen so abruptly that they’d be a drag on our economy, or prevent us from helping small business and middle-class families get back on their feet right now.

This approach is also bipartisan.  While many in my own party aren’t happy with the painful cuts it makes, enough will be willing to accept them if the burden is fairly shared.  While Republicans might like to see deeper cuts and no revenue at all, there are many in the Senate who have said “Yes, I’m willing to put politics aside and consider this approach because I care about solving the problem.”  And to his credit, this is the kind of approach the Republican Speaker of the House, John Boehner, was working on with me over the last several weeks.

The only reason this balanced approach isn’t on its way to becoming law right now is because a significant number of Republicans in Congress are insisting on a cuts-only approach – an approach that doesn’t ask the wealthiest Americans or biggest corporations to contribute anything at all.  And because nothing is asked of those at the top of the income scales, such an approach would close the deficit only with more severe cuts to programs we all care about – cuts that place a greater burden on working families.

So the debate right now isn’t about whether we need to make tough choices.  Democrats and Republicans agree on the amount of deficit reduction we need.  The debate is about how it should be done.  Most Americans, regardless of political party, don’t understand how we can ask a senior citizen to pay more for her Medicare before we ask corporate jet owners and oil companies to give up tax breaks that other companies don’t get.  How can we ask a student to pay more for college before we ask hedge fund managers to stop paying taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries?  How can we slash funding for education and clean energy before we ask people like me to give up tax breaks we don’t need and didn’t ask for?

That’s not right.  It’s not fair.  We all want a government that lives within its means, but there are still things we need to pay for as a country – things like new roads and bridges; weather satellites and food inspection; services to veterans and medical research.

Keep in mind that under a balanced approach, the 98% of Americans who make under $250,000 would see no tax increases at all.  None.  In fact, I want to extend the payroll tax cut for working families.  What we’re talking about under a balanced approach is asking Americans whose incomes have gone up the most over the last decade – millionaires and billionaires – to share in the sacrifice everyone else has to make.  And I think these patriotic Americans are willing to pitch in.  In fact, over the last few decades, they’ve pitched in every time we passed a bipartisan deal to reduce the deficit.  The first time a deal passed, a predecessor of mine made the case for a balanced approach by saying this:

“Would you rather reduce deficits and interest rates by raising revenue from those who are not now paying their fair share, or would you rather accept larger budget deficits, higher interest rates, and higher unemployment?  And I think I know your answer.”

Those words were spoken by Ronald Reagan.  But today, many Republicans in the House refuse to consider this kind of balanced approach – an approach that was pursued not only by President Reagan, but by the first President Bush, President Clinton, myself, and many Democrats and Republicans in the United States Senate.  So we are left with a stalemate.

Now, what makes today’s stalemate so dangerous is that it has been tied to something known as the debt ceiling – a term that most people outside of Washington have probably never heard of before.

Understand – raising the debt ceiling does not allow Congress to spend more money.  It simply gives our country the ability to pay the bills that Congress has already racked up.  In the past, raising the debt ceiling was routine.  Since the 1950s, Congress has always passed it, and every President has signed it.  President Reagan did it 18 times.  George W. Bush did it 7 times.  And we have to do it by next Tuesday, August 2^nd, or else we won’t be able to pay all of our bills.

Unfortunately, for the past several weeks, Republican House members have essentially said that the only way they’ll vote to prevent America’s first-ever default is if the rest of us agree to their deep, spending cuts-only approach.

If that happens, and we default, we would not have enough money to pay all of our bills – bills that include monthly Social Security checks, veterans’ benefits, and the government contracts we’ve signed with thousands of businesses.

For the first time in history, our country’s Triple A credit rating would be downgraded, leaving investors around the world to wonder whether the United States is still a good bet.  Interest rates would skyrocket on credit cards, mortgages, and car loans, which amounts to a huge tax hike on the American people.  We would risk sparking a deep economic crisis – one caused almost entirely by Washington.

Defaulting on our obligations is a reckless and irresponsible outcome to this debate.  And Republican leaders say that they agree we must avoid default.  But the new approach that Speaker Boehner unveiled today, which would temporarily extend the debt ceiling in exchange for spending cuts, would force us to once again face the threat of default just six months from now.  In other words, it doesn’t solve the problem.

First of all, a six-month extension of the debt ceiling might not be enough to avoid a credit downgrade and the higher interest rates that all Americans would have to pay as a result.  We know what we have to do to reduce our deficits; there’s no point in putting the economy at risk by kicking the can further down the road.

But there’s an even greater danger to this approach.  Based on what we’ve seen these past few weeks, we know what to expect six months from now.  The House will once again refuse to prevent default unless the rest of us accept their cuts-only approach.  Again, they will refuse to ask the wealthiest Americans to give up their tax cuts or deductions.  Again, they will demand harsh cuts to programs like Medicare.  And once again, the economy will be held captive unless they get their way.

That is no way to run the greatest country on Earth.  It is a dangerous game we’ve never played before, and we can’t afford to play it now.  Not when the jobs and livelihoods of so many families are at stake.  We can’t allow the American people to become collateral damage to Washington’s political warfare.

Congress now has one week left to act, and there are still paths forward.  The Senate has introduced a plan to avoid default, which makes a down payment on deficit reduction and ensures that we don’t have to go through this again in six months.

I think that’s a much better path, although serious deficit reduction would still require us to tackle the tough challenges of entitlement and tax reform.  Either way, I have told leaders of both parties that they must come up with a fair compromise in the next few days that can pass both houses of Congress – a compromise I can sign.  And I am confident we can reach this compromise.

Despite our disagreements, Republican leaders and I have found common ground before.  And I believe that enough members of both parties will ultimately put politics aside and help us make progress.

I realize that a lot of the new members of Congress and I don’t see eye-to-eye on many issues.  But we were each elected by some of the same Americans for some of the same reasons.  Yes, many want government to start living within its means.  And many are fed up with a system in which the deck seems stacked against middle-class Americans in favor of the wealthiest few.  But do you know what people are fed up with most of all?

They’re fed up with a town where compromise has become a dirty word.  They work all day long, many of them scraping by, just to put food on the table.  And when these Americans come home at night, bone-tired, and turn on the news, all they see is the same partisan three-ring circus here in Washington.  They see leaders who can’t seem to come together and do what it takes to make life just a little bit better for ordinary Americans.  They are offended by that.  And they should be.

The American people may have voted for divided government, but they didn’t vote for a dysfunctional government.  So I’m asking you all to make your voice heard.  If you want a balanced approach to reducing the deficit, let your Member of Congress know.  If you believe we can solve this problem through compromise, send that message.

America, after all, has always been a grand experiment in compromise.  As a democracy made up of every race and religion, where every belief and point of view is welcomed, we have put to the test time and again the proposition at the heart of our founding:  that out of many, we are one.  We have engaged in fierce and passionate debates about the issues of the day, but from slavery to war, from civil liberties to questions of economic justice, we have tried to live by the words that Jefferson once wrote: “Every man cannot have his way in all things…Without this mutual disposition, we are disjointed individuals, but not a society.”

History is scattered with the stories of those who held fast to rigid ideologies and refused to listen to those who disagreed.  But those are not the Americans we remember.  We remember the Americans who put country above self, and set personal grievances aside for the greater good.  We remember the Americans who held this country together during its most difficult hours; who put aside pride and party to form a more perfect union.

That’s who we remember.  That’s who we need to be right now.  The entire world is watching.  So let’s seize this moment to show why the United States of America is still the greatest nation on Earth – not just because we can still keep our word and meet our obligations, but because we can still come together as one nation.  Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.

The Failure of Liberalism Part 1

What is Liberalism?

Modern American Liberalism is not the same as classical (Jeffersonian) liberalism. In fact it is almost the exact opposite.

Modern American liberalism is:

· The (mistaken) belief that the restriction of Individual Liberty and private property rights can improve society through government efforts to design and manage economic and social structures.

· The (mistaken) belief that a mob of men can better manage society than core values that protect the individual and his property and enforcement of laws that ensure equal protection of citizens while limiting government and allowing individuals to protect themselves .

· The (mistaken) belief that social safety nets imposed on the populace are more compassionate than allowing the individual freedom to fail (or succeed) from one’s life decisions.

· The (mistaken) belief that involuntary re-distribution of wealth is moral.

Classical (Jeffersonian) Liberalism (Which is modern conservatism) is a belief in the superiority of the American core values:

· Individual Liberty

· The right to self protection

· The protection of private property rights

· Equal protection under the law

· Limited government

(Self reliance)

With these working definitions we begin to describe why liberalism fails so often:

Political correctness achieves the opposite of its intent-

What is the intent of political correctness? Possibly to achieve less animosity and promote greater harmony among different cultural and racial groups by limiting the publicly acceptable speech in diverse company through collective shaming and disparagement of undesirable thoughts and verbiage in public. The intent being to remove thought and speech offensive to certain groups.

The results of political correctness are that it interrupts positive as well as negative cultural structures. Political correctness creates an atmosphere of fear that pits cultural groups against each other in polarity rather than in cooperation. People are afraid to say the wrong thing because political correctness dictates an air of cultural entitlement to historically submissive cultures and a sense of guilt to historically dominant cultures thus dividing further the intended blend of cultures in a dynamic of fueling the offensiveness of words that could fade with apathy without the politically correct labeling of the speech; giving power and longevity to the negative impact of words that would otherwise remain a remnant of the cultural lexicon.

Political correctness creates an atmosphere of intolerance of other cultures by leaving no flexibility for cross-cultural transition through natural healing and natural interaction, preventing offensive speech that could grow into tolerable speech over time and cultural abstraction and transition of typical cultural vagary.

Redistribution of wealth fails to achieve economic equality and prosperity-

The concept of wealth redistribution by central government planners has been attempted many times and always results in the reverse of its intention. The dynamics of economic interaction cause people to respond positively to income enhancement, but the productivity of those in society with a propensity to succeed economically is proportional to their ability to keep what they earn. When the productive are punished for their audacity to generate income (through its forced removal by nebulous entities who claim that their earnings are better spent by supporting the unproductive), not only does this cause discontent, but it decreases the desire to produce by reducing the reward. The recipients of those redistributed dollars become complacent and assume its repetition to the point of eventual dependency. Just as removal of earned dollars causes the productive to reduce output when the futility of added production becomes evident; so does the distribution of the un-earned dollars cause the recipient to trend complacent and apathetic toward the need to exert productive behavior while the assurance of new dollars continues.

Multiculturalism inflames cultural jealousies and bias instead of erasing them

Multiculturalism is the liberal concept of unnaturally forcing the amalgamation of differing cultures through institutional structures designed to promote the blending of disparate peoples in public settings. Removal of any established set of values or cultures as central is essential to the idea of Multiculturalism .Multiculturalism attempts to equalize values ,religions and ethnic groups in a (well intended ) attempt to remove the natural barriers among differing groups found in proximity to one another. The problems arise when cultural differences get prominence under a director of multicultural thought ; when one (supposed minority) group gets favor in a public setting to achieve some reparation for a perceived past wrong it has suffered under another group. Multiculturalism attempts to achieve equality through unequal treatment or favor to selected groups to mend their differences. This concept ignores or disregards the cultural assertions and desires of each group by trivializing their dominant traits and removing their natural social power. Multiculturalism neuters the cultures it attempts to equalize by establishing the power for cultural foundation in the institution and not leaving the establishment of cultural power to the cultures themselves. In order to preserve harmony, multiculturalism removes natural cultural hegemony and establishment of authority. If central planning of cultural integration is better, then which culture gets to establish the plan; and with which favor or aversion do the selected “other” group(s) comply? Multiculturalism creates an established power for the elite and relegates the “common” cultures to subservience to the Liberal in charge of determining how the cultures may or may not interact.

Centrally planned economies fail more people than they help

Bureaucracies, by their very nature, are inefficient and cumbersome in actual (as opposed to theoretical) operation. It takes far more resources to produce any government generated output than a free market output merely because of the added bureaucracy involved in every step of its inception. The development of an entire economy controlled by a centrally planned bureaucracy is, in practice, untenable because there are always too many interdependent factors involved in the interaction of market forces and human cultural and economic transaction to predict key policy measures accurately enough to maintain balance. Without balance, an economy spins uncontrollably in tangential directions and must be compensated by policies that can exacerbate already perilous trends. The inefficiency and clumsiness of bureaucratic decision making is only catalyst to the corruptible influences of power so easily abused and leveraged through the lives of people subjugated by the unique dispensation of the use of force given to the government that no other entity in society can legitimately claim. With the combination of economic complexity and bureaucratic inefficiency, central planning has proven to be disastrous in nations who have attempted this system in the past. The history of communism and socialism is replete with the inherent failure of central planning to both predict and correct anomalies in the interactive cultural and economic markets in time to have the desired positive effects. On the contrary, central planning has, historically, been the broken lynchpin in the essential connection between producer and consumer in society. It has also proven to be a culturally disrupting factor in its inability to address regional and local intricacies that require surgical solutions rather than sledge hammer rectification. The environmental destruction and economic failure of past socialist attempts pale in comparison to the deaths that have been caused as the tyranny of the bureaucracy combines with the corruption of the planners.

When liberalism restricts Individual liberty it causes more discontent than the absence of “promised benefits “

There is a reason that the founders of America singled out individual liberty as a crucial element in the inception of the new constitution. Individual liberty is the primary element of success in a free society and cannot be substituted for perceived security. Liberalism is in opposition to individual liberty because the individual is to be subjugated to the collective will under the modern liberal ideal. With Liberal collective management of society, the individual is to surrender to the will of the mob. The group is supreme and the individual is subordinate. When the desire for perceived security causes liberals to force the sacrifice of freedoms and property rights through government regulation and micro-management of the lives of citizens, the overall satisfaction of society is diminished when the benefits of the attempted security measures dwindle in time under the crushing cost of the bureaucracy that must be instituted to manage the details and juggle the infinite complexities of the equitable disbursement of seized assets to deserving parties. The benefits of individual liberty outweigh the burdens of social management. The repeated failure of the elites in management of the treasury to accurately predict and balance the accounts of distribution, or even read the behavior of the populace to design the next course of action is well documented in history. The “promised benefits” of safety net bureaucracy always end with the bankruptcy of the original plan and the raiding of the coffers to placate the ever hungry power structure, which inevitably takes precedence over the intended beneficiary of the safety net.

Private property rights protect the environment better than big government

With the increasing growth in population and its inevitable consumption of resources and waste production, conscious protection of the environment becomes increasingly more important to society.

Big government liberalism seeks to impose upon society the theories of elite professors on the government payroll (whose livelihoods depend upon continued need for their pontifications) that can tell the ignorant masses the most effective route for environmental stability. Yet, with all of their study and (unique) interpretation of data that they alone are “qualified “to assemble, the understanding of human nature still eludes them such that the proposed “solutions to our environmental problems continue to be untenable and completely impracticable. With solutions impossible to adequately implement, they become useless as real applicable answers.

Individual actors with property to protect and preserve, however, have proven through the years to be more adept at maintaining a more viable balance of: production and waste, problem identification and solution, and self preservation of an environment that supports continuance of the productive activities that create the profits that individual actors work to create. With continued productivity as an incentive, individuals with property to protect will usually maintain an environment which supports that goal.

When property is seized by bureaucrats and applied to programs that build more infrastructure that is by nature not self-supporting, the users of that property have no personal vested interest to protect that which they do not own and can never control.(see any public areas and compare to privately maintained property of similar monetary value , people will not voluntarily maintain public property that “of which someone else is probably assigned to take care”). People will trash public highways and beaches; they will deface and destroy public places with no regard to continuity. But someone who owns a building or a farm or a piece of property will be much more likely to protect and maintain his own place. (If for no other reason than the possible loss of value).

When property rights are destroyed, what is the incentive to maintain that which is kept out of the reach of individuals?

Capitalism causes more wealth than big government

Government does not create wealth. It seizes wealth. Government can print money, but that has no value unless some individual is willing to sacrifice some portion of his time (life) in exchange for that currency. It is in this regard that printed money is only worth what value the productive members of society are willing to attach to it. If the government prints too much, wealth does not increase; it decreases when inflation devalues those things which are artificially in abundance. Property is only as valuable as it is difficult (or rare) to obtain. If the government seizes earned wealth from the productive to redistribute to those whom liberal bureaucrats think “need” or “deserve” it more than the person who earned it, then the value diminishes, not only with the free distribution of property in an inflationary sense, but it diminishes in the respect that anything that requires little or no effort to obtain loses its rarity. As a trophy which all players in the soccer league receive (for mere participation) is not as desirable as the championship (or Most Valuable Player) trophy would be.

If Government gives away property (that it must seize to obtain in the first place) , it ceases to be wealth (the accumulation of items of value)because it diminishes in value through the act of unearned receipt.

Capitalism (in a free market) is the embodiment of what wealth accumulation represents. People are free to act in ways that increase (or decrease) their own ability to gain items of value. That, in turn, allows more people to participate in the attempt as more wealth circulates in society.

Liberalism, in fact, decreases the value of valuable things through the process of elites rewarding favor to other like-thinking elites to display the “greatness of liberalism”. Giving away a Nobel Prize to Barack Obama (and before that, Yasser Arafat, and Al Gore respectively) before he had accomplished anything to earn it is the perfect example. The prize, used to be a universally valued award for great accomplishments, yet liberals, in rewarding mere liberalism (and appeasing terrorists in the case of Arafat) have forever tarnished the value of the once great symbol of achievement. It is blatantly evident, not so much in who received the prize when these liberals were “honored “by their fellows, but in who was passed by (and the ignored achievements of those people).

Equal protection under the law is impossible under liberalism

The constitutional principle of equal protection of all citizens under the law cannot be implemented by liberal elites whose core philosophy comes from the ten planks of Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto; the primary concept of which resides in the forced heavy progressive income tax. Taxing citizens on income, rather than consumption, requires a large Liberal government to investigate the personal financial activity of citizens and to punish productive behavior by taxing the earnings of the most productive at a greater rate than the least productive (who become rewarded for their lack of productivity by this system).Equal treatment of citizens would require the government to view (and tax) all citizens the same regardless of productive capacity. A consumption tax on retail sales would accomplish this objective. (And Alexander Hamilton stated as much in Federalist 12 when the design of the constitution was being forged).

Liberalism cannot tolerate equal protection under the law because that would undermine its primary directive of wealth redistribution among citizens. It is impossible to use the government to redistribute wealth and still maintain private property rights for individual citizens. In order to take the productive capacity (earned or inherited property) from one citizen to give to another, the property rights must be suspended for the productive while protecting the property rights of the recipient. Equal protection under the law would require the government to treat all citizens and their property with identical reverence. Liberalism insists on cultural and racial discrimination by the government as well as financial discrimination. Federally funded institutions require diversity in everything but philosophical thought conservative (and especially Christian) ideas are removed from governmental discourse at all levels in the name of political correctness. Racial discrimination is forced through school systems insisting on cultural reparations for perceived (and real) past wrongs by discriminatory systems such as affirmative action (and cultural student centers which divide people into all isolated racial groups except whites , who are not allowed to exclude the other groups in reciprocal fashion.)Government contracts also seek to amend these past wrongs through the elite treatment of (liberally) favored groups of citizens over others who cannot be eligible for these set-asides.(your great grandfather’s past wrongs must be punished and you are the recipient of these lashes, and whomever he wronged must have a great grandson in need of some government favor to amend for these evils).In totality the entire concept is riddled with the very unevenness it intends to cure.

Liberalism cannot protect citizens while appeasing the enemies of the culture

American culture, long established with the standards of Judeo-Christian ethic and traditions, is replete with examples of the success of liberty and the superiority of the laws of property and limited governance. When an entity displays its belligerence to American tradition and culture, and even openly demands its destruction (as in the case of the world wide spread of Islam) Liberals are the first to defend these entities and even oppose the defenders of traditional American values. The examples are voluminous; all public vestiges of Christian heritage and tradition have been attacked by liberals using the invented constitutional principle of “separation of church and state”, the defense of Islam as its incremental encroachment in America begins to mimic the malignant spread of violent culture in Europe and other past centers of liberty worldwide, The kneejerk support of Hamas and the Palestinian culture which feeds violent Islam against our ally Israel, Appeasement of La Rasa and illegal alien invasion of America by cultures that want, not to assimilate and blend with American culture( as the Irish,Italians,Jews,Polish,Germans ,Scots and others did at the end of the 19^th century)but to invade our territory (to which they claim title)and establish new conquest (they call themselves reconquistadores )with no immigrant process to establish their acceptance of our laws and acknowledgement of American culture.

Liberal appeasement of all enemies of American culture describes their inability to understand the lessons of history and illustrates their animosity toward the rule of law and the maintenance of the culture of property rights and equal protection that America represents.

How can Liberals both protect Americans while appeasing their enemies?

How can Liberals both respect the immigration laws of America while simultaneously suing states that enact laws (even laws that mimic [unenforced] federal laws) that are geared to protect those Border States from the violent and intrusive invasion by people who refuse to abide by the law voluntarily?

How can Liberals defend the Islamic terrorists captured fighting our soldiers overseas and claim to protect American culture which is in the crosshairs of these same groups?

They cannot.

Liberal appeasement is yet another blatant failure of the philosophy that is rife with failures.

The “safety net “ has no protection from wasteful politicians and will go bankrupt financially while simultaneously promoting a culture of dependence

Social security, no longer isolated away from the sticky fingers of ravenous politicians, has become (and provably so) a Ponzi -scheme destined to run out of funds. Originally designed as a safety net for the destitute retiree, Social Security has become a “catch all” crutch for the dependency culture. Born of liberal golden intentions, Social security has also become the unmentionable third rail of political discourse and the well worn political shame bat for beating the fiscal conservative back into place whenever the reform of this broken entity is suggested. Welfare and Social Security have also transformed an American culture founded on self reliance to one of acceptance (appeasement) of a dependency class who refuses to acknowledge the immorality of a life lived at the expense of others.

Once dependent, the moocher class is not only dependent on the fruits of their neighbor’s labor, but also on the provider (in the form of a liberal “looter class” which trades seized money from the productive for votes from the dependent moocher). This immoral cycle is the heart of liberalism and promotes fear and animosity on the part of the dependent class, who is ever afraid of losing the “free lunch “while simultaneously building severe (goaded) animosity and resentment of the producers from whom their livelihood is taken. This wealth envy fire is stoked by liberalism and is the primary weapon through which the producer is demonized and looted by the bureaucratic tyranny of the big government machine.

The producers in society have little in the way of recourse when the leverage of votes comes from the dependent class bent on preserving their unearned stipend, and while the looters are eager to promise a new round of payments from the “wealthy” to “even the playing field “in a contrived class war in which the unproductive become “victims” of an imaginary task master.(who, in reality wants the poor to become wealthy through self reliance, if, for no other reason than to remove another burden from the overtaxed producers).

The liberal war on poverty has failed miserably

When President Lyndon Johnson declared a war on poverty in 1964, a new era of bureaucratic overkill and incompetence was launched with glorious fanfare. The evidence that liberalism has lost this war in miserable sniveling fashion is all around us today. Everywhere there are big government programs to eliminate poverty and redistribute the wealth in society, there are slums, empty factories, and dependent citizens standing in line for the latest round of government subsidized giveaways ranging from reduced (or free)lunches for those citizens whose parents are not responsible enough to limit their breeding habits to those children that they can afford, to hoards of people standing in line to receive free vouchers for power bill assistance (all the while complaining about the inefficiency and inconvenience of the process for free stuff taken from the neighbor who is at work earning the money to support them as they bark out their objections).

When refugees from Hurricane Katrina weren’t raping and robbing each other in the Superdome in New Orleans, they were luxuriating in donated quarters on cruise ships and trashing the place in wanton fashion. If poverty were just an unfortunate circumstance as liberals claim, then its escape would be swift in a free society where jobs are plentiful and opportunities to create income are as abundant as ideas and free hours of the Idle. But as the mass influx of illegal immigrants have taught us (through the millions of earned dollars wired back to their home countries after arriving in America with, literally only the clothes on their backs) poverty in America is largely voluntary. In fact, poverty in America is a function of cultural failure. Namely the liberal culture who designs a war on poverty based on giving a man a metaphorical fish (taken involuntarily from his productive neighbor) rather than leaving him to his own motivation after teaching him to fish. This is the starkest and obvious failure of liberal philosophy, and its repercussions resonate throughout the cultures it infects in the form of unintended consequences that effect society in concentric waves around each liberal attempt to repair a problem with something other than high expectations, self reliance, individual responsibility and the freedom to fail.

Everywhere in America that poverty exists today is an example of dependence on government programs designed to foster that continued failure rather than to repair the initial cultural problem. No one wants poor people to burden their neighbors, but it is far more compassionate to teach self reliance (and there is only one way to teach self reliance) than to perpetuate dependence.

Liberalism always perpetuates dependence.

In debt is no way to raise a responsible population

Huge financial debts, whether personal, institutional or generational, always limit productive capacity and self actualization of people. Liberalism and government control over larger and larger portions of American life seed the expansion of bureaucracy with the debt of the productive institutionally, and when those programs double and triple in size and scope , the debt becomes generational as today’s politicians pay for their expansions with tomorrow’s expected revenues and thus children who are not even born are in debt to pay for the excesses that liberals design to manage society in opulent (and unnecessary) fashion. Personal debts can be controlled by the individual, but as America has experienced recently, when liberals attempt to appease parasitic voters with debt bailouts based on tomorrow’s production, the financial irresponsibility (enabled by a ravenous liberal bureaucracy) becomes geometric in progression. Liberalism itself excuses irresponsible behavior by appeasing the mooching voters with redistributed wealth. And thus, perpetuates poor fiscal habits by denying free citizens the important freedom to fail from their poor decisions and to learn (and possibly to improve) from necessary mistakes. This denial of human nature and needed education in reality is a function of liberal inability to accept the proven self corrective characteristics of individual liberty and capitalism. Individually, sheltered children have an obvious and distinct disadvantage from children whose parents allowed their exploration of life’s trials and tribulations. Sheltered children grow into spoiled and dependent adults. Children who were allowed to fall and struggle through their own selectively assisted exploration of the world around them are always better equipped adults when it comes to troubleshooting the problems and puzzles that life presents everyone .If you were never allowed to fail as a child, the difficulties in adulthood would be new to you when the decision making process is more critical and dangerous. When you have encountered the challenge of solving a problem before, the immediate reaction would be more focused on solution the second time around, rather than wonder at the enormity of the challenge. Liberalism and its accompanying bureaucratic overspending causes debt and reduces productive capacity for the individual, the institution and the generation that has to shoulder the debt and struggle to compensate for its burden.

When liberal big government programs capture a generation of dependents and lead them down the path of entitlement , the individuals become not just financially indebted to their neighbors for the receipt of their looted earnings, but the psychological dependency that evolves from this dysfunctional relationship becomes resentment and envy which is then used to advantage by the political class in the next round of the cycle as the instigation of jealousy and resentment fuel another raid on the productive in society.

Patrick Alan Pittman

Why the fair tax?- The Fair Tax(HR 2525) is a national retail sales tax that replaces the gigantic and cumbersome and punitive income tax that started in America as a result of the Federal reserve legislation in 1913. It proposes to be 23% as a tax on RETAIL sales of all goods in America. When you get a paycheck under the present income tax the government demands that you fill out cumbersome and complex forms (in detail) to describe much of your private life( and ALL of your financial life) and do so accurately under the penalty of fines and imprisonment that the IRS would gladly facilitate. That paycheck then becomes a reduced amount based on what size it is or what kind of citizen you are based on other checks or cash you may have earned (tax brackets). The fair tax proposes that you keep the entire check when you earn it and fill out no forms telling the government about your private life. You pay as you buy instead.

What are the advantages of that?

Equal Protection Under The Law- The super wealthy don’t get more votes when they go to the polls because they make more (and have more that needs protecting). Bill Gates doesn’t get five votes verses a millionaire’s three verses your one. That wouldn’t be right. One CIitizen, One Vote. Equal protection under the law. If wealthy citizens are not entitled to more votes because they make more , then why should they be forced to pay more in taxes for the same reason? The first response many give to this question is that they are more ABLE to afford higher rates. That concept was described by Karl Marx in the communist manifesto : “from each according to his ability to each according to his needs”. Under examination , it is not consistent with the simple distilled American constitutional principle :”Equal Protection Under the Law”. Regardless of any wealth envy a citizen may have, no one thinks that the wealthy deserve special privileges in our system of government , and neither should they suffer special burdens not levied on all other citizens.

Reducing the strength of powerful lobbyists- How many times have we heard that the lobbyists in Washington have too much power and command the direction of too much legislation? What if there was one law that could alleviate much of that problem? The fair tax is that law. Look at how many lobbyists are in Washington for the sole purpose of gaining tax exemptions for this or that industry or special interest? With no complex set of income tax exemptions to trudge through and hide in new legislation, an entire branch of the lobby industry …..goes away.

Black Market and foreign contribution-When a tourist comes from Germany or Australia and spends Ten thousand dollars in our economy while seeing our country, none of that money goes toward our social security or Medicare system. When a drug dealer pays for a yacht in cash or buys a home, none of that money is taxed through our income tax system . Many illegal Aliens work for cash and do not report their earnings . What if that didn’t matter? The fair tax alleviates that missing revenue and requires none of the actors to fill out forms. When anyone buys an item on the retail level, the tax is applied by the business selling the item. By placing the collection burden on the business owner (who already has that burden in many states) it eliminates the individual as the declaration instrument for the government. And as the owner of a business will stick around for the next round of customers it is incumbent upon him/her to retain public trust in the community and act within the constructs of the system or risk failing. It is already a part of doing business

Punitive, intrusive, and costly income tax filing- Why should it be the government’s business what property you have( beyond it being the registrar of land purchases and ownership)? Why should you have to risk your fortune and your freedom every time you fill out a (mandatory) form that requires a decade of college courses to understand ? Why then, should you be forced (out of necessity) to pay others , accountants and bookkeepers to do it for you because you have not studied that subject while you were preparing yourself to do something else in life? The fair tax relieves that burden and eliminates that risk for the individual citizen.

Reducing the power of the federal government to sneak in taxes under a complex code-The federal government can adjust and tweak the current income tax system and slip in all kinds of penalties and exemptions. And those who can navigate its complexity are capable of finding just the right exemption rules to reduce their burden and increase their competitive advantage. The fair tax levels the playing field and keeps the congress from making” hidden” adjustments to favor this or that lobby. With the fair tax set at 23% retail sales tax, the ability for congress to adjust that one number is out in the open and they would face a much higher scrutiny by “we the people” every time they even considered tweaking that ONE NUMBER.

Forcing the Government to adjust the budget in the spending column instead of the revenue column- The above example shows that with more scrutiny and less ability to grow the bloated government coffers every time they want to add a new pork bill, the congress would be forced (under the fair tax) to adjust their budget just like average citizens do at home: cut spending.

ThePre-bate equalizes the poverty stricken without eliminating taxes on the bottom tier- Under the proposed fair tax system , the pre-bate is a check written to every household (all of them , regardless of income level) to cover the taxes that will be paid on the basic necessities of life up to the poverty level. This removes the very poor from the taxes that are collected when buying their milk, clothing, paying rent, etc. Right now, under the Income tax almost 40% of our citizens have no tax liability at all. This concept also goes back to : Equal Protection Under the Law.

Tax cheating- While no system eliminates tax cheating altogether (criminals will always find a way), it reduces their chances of succeeding by removing the gigantic and complex tax code now on the books and removes the IRS from the expensive burden of keeping up with the income of each and every citizen in America (and now abroad as the Obama administration puts pressure on foreign banks to disclose information on their customers). There will be some ways to attempt to exempt oneself from the fair tax system , but compared to the cheating in the income tax the difference will be geometrically apparent..

Making America a tax haven- With the manufacturing base moving overseas, America has experienced a loss of industry for a variety of reasons, one of which is the punitive regulations put on manufacturers by our gigantic tax code. Under the fair tax, our country stands to become a tax haven for business around the world . Businesses operating in countries with a VAT (value added tax , that taxes at every level of sale , including wholesale) or an income tax would flock to America to get out from under that burden (just as they have run from America in the past to escape the income tax here).

A winning Mission Statement for a conservative political malaise- The fair tax can become a rallying point for conservatives in America to return our great nation to the constitutional republic proposed by the founders (who forbade the income tax in article 1 section 9 of the original constitution). And it can become an attractive draw for moderates and “middle-of- the –roaders” now disaffected by the Marxist attempts of the extreme Liberal shift in American politics in the past two decades.

No system of taxation is perfect, but when compared to the broken and punitive system we have now, the fair tax stands far and away above , and promises to alleviate a multitude of ills now festering in the swamp that Washington and the federal reserve have created to increase their power and assist their comrades at the expense of their fellow citizens .

Patrick Alan Pittman

I want Him to stop, before backing ANY legislation and ask one question:

Does this legislation further or hinder the Core American Values set forth by the founders:?

1. Individual Liberty

2. Equal Protection (of all citizens) under the law?

3. The Right citizens have to Self-Protection

4. The Protection Of Private Property Rights

5. Limited Government

-I want a congressman who knows that: freedom is the foundation of American excellence (not government)

And that: There is no such thing as freedom that does not include the freedom of individuals to fail from their poor life’s decisions as well as to succeed from their great life’s decisions.

And that: it is not the purview of government to rescue individuals from the most important learning lessons in life that force self reliance through suffering the consequences of their own mistakes

-I want a congressman who realizes that his service in government is to free the citizens, not to enhance his own resume’

-I want a congressman who has the courage of a UNITED STATES MARINE in the heat of political battle facing down the enemies of liberty in legislative conflict, who realizes the importance of never compromising with evil.

-I want a congressman who recognizes that socialism (the government ownership of the means of production) IS EVIL and has proven itself to be destructive to the ends of American core values.

-I want a congressman who recognizes that fascism (the strict government control over the privately owned means of production) IS EVIL and will compromise nothing when facing it down.

-I want a congressman who will stand on the side of the minority to repeal an unjust law no matter how large an obstacle it seems (the endurance of our great nation is worth it).

-I want a congressman who remembers history and realizes that our founders pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to force our nation’s birth in the storm of Britain’s eminent attack and that many of the founders lost their lives and their homes, and their families were jailed and murdered in the process of the protection of these ideals based on Liberty and justice first, and personal comfort and security last.

-I want a congressman who will make a list of EMERGENCY GOVERNMENT SERVICES that in case of disaster, our nation cannot do without , that eliminates non essential services and gets to the bare bones of government necessity………..AND ALWAYS RUN OUR GOVERNMENT WITH THAT LIST AND ELIMINATE ALL NON ESSENTIAL SERVICES.

-I WANT A CONGRESSMAN WHO REMEMBERS THAT EVERY DIME TAKEN FROM ONE CITIZEN FOR GOVERNMENT USE , WAS MONEY WHICH THAT FAMILY COULD HAVE USED TO PAY FOR DIAPERS OR TO SEND THEIR DAUGHTER TO COLLEGE; AND SPEND IT WITH ACCORDING REVERENCE FOR THAT SUBSTITUTION.

-I want a congressman who understands that government is bureaucracy, and that bureaucracy adds cost to anything that needs to be done; And considers that private entities can do it (whatever it is ) with more efficiency than a large bureaucratic government program.

-I want a congressman interested in reading and restoring the prominence of the TENTH AMENDMENT to the US Constitution.

-I want a congressman who will return our great republic to its potential by reducing the tyranny of the bureaucracy and allowing liberty to be the driving force in our economy, not dependence.

-I want a congressman who realizes that our language, our culture, and our borders must be preserved in order to preserve that which makes this nation great: American citizens.

-I prefer a congressman who has served in the military and understands that service of the individual is essential for the machine to function. And that liberty has enemies and they must be met with the ferocity and uncompromising assault that they deserve; and that it is far better to sacrifice the self for the sake of the corps and those great men who went before us , than to dishonor ourselves in a selfish compromise with evil to secure a shallow personal victory.

-I want a congressman who walks into the halls of legislature as a soldier walks into the face of the enemy, defending his (way of) life, his constituents’ liberty and all of our sacred honor by removing the evil that has infested our great country in recent decades (DEPENDENCE) which hides under the guise of security.

The greatest mission of the congressman should be to implement the necessities of government and remove the waste ;while limiting the tyranny of the bureaucracy, and work to preserve the Core American Values set forth in the constitution by the founders of this great nation.

By Patrick Pittman

July 9, 2010

In the Politically Correct vision of modern American liberalism, and in the public face of Islamic- American diplomacy, there is an often advanced notion that “moderate Islam “ has no relation to the more virulent strain of Radical Muslim groups that claim responsibility for the acts of terror worldwide and the anti-western rhetoric that continues to emanate from the east. “We should be tolerant of all religions and Islam is no exception” they tell us.

The evidence suggests that Islam is the exception.

What about the incremental encroachment of Islam that becomes malignant to the host culture as we have seen in countries around the world?

It is easy for even a casual observer to see that Islam becomes more and more demanding and radicalized as their numbers in their host cultures increase.

How far do we as a culture allow them to inculcate their demands into our willingness to “tolerate” all religions?

If a religion promotes anti homosexuality ….and denigration and dominance toward women….do we even allow such a religion a foot into our cultural door before demanding that they denounce and openly reject the offending portions of their own religious historical culture?

The Important questions need to be asked of “moderate Islam” to ensure the veracity of their claims that they are a benign strain of Islam wholly different from the harsh and belligerent radicals that terrorize and dominate regions worldwide and persecute “infidels” and spread hatred toward Christians and Jews in many places around the globe, while waging war across the continents.

As a moderate Muslim….do you openly denounce and reject Hamas? and Hezbollah?(Two radical factions responsible for violent destruction and dismissed by “moderates” without the examination reserved for cartoonists and other critics of Islamic aggressors).

As a moderate Muslim….do you reject the insertion of Sharia law into unwilling cultures?

As a moderate Muslim….do you openly call for the other moderate Muslims in your sphere of influence to publicly expose and reject radical Islamists who speak of domination of the west or the elimination of Jews?

When the so called “moderate Muslims ” begin the process of public reaction to the violent actions and rhetoric of Radicals who call for the elimination of Jews and the Islamization /destruction of the west; as quickly to denounce these elements of their own religion as they are to denounce anti-Muslim rhetoric………..only then will the American people believe the “moderate ” label.

Until then, the evidence exists that “moderates” are only the front face to the radical elements of Islam to be infused into our own culture (as they have in Europe and elsewhere).

Without open and automatic denunciation of the radicals (and actions to back it up) , the “moderates” are not to be trusted with an equal level of cultural amalgamation by American people, jaded (and educated) by the actions of “moderate Islam” in England, France and other western nations who now face an ever increasing transformation and elimination of their cultures (visibly and demonstrably so) by so-called “moderate Islam”.

Where does the line begin and end that divides the protection of one’s own unique culture while tolerating the cultures of others.

Is it truly “intolerant” to demand the continuance of the culture in America that has delivered the most enduring example of individual liberty and prosperity that the world has ever witnessed?

Must America be so “tolerant “of Islam that we allow our own culture to be shoved aside to include the Islamic demands which are the beginnings of incremental replacement of all that is “not Islam”?

Where do we delineate the distinction between “tolerance” and appeasement?

Some tolerance is good and acceptable: We should be tolerant of other cultures, but not to the point of being forced to propitiate the infusion of the demands of others that have the effect of destroying our own culture in favor of the encroaching culture.

Islam has the unique distinction of being simultaneously a religious movement, a political movement, and a cultural movement. Its aggressiveness has been demonstrated over centuries and around the world as having a negative effect on the host cultures who have been “tolerant “ enough to allow the Islamic sandal in the door.

No right thinking person would want to deny anyone their right to worship as they please, but as fascist Germany , Italy and the axis powers of Europe have shown us at the adolescence of the 20^th century, appeasement can be disastrous when the incremental growth of one culture poses a malignant threat to those naïve enough to refuse self-protection.

When drug dealers or gangs take over a neighborhood and fear prevents those peaceful residents from exposing themselves to the retribution of violent elements of the aggressors by pointing out the criminals in action, what solution is applicable? Should society capitulate to the terror of the gang for the sake of the fearful neighbor? How far should the gang be allowed to spread before the entire neighborhood is forced to marshal law to prevent its encroachment on other nearby citizens?

When an aggressor is identified as such, it is the duty of citizens who live under the rule of law and in the scope of Liberty to act in self protection and to defend their homes and their way of life from such malevolence as would destroy the culture established to retain a peaceful existence among like minded people.

We must now accept the identification of Islam; the culture, the religion, and the political entity, as an aggressive and malignant growth that usurps the sovereignty of its host cultures and refuses others the “tolerance “which Islam demands for its own expansion and Dominance of neighboring cultures.

Due to the historical record and the recent repeated refusal of “moderate Islam” to” first reject the radical/violent factions” within their own culture/religion before attacking the detractors of Islamic radicalism The designation as “moderate” should be held in high suspicion.

Our recent history in America has been replete with economic uncertainty and financial destabilization as the leading producers attempt to cut losses while Washington continues the looting of the taxpayers.

Business as usual in the nation’s capitol and expansion of government continues as families bend under the strain of yet another government entitlement program that borrows from our grandchildren to pay for yesterday’s free-for –all luxury.

Don’t you think it’s time to stop this runaway train before it gains too much momentum? Have we lost our ability to save for tomorrow? Have we lost our reasoning so much that we cannot see that today’s political indebtedness is costing us our country?

When, in America, did it become acceptable to be parasitic on the labor of our neighbor’s back?

When, in America, did it become fashionable to refuse to pull our own weight? And to demand that our neighbor give up the money (which he earned) that he would have used to send his daughter to college so that illegal aliens could get “in-state- tuition rates “ at a local school that an AMERICAN CITIZEN from a neighboring state cannot get?

How has this come about?

Alexis de Tocqueville stated over 200 years ago that “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”

Our republic has lost the all important distinction between the necessity and the ability of the government to provide for the public service. Regulations came about in the last century at first to fulfill a need where industry grew beyond the safe barriers for its working people so that reason and caution would overcome growth and profit .But in the latter part of the century, as government bureaucracy grew, it became an entity in effect for its own growth, regulation because they (the regulators) were there to regulate rather than regulation to cure an Ill.

When the politicians discovered that regulation (and its privileged exemptions) was a powerful tonic for re-election money, Regulation became the tool for leveraging the continuance of power. Thus the tyranny of the bureaucracy was re-discovered in modern American politics.

Politicians in Washington decided that they could gain favor with voting constituents by offering home ownership to those who could not previously afford a home by forcing lenders to provide lower qualification rules and by guaranteeing the loans with the U.S. treasury through quasi-government entities like Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac. As the loans began to default, the “bad paper “ was hidden (so that investors would still buy the notes along with good loans ) by bundling them together , which ,of course, led to financial disaster and political blame and a fall in property value to reflect a less inflated market.

This example is one of many that reveal the bureaucratic tyranny that Washington politicians have designed to keep incumbent power and maintain a luxuriant status quo for the political elite.

What has fallen the furthest in our corrupted system is the gem of our republic, individual liberty. When citizens are not free to fail from their poor life’s decisions as well as succeed from their good decisions, they become dependent on the system instead of self-reliant.

As Americans begin to discover the financial debt that Washington has created, and realize the burden that their grandchildren (and their grandchildren) will be forced to bear, the disdain for Washington grows. The promises from the last election become obscured by the mountain of new government regulation and bureaucracy that we all must work to support.

The Soviet Union discovered in the 1980’s that a bureaucracy heavy nation could not endure, when too many people work for the government and too few work to pay for it, the system is unsustainable.

When the debt grows beyond the people’s means to support it, the nation becomes too weak to remain.

America must remember this recent history lesson before we, too suffer the same fate as that once powerful nation which opposed us in the cold war.

Our future stability both politically and financially depends upon reigning in the waste and reducing the expansion of an already overgrown federal government bureaucracy. That can only be done by forcing the political class to realize the true nature of the source of their power and demonstrating the ability of the voting public to recognize and replace an entrenched, privileged incumbent.

Patrick Alan Pittman

Our Distilled National Essence

By Patrick Pittman

The dawn of our nation witnessed the flight of a persecuted people who fled from tyranny only to have it follow them to their new world. They then realized that they must fight that evil and pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to secure their liberation from the injustices that reigned upon them from a belligerent King and his minions. That pledge was paid in blood and treasure and in that fire was forged the constitution of a new nation. A constitution that emerged as the guarantor of liberty and became the protector of the values that would guide the most successful free nation that the world had ever seen.

That constitution spelled out in detail the powers that were given and limited to the trustees of that nation. In the crucible of war, and through the evolution of our national culture, our nation emerged with a complex set of statutes and contracts that spelled out the details of our relative structure.

Our societal bonds became evident in and defined by the simple core philosophies that described our national genesis and those ideas became the impetus for the growth and success of a diverse set of cultures culminating into one:

-Individual Liberty

-Protection of private property rights

-Equal protection under the law

-The right of the individual to protect him/her self

-Limited Government

-Self reliance (self determination)

Our nation’s legacy has described a people protected from the tyranny of government and those agents of force who would usurp that which we hold most dear and that which we cannot compromise: The Rule of Law and The Protection of Individual liberty.

Our modern devolution from that standard has been witnessed by an entire generation of citizens who stood by as the trustees of our great mantle have become corrupted by their own human frailties and have then degraded our sanctuary for their own selfish ends.

The time has come for the spirit of liberty to reaffirm its tenacity and regain the helm of our Constitutional vessel.

The complications that rise from the divided parties and convoluted values that they have come to represent must now be refined and distilled to the purity of our national birth. Our Charter must be renewed and reaffirmed as one of liberty and returned to the realm of freedom, wrested from the false promise of security that is offered by the tyrants that would run our Ship into the shoals of bureaucratic subordination.

There is no true freedom without the freedom for individuals to fail from their poor life’s decisions as well as to succeed from their good decisions.

It is not emancipation when the bureaucracy of tyrants promises the false security of a “safety net “on the blood of our neighbor’s toil. Self reliance is the greatest path toward the promise of self actualization, and the individual citizen has not a nobler goal for his society than to remove himself from their list of burdens.

We have learned that equality of opportunity is not the same as equality of result and the government cannot be the guarantor of result without enslaving one citizen for the sake of another. We see the nobility of charity and the moral goodness it creates for those in our society who have fallen behind, but the very morality of charitable action relies upon its voluntary inception. The Nature of nature is that a free people can only remain free with a voluntary heart and a purposeful arrangement with those who seek alms. There is only one way to ensure self reliance in our neighbors. And that is to permit them the freedom to fail.

Without this important freedom we have no true claim of liberty, and without liberty we are no longer the great beacon of hope for a World of our neighbors whose necks now lay stretched under the boots of bureaucrats and warlords as our founders saw firsthand in their own world more than two centuries ago.

We have in our power now the great fortune of a system not wholly corrupted to the point where only a sword will return our freedom and thus we must vote. We are no longer confounded by the promise of security in the guise of a larger blanket of protective government salvation.

We now have had our collective eyes opened to the true nature of the corruption of our present keepers of the Helm. It is time for them to go. Those who promise anything other than liberty are promising the coin taken by force from your neighbor’s purse. They are promising, in essence, to enslave one citizen for the sake of another. They are promising evil. It is time for them to go. And it is time for us to recognize that the masses have discovered that they can vote for themselves the largesse of the treasury. To save our republic we must regain our sacred trust in the form of preserving the Ideals that were distilled from that constitution and list them as we ask our new trustees where they stand in relation to that Mandate.

Patrick Pittman

January 9, 2010