Saturday, May 13, 2017

Socialism is Simple and Predictable

It is said in certain philosophical and scientific circles that you are on the path to truth when you can reduce the subject under study to its most simple form. The expression of this idea is the very definition of Ockham's Razor. This level of thought is where axioms are formed, answers to problems occur, and things become really obvious. Over the years I've given some thought to the philosophical principles of socialism and all that it implies. The reasons for this, given the current path of the United States, should be clear. Also for the sake of clarity, what I'm talking about is the idea, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need," and all forms of government that form around it.

Socialism is simple and predictable.

No matter the country or the specifics of the form it always requires four things. The first is the consideration that it is perfectly okay for large groups of people to take what they want from small groups of people. The second is a promise of financial equality between economic groups and thus everybody will be taken care of between the classes of people. The third is a government, with power over the lives of the people, to enforce the first two by law. The fourth is a population gullible enough to believe that if they give power over to someone else, they themselves will benefit from it.

The predictability of the eventual outcome lies in the simple facts of human nature. People—while having equal rights—are not equal in talent, and thus resent the enforcement of equality, and so when confronted with it will just stop trying to excel or support the system with their inherent abilities. People also naturally resent other people who wield power over them. Additionally, no matter how sincere the expressed efforts of the government promising financial equality and care for all, sooner or later some real tyrant will gain control of the power over the people and take advantage of them. Thus two things will almost always happen sooner or later. First, the government will be unable to provide what they promised, leading to huge social upheaval. Second, a lot of people will die in the social upheaval.

All conversations regarding socialism, or redistribution of wealth, or fairness, or leveling the playing field, or taking care of the poor, elderly or children, or any of the resulting consequences, fall somewhere in those two paragraphs. The first paragraph, regardless of the specifics, is how and why a country adopts socialism. The second paragraph, regardless of the specifics, is how and why it always results in the same thing.

You could break it down as thus and call it the Ten Principles of Socialism:
1) The consideration that it is perfectly okay for large groups of people to take what they want from small groups of people.
2) The promise of financial equality between economic groups and thus everybody will be taken care of between the classes of people.
3) The government, with power over the lives of the people, to enforce the first two by law.
4) The population gullible enough to believe that if they give power over to someone else, they themselves will benefit from it.
5) The predictability of the eventual outcome lies in the simple facts of human nature.
6) People—while having equal rights—are not equal in talent, and thus resent the enforcement of equality, and so when confronted with it will just stop trying to excel or support the system with their inherent abilities.
7) People naturally resent other people who wield power over them.
8) No matter how sincere the expressed efforts of the government promising financial equality and care for all, sooner or later some real tyrant will gain control of the power over the people and take advantage of them.
9) The government will be unable to provide what they promised, leading to huge social upheaval.
10) A lot of people will die in the social upheaval.

So there you go. Right there are the ten principles of socialism. There is nothing more to say about it because there is nothing else that can be said about it. Anything a person thinks is an exception to any of the above, or anything supposedly new about it, is merely regurgitating one or more of the above in different words.

Don't trust me on this. Look at any conversation regarding philosophical socialism and see for yourself that all that can be said about it falls under those ten things in some way or another.

Sunday, March 26, 2017

Moron Rights

Oops! Did I just mis-type the title of this article? What I meant to call it was "More on Rights" because I write about rights a lot—and I would never suggest that people who don't agree with me about the subject are morons!

Okay, now that I've gotten that bit of sarcasm out of the way I can write a very serious article about the definition of rights. It frequently crosses my mind when I talk with liberals that what they understand rights to be is drastically different than what I understand them to be. I guess for future reference I could qualify their concept of rights with some descriptive and colorful adjective to separate it from what I mean, just for the sake of clarity. So I guess I'll call them...hmmm...okay, "moron rights." That works well enough.

I don't mind paying taxes for things like the military, police and even things such as roads as long as the money is used with expected efficiency. I can use those things and benefit from them, as does the rest of the society. The kinds of taxes I don't like paying is anything that comes from me, because it is somehow their "right" to receive my money, and spend it on something that benefits only them.

I was talking with one of my more respected liberal friends the other day and have a bit of the conversation sticking in my mind. She said she didn't mind paying taxes that go to the benefit of other people for things like healthcare and welfare and the like.

Okay. Far be it from me to tell people what they should or shouldn't mind. I've read enough about slavery in the American South to know that some people didn't mind being slaves either. The point is, I think, that whether you mind it or not, you still don't have a choice.

Anyway, their "right" to receive my money and spend it on themselves for things like food, housing and healthcare, is a leftist concept of rights which I will now separate into a different class. "Moron rights." Now I have to be clear what I'm talking about here. Food, housing and healthcare are rights, if subjected only to my choice and I pay for them myself. That's not what they are talking about though. They are talking about using my money for their food, housing and healthcare as being their right. I suppose I could call them something more politically correct like, "grossly misunderstood rights," but that doesn't exactly flow from the tongue. It's not a very good pun either.

Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence said, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ...."

So why is there so much contention on the simple subject of rights?

The problem for this country begins with how liberals have re-defined the words of Thomas Jefferson.

Saturday, March 11, 2017

President Reagan's First Address to Congress: Constitutional Score, 74.1%

I occasionally take a lot of critical fire for being so hard on President Trump for his seemingly unconcerned stance regarding his following of the Constitution. To date I’ve rated and published three expressions of his policies and positions according to my current understanding of the Constitution; Trump's First Address to Congress, Trump's First Inaugural Address and Trump's First Hundred Days Plans. None of these rated particularly high; 52.6%, 36.2% and 51.5% respectively. The method of scoring is included in the links above.

Please understand that these efforts are not for the purpose of attacking the president. This is not a personal thing against him. I simply regard it as my duty as an American citizen, sworn to the support and defense of the Constitution, to know when our political leaders are feeding us lines intended to subvert it.

In the interest of fair comparison and logical evaluation it becomes necessary to compare these numbers with the numbers of other presidents in similar circumstances. The only president which I’d ever done something similar was Abraham Lincoln, and even that wasn’t a rated evaluation.

So in the interest of providing comparisons I decided to do several other president’s speeches, starting with Ronald Reagan’s First Address to Congress on the 18th of February, 1981. I also intend to do at least one of President Obama’s just to get the radical left wing comparison.

Saturday, March 4, 2017

Trump's First Address to Congress: Constitutional Score, 52.6%

Sigh. This is the kind of article no author ever wants to write. With that said, I am a man who is committed by oath to the defense of the Constitution, thus there is no escaping it.

Let me say at the outset of this review of President’s Trump’s address to Congress that I’m am not necessarily a Trump supporter. Neither am I particularly against him. In fact, I’m quite happy and relieved that he won over Clinton. President Trump is neither conservative—meaning small government—nor concerned with the Constitution in spite of his recent oath to uphold it. Where he does score high with me is that he tends to make liberal’s heads explode. Anybody who can make Chuck Schumer cry is deserving of some credit.

While I could never vote for him I am not a Never Trumper because such people, mostly establishment RINOs, would hate him even for the things he can do right. I am not a Democrat; they would hate him—in spite of the fact that I think President Trump most properly would be a Democrat—for the unforgivable sin of putting an “R” next to his name and beating Hillary. I am a Constitutional Conservative which means ONLY two things; small government, under the Constitution. If you have to categorize me in hash tag terms I am most properly defined as #AlwaysConstitution. In this I guess you could call me an extremist; so be it. I once volunteered my life in oath to its defense so I might as well defend it.

Tuesday, February 28, 2017

The Axioms of Government

A number of years ago I wrote an article for my blog called, “The Rules of Money,” which covered in my mind a set of my own axioms regarding how I think of money and the ways in which it seems to work. As fate would have it, it is my most popular article.

I think that liberalism, for most people who adhere to the modern big government philosophy, is composed of large sets of misunderstandings of the nature of just how certain societal level systems work. Among those is, of course, a misunderstanding of what money is. Another major flaw in the understanding of those who would support big government is the true nature of what government is. To them, they support it because it has presented itself as a system of providing benefits to the People. In spite of this apparency nothing could be further from the truth as far as its actual nature is.

So in the same spirit as my axioms regarding the rule of money, I most humbly offer my rules of government. It should be noted that these axioms are more of a commentary on the way things are, rather than the way things have to be. I do this in the hopes that in pondering these points I will disabuse a few liberals of the supposed benefits of giving any group of people the power to control us all in everything we do.

I’m fairly certain that some are going to think me rather cynical in my viewpoint of the government as represented by these axioms. The thing is I can think of many examples where the government has behaved exactly as these rules say. Furthermore I can think of almost no exceptions to them.

Sunday, February 19, 2017

What do You Want the Government to do?

I consider myself to be somewhat of a professional troll hunter. Why I do this is more complicated than I have the time or inclination to explain here. So for now, it is what it is.

Since the election of Donald Trump the field is ripe for fellow troll hunters if you’re into constitutional political philosophy like I am. In today’s blog post I offer the nomination of our new Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos. Another fantastic subject for use as troll bait is the president’s ending of the National Endowment for the Arts. Really. You can just mention either of these things, completely without context and the trolls will bite. Reel them in and do battle as you see fit. And have fun!

However today I don’t wish to talk about trolls. I’m going to talk about people whom I love and respect, who just happen to be somewhat liberal.

I have always maintained that there are two types of liberals.

There are those behind the liberal-progressive-socialist-communist or whatever they call themselves today movement, who can’t openly say who and what they are, because they are so evil society would reject them. This kind of person wakes up in the morning and their only thought is, “everybody dead, then I can be safe.” They are the driving force behind genocide. Their goal looks like power or money but is not complete unless you take into consideration what they would do with that power. The answer to this question is simple and obvious, yet very difficult for anybody who possesses even the slightest nugget of sanity to confront. They want you dead. Period. There is no reason for this other than the fact that you exist outside of their own will. They are quite insane, sometimes very clever, and very covert in their methods. They can smile at you with seemingly obvious sincerity and tell you that what they are doing is “for your own good.” They are “trying to help make society better” but somehow it just doesn’t work out that way—so you should give them more power, so that they can be more effective at changing things for the better.

Sunday, January 29, 2017

President Trump's First Inaugural Address: 36.2% Constitutional

Well I've taken my post election break from all things political and now it's high time that I write an IWFTCP review of President Trump's First Inaugural Address.

I have done this kind of thing before on this blog and the rules for my scoring are explained here. But just for the sake of this article, red is constitutional, blue is unconstitutional. Also, as I have explained in other posts, I have no personal like or dislike for Donald Trump or any other politician. My sole interest is in almost all political conversation is the Constitution of the United States, which I have sworn with my life to defend. Try as I might it is my sincere effort to not make personal comments for or against the politician in question. Regarding President Trump, I think he is a better choice than Obama was or Clinton would have been, but that does not give him points for understanding or following the Constitution. He's a businessman, and thus understands money, which is something we need in this unit of time. However, long-term, with regards to the rights of the American People and the responsibilities of the presidency under the Constitution, well, you'll see...

At the outset I'm going to give the score as only 36.2% of the things he said having anything to do with the constitutional power of the federal government; assuming I counted correctly.

And don't get me wrong here; there are a lot of things in this that I've colored blue, as unconstitutional, which would be good for the American People, particularly businessmen, to do. It's often not the thought that these things shouldn't be done. It's just that they shouldn't be done by the president of the United States or the federal government.

So here it is. President Trump's First Inaugural Address...

Tuesday, December 27, 2016

Nice Men with Guns

I have a friend on Facebook who said this to me this morning; "I would like to support a constitutional government but at some point you are going to have to deal with mean people that do crappy things to other people through threat of violence and intimidation."

While that statement is true it got me thinking. Look at this; the threat of violence and intimidation is the only thing the government has to use to accomplish anything. No matter what it is that the Big Government wants to do, no matter what benefit they say it would be to everybody involved, the threat of violence and intimidation is the only tool they have to get it done. And how often is it that the mean people who are doing the crappy things to other people, are in the Big Government? That's what despotism is. You want to limit mean people that do crappy things to other people using such tactics? Then the first thing you have to do is limit the power of the government. Tyranny IS the threat of violence and intimidation.

Now I am not saying that there should be NO government. Brett's rule of debate #1 is; just because I don't agree with something does not mean I endorse what you conceive to be its opposite. Just because I don't support absolute government does not mean I support no government. No anarchy for me please. As a the grandson of a nice man with a gun I have to say right here and now that I have the greatest unqualified respect for the police and the government within their proper function. There is a time and place for police as well as other government functions.  It's just that we are becoming far too accustomed with the idea that the government is supposed to provide us with everything, without understanding the nature of the consequences. If they provide everything, they control everything, even when they don't make sense.

Sunday, December 18, 2016

Rights and Responsibilities

I would like to stake a claim towards being a dedicated supporter of human rights but I'm a little (okay, a LOT!!!) apprehensive about it. Being misunderstood bothers me sometimes and I want to be very careful about being taken in the same light as the Generation Snowflakes that are currently falling throughout the country.

Where the current crop of Snowflakes have it wrong is they have no understanding of what rights really are and their relationship to our responsibilities. From my own point of view I can’t see how it would ever be possible to have rights as a human being here in our world without the corresponding responsibilities. There seems to be a lot of muddled thinking on these lines, some of which comes from both sides of the isle and all points in between.

By analogy you could say that it is yellow snow which I refuse to eat.

Saturday, December 10, 2016

Don't Fight the Power, Question It

I had a curious—and very short—conversation on Twitter last week. You know, sometimes it's just the little things that bother me, and sometimes those little things that bother me stick to me for a really long time, particularly when the little thing is connected to a gigantic principle.

The question I asked was; "Under what clause in the #Constitution is the authority for the president to do anything about jobs?"

The reply was; "There is none Brett. However, the Constitution does not restrict the president from doing things to help either. Are you anti-Trump?"

You see what I mean here? Every president and smarmy politician in my fifty-four years of life has been talking about jobs, jobs, jobs. Every. Single. Effing. One. Of. Them. They have failed so dismally that it is a wonder more people don't tell them to mind their own job instead of all of ours...but I digress.

Okay, I get it. Donald Trump won. He's in the limelight, and honestly, I'm very relieved that Clinton lost. I know the guy who responded to my tweet doesn't know me personally, but for all the noise about the federal government trying to create jobs, I still find it alarming to have someone jump immediately to the possibility of my being "anti-Trump," especially when I didn't even mention him.

The simple Twitter answer for me was; "I'm pro Constitution. If Trump follows it, cool. Although the 10th amendment means POTUS doesn't have that authority."

But I think a more in-depth answer to that question of possibly being anti-Trump is called for, so I will just go ahead and write one.

Saturday, December 3, 2016

The Worst President Ever

It is said in some circles of philosophy that any person really only begins to decline when he abandons his principles.

It is also said that there are certain underlying principles which have to be maintained or freedom can't exist. You have the right to associate, which means for it to be a right, you also have to have the right to disassociate. What freedom could you possibly have if once you decided to join up with somebody for any noble purpose, when that purpose is abandoned, you can't sever the ties to them?

The fundamental principles of slavery are that you can't leave when you wish and the fruits of your labors are taken from you, against your will, for the benefit of someone else.


The United States was founded on the principle that the people's of the States could join or not, of their own free will. The Constitution did not have to be ratified because there were the guns and bayonets of General George Washington's army pointed at the people. The Framers of the Constitution debated exhaustively and formed a government which was voluntarily consented to and contributed to, by the People. It is the only time in human history that I'm currently aware of where this has happened.

In the 1860's several States decided to declare their own independence. Whether we agree with this decision or not is moot. They have the same right to leave or not leave the Union, based on their own integrity, as any wife has to leave any man whose marriage is no longer suitable to her. They have the same rights as any person who has ever left the partnership of a company. They have the same rights to leave as any individual or anybody who has ever left any friendship or employment. They have the same rights as anybody has ever had to leave any political movement with which they no longer agree.

Without that basic right, to sever the ties that bind you to any other person or group of people, freedom cannot exist. From the moment military force becomes involved you are chained by force to whatever they decide, no matter how disadvantageous it may be to your own existence.

Thursday, November 24, 2016

The United States, Ver 3.0: One Nation—Under Force

Do you realize that the United States, as it exists today, is the third country to be called the United States of America?

In the beginning we were British. It is one of those little inconvenient truths of American history that we have to live with and sometimes forget. It was just one really big unhappy empire. Their government was ours. Their people were ours. It, because of our remote nature, was never a really happy arrangement. This does not obviate the fact that we were the same people of the same country.

Then, for reasons I won't explain here, came the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War against the British, followed shortly by the first United States constitution—The Articles of Confederation.

That country, as it existed in the beginning, was the United States, Version 1.0. It's constitution was only enough to keep the several States together and participating in the war effort.

Incidentally, when the Colonies were finally granted their freedom by the British, they did it by granting independence to them, individually, naming all thirteen colonies as independent countries. More than that, under the Articles of Confederation, the States were regarded as different and separate countries. They even had different money from State to State. The only drawback was that the system under the Articles of Confederation wasn't working very well and they were in imminent danger of falling apart and being conquered on all sides.
 

Sunday, November 13, 2016

Trump's First Hundred Day Plans: IWFTCP Constitutional Score, 51.5%


In my last article, How to Destroy the Two Party System: IWFTCP Principles, I mentioned a method of highlighting the text of a political speech or article to point out the parts that do or don't follow the Constitution. This is an example of the method I have been working on for a while; although I haven't published any of them except this one yet. There may be a lot more of these in the future because it seems like it might be a good way to make my point.

If you are sympathetic to the IWFTCP and its goals, and you want to score a couple of speeches or statements of politicians to see how they rate, go ahead! If you do one that seems particularly enlightening and of high public interest, contact me, and if it seems consistent I'll publish your work here with full credit to you.

The idea here is that the red text is where the use of government powers are mentioned or assumed that objectively follow the Constitution according to my current understanding. It is important to understand that, per the Tenth Amendment, in order for a mentioned power to be colored red, that power has to be specifically mentioned within the Constitution. Blue texts are mentions of the use of federal power that have nothing to do with anything named within the constitution.

The Tenth Amendment [10A] comes up a lot. Sometimes red, sometimes blue. Where it is red it indicates a power being given up that has nothing to do any power the feds are supposed to have. Where it is blue is a mention of federal power that should be left to the States and/or the People being taken by the federal government in spite of the Tenth Amendment.

Saturday, November 5, 2016

How to Destroy the Two Party System: IWFTCP Principles


There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution. — John Adams

Are you tired of the two party political system? I sure as hell am!

It's interesting that the idea behind forming the political parties was so people who have common sets of political values and interests could group together, work together, and influence the government to pass law in accordance with those values. Republicans are supposed to be conservative, such and such, while Democrats are supposed to be liberal, so and so, and Libertarians, well, they are supposed to be as little government as possible.

While I tend to be closer in my political philosophy to the Libertarians, or the Republicans when they are doing what they promise to do—which never seems to last very long—I have recently discovered something about them all that shook my world. They don't exist to help you influence the government to pass laws according to your values. They exist to get you to compromise your values until whatever is left is in accordance with their goals for themselves.

It is not about you. Ever. It is about them and their power and how they can twist what you want, so that you support what they want, with little or nothing left of what you wanted for yourself.

Look at the primary process of both of the major parties.

Saturday, October 22, 2016

Four Debates: Very Little Constitution and America Missed the Point...Again

(I wrote this, obviously, just after the debates between Trump and Clinton, and their VP choices. However I still think a lot of the underlying principles apply now as well as into the future. As such, I will continue to post it. Thank you for your interest!—Brett)

As a presidential candidate and founding member of the I Will Follow the Constitution Party (IWFTCP) I tend to look at presidential debates through a slightly different lens than most Americans. Of this I am certain. I don't think in terms of what a president can do for me or give me, unless it would have something to do with my constitutional liberty. In the hopes of furthering my cause I offer my own estimation of the three presidential debates and one vice presidential debate.

It should be mentioned here that the main purpose of a president, under Article Two, Section One of the Constitution, is contained within the presidential oath. "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

As we know each of these debates was an hour and a half long, totaling six hours, give or take a couple of minutes. In that time there were only sixteen mentions of the Constitution.

For the sake of definition I divided these mentions into two classes. The first being direct mentions, where the candidate said the word "Constitution." The second being indirect mentions, where the candidate said something like "unconstitutional" or "constitutional."

Sunday, October 16, 2016

Keeping the Constitution Working

When I announced my run for the presidency in 2016 I also announced the formation of a new political party to support myself and other candidates who may be like me; dedicated to the following of the United States Constitution. The name of this party is hereby officially the, I Will Follow The Constitution Party, or abbreviated the IWFTCP. I also think it necessary to produce a set of rules for those who wish to join my political party. That is the purpose of this post.

Here at the I Will Follow The Constitution Party there is really only one hard and fast rule. You must, in all things related to the federal government of the United States, without apology or excuse, follow, and insist that all members of the federal government, as well as those running for federal office, follow the Constitution of the United States, in context, and as it is written. Okay, that's a rather complicated sentence so the short version is that you must follow the Constitution. Always.

That's it. There are no other rules, restrictions, qualifications, or any of that other tripe that other political parties engage in to try to force you to comply with the values of their life. There is no "moderate" or "conservative" or "liberal" or any other thing like that here. It's completely binary; Constitution one hundred percent with no alternative. We here at the IWFTCP, while being supportive, or not, of whatever other values you do or don't have, don't give a rat's ass for whatever else you believe, or not. Or maybe we do, but it's none of our freaking business anyway, because we only have one business—the following of the United States Constitution.

Saturday, October 15, 2016

Brett as President: The Other Two Branches

One of the most important aspects of the job of being president is how the other two branches of the government would be dealt with. I think it's time I wrote an article about how I would work with the other two branches to "get things done," since everybody seems to believe that's what we want. It is a three part government at the top, so all three of these parts need to understand one another if they are to operate effectively.

First I've got a chain of logic that I want anybody who would ever consider me as a presidential candidate to understand. I would follow the Constitution under all circumstances; that's the main point, but it is necessary to cover the basics of what is expected of a president, so I ask the forgiveness of those who already understand the line of logic I'm about to cover. It becomes necessary to cover the basic ground rules because if the basics of anything aren't correct there's no chance of accomplishing anything beyond that.

The Constitution is written to give the federal government only specific and limited powers. There are two basic parts of it that deal with what powers they are supposed to have. The first of these is Article One, Section Eight, which lists the specific things the federal government—specifically Congress—is allowed to deal with. In short there are only the following nineteen powers: taxes, borrow, regulate commerce, naturalization, bankruptcies, money and weights and measures, punishment of counterfeiting, post offices and roads, copyright laws, establishing tribunals, punishment of piracies, declaration and regulation of wars, raise armies, provide a Navy, make rules for the military, call forth the Militia, regulate the Militia, maintain federal property, and make laws with regards to the foregoing powers.

Saturday, October 8, 2016

Brett for President: Part One

"That's all I can stands. I can't stands no more." — Popeye the Sailor

One of my all time favorite quotes; and very likely the most unique opening quote to formally announce any candidate for the presidency in this great nation's entire history. But that just about sums up the reasons why I've decided to run for the presidency of these United States. I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore—speaking of great quotes.

I would ask, politely and respectfully, that you turn off the, "third party candidates have no chance and a vote for this candidate is a vote for Hillary!" machine and think about this for a minute. Ignore your gut feeling, which I know is there because I share it too, and actually think things through.

The purpose of the Constitution is to protect the freedoms of the People of the United States from an out of control federal government. This is the thing the Founding Fathers uniformly feared. This is why they made the president's oath of office what they did; to solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Saturday, October 1, 2016

America: You've Missed the Point

(I wrote this, obviously, just after the first debate between Trump and Clinton. However I still think a lot of the underlying principles apply now as well as into the future. As such, I will continue to post it. Thank you for your interest!—Brett)

I, like so many of my brother and sister countrymen, watched the debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton Monday night. After giving it a couple of days to settle in my thoughts I've decided I would toss my political opinion into the blogosphere, you know, because that's just the way I roll.

As a veteran of the Navy I took an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same," and I meant it. What this means to me is that I will never, under any circumstances, vote for or support any politician who will not do his (or her) sworn duty to, "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

No "ifs, ands or buts" about it. That's what I'm going to do.

So, the number of times that the Constitution was directly mentioned in the first debate was...wait for it...wait for it...ZERO! That's it. Zero. Zip. Nada.

Sunday, September 11, 2016

Theft, Taxation and Charity

A number of weeks ago I began to circulate a simple black and white meme. The idea behind it is obvious to someone who understands the underlying principles of freedom and tyranny; and with a high degree of certainty knows the difference between the two. I posted this meme on Facebook, after which one of my friends shared it, daring his liberal friends to debunk it. In turn, a firestorm of posts lit up his link from his liberal friends claiming that I obviously don't understand socialism. What followed was a highly successful debate for me, which is fine, but more important it helped me to understand that there are some simple words that are commonly misunderstood in our socialist "friends" minds.

Libertarians, such as I usually tend to be, have been circulating a sort of bumper-sticker slogan which seems to be gaining a lot of popularity lately. It is very encouraging to me to see this happening, and the more the idea catches on the more freedom will be returned to our society. The slogan I'm speaking of is, "taxation is theft." While I understand the reasoning behind their argument, as taxation is commonly being used today, and agree to that degree, I have to also say that they are mostly correct, but also partly wrong. Wrong enough that should they get their way the country could be, at some theoretical point in the future, in some serious trouble.

It is said in some small circles that sanity is the ability to distinguish differences and similarities. Just a brief description of this concept, by example, would be a person who couldn't tell the difference between a car and a tomato. You would say that he's insane because he's trying to eat his car and drive a tomato to work. See? So a person who could tell the difference between a car and tomato, using the car to drive to work and the tomato to make a BLT would be sane, at least on the subject of cars and tomatoes. By comparison a go kart is a similar thing to a car but it would still be pretty insane to take it on the freeway for your morning drive to work.