American Conservatives Think

Term Limit the Term Limit Talk

2010-07-02T09:07:00.001-07:00

As reliably as talk of a balanced budget amendment arises every election cycle, so too does talk of term limits, especially for federal offices and most especially in the anti-establishment atmosphere of this cycle.

To those who insist on continuing to clamor for term limits, I’d like to ask a simple question: “If Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank were prohibited from running for reelection, do you really think that the next Representatives from those districts would be characteristically different than the corrupt, wicked people they would be replacing?” The defective crop of careerist politicians currently embedded in Congress like a tick is merely the symptom of the underlying corruption and venality of the electorate. Tell me again how many of those voters would vote any differently if presented with a new candidate whose slogan would be summed up as: “I’ll give you other people’s money.”

The term limit mantra is symptomatic of the ultimate Progressive fallacy that government is a technological device which, given enough “scientific” application of brilliant thinking, can be perfected to run like a fine Swiss watch. To take the term limit approach to its ridiculous full extension, why not also prohibit individuals from holding more that a certain number of elective offices and then, as long as we’re pretending that this pseudo science works, also refine that prohibition to a certain number at each level of government, etc.

This November’s election is an excellent chance to see if the electorate has awoken to their dismal civic performance over the last couple of generations. If there is a clear movement away from lifetime tenure for political careerists, replacing them with people who have actually done productive work in their life before election, maybe we can give the term limit talk its own term limit and retire the discussion on that subject for a few election cycles (or decades, preferably).

Offended by a Demand for Adherence to the Rule of Law? Nobody Cares.

2010-05-15T08:07:00.001-07:00

Without belaboring the obvious that no one has a right to perpetual absence of offense, the fact of the matter is that anyone, be it naturalized/native-born/border-crasher, who takes offense at the general demand for adherence to the rule of law is exhibiting behavior inconsistent with that of a good American and can safely be ignored. No one need or should care when such takes offense at things like the Arizona laws enforcing border integrity, and we don’t.

I’m Sticking with Theism, But I’ll Stick Up for the Catholic Church and Her Faithful

2010-04-24T07:25:00.001-07:00

Just like Waylon Jenning’s, my momma tried—I attended Roman Catholic parochial school for all but kindergarten through high school. In the end, my father (who, in order to marry my mother in the 1940’s Catholic Church, had to “convert”—yeah, right) probably won out, in that my high school education was delivered by the Jesuits and their thorough presentation of theology and reasoning marked my departure from my mother’s religion. That being said, I still had to go through the early adolescent rite of passage from atheism and agnosticism to the adult conclusion of theism (although the Jesuits made that passage all the more painful as a byproduct of the stringent analytics with which they saddled me). Which leads me to declare my stand with the Catholics in the face of those who deliver thinly-veiled attacks on belief in general and religion in particular, using child abuse by the clergy as the cover.

As such a decided theist, I still think it is worth sticking up for my mother’s religion, despite the inexcusable behavior of some priests (in the further spirit of full disclosure, I served, in my pre-pubescent years, as an altar boy, plus had many priests and nuns as teachers during that time and my post-pubescent high school years; I had no experience of even a hint of any inappropriate behavior from any of these people, ever). The horrors of human abuse perpetrated by those who spurn a belief in God as a primitive superstition and religion as “the opiate of the masses” killed more people in the 20th century than did all religious wars in all of history before that era. On the obverse, believers and religious have contributed most of the lasting legacy of civilization and supportive societies, even through the darkness of the last century, not the least of which were the Roman Catholics.

Thus, for me, the choice is simple—associate myself with those who hold beliefs and live lives in support of civilization and society, despite the only too human failings of a few. The only reason that abuses by religious people (as believers) are so strictly criticized is that there is a rightful expectation of righteous behavior. Since non-believers have no such track record of producing broad-based righteous behavior among their ranks or in the institutions spawned from their world view, the expectations are appropriately very low and thus the transgressions to be expected and not nearly as noteworthy.

Amendments? We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Amendments

2010-04-16T14:42:00.001-07:00

It seems that, every time statists control the legislative agenda and (true to form) spend money we don’t have on things we don’t need, the faithful in the Stupid Party troop out their favorite hobby horse—the Constitutional amendment. Whether it’s the Balanced Budget or Term Limits, the sheer impracticality of ever getting an amendment passed is exceeded only by what I believe to be the true failing of such efforts—dereliction of civic duty. While the gentlemen and women of the Stupid Party are at least kind to this crotchety conservative when this opinion is expressed, but the end result is the preservation of the status quo.

First, let me dispense with the nonsense of a balanced budget amendment. Not only is the most likely outcome of such an amendment nothing more than a fine balance of excess spending and excess taxation, but it is entirely unnecessary if representatives with a healthy respect for the Constitution are elected.

Which brings me to term limits. Whenever I hear someone bring up this political nostrum, my response is: “What, two years is too long?” There is not an officeholder at any level of government whose term is not open to being limited by every election. All that is necessary is for an informed electorate to scrutinize the crop of candidates being slated by the parties, participate in the candidate elimination process of the party of their choice, and then be sure to get out and vote for their preference. Hiding behind an amendment the fact that they are not exercising their right to perform their civic duty (which would be as open to judicial activism as is the rest of the Constitution) is an act of dereliction (as I said above).

Citizens—get off the couch, get in the game, and execute your duty!

Libertarianism’s Libertine Underbelly – A Risk for America in the Current Populist Surge

2010-02-12T05:22:00.001-08:00

The current populist surge, evidenced most dramatically in the Tea Party movement, is building to a crest and is likely to sweep many incumbents from office in this election cycle. While many are characterizing the political philosophy of the movement as strongly Conservative, there is as strong a whiff of Libertarian tendency in the movement. While there are many overlaps in the particulars of Conservative and Libertarian policy positions, there is a fundamental incompatibility between the two societal philosophies that is unlikely to be reconciled.

While I am not prone to be as acerbically dismissive of Libertarianism as Russell Kirk (see Libertarins: the Chirping Sectaries—http://www.mmisi.org/ma/25_04/kirk.pdf), I think there is a philosophical weakness in the Libertarian creed that I would call the Libertine Underbelly, probably best illustrated by the consistent arguments for blanket drug legalization often touted by Libertarians. A good analysis of one aspect of this issue can be found at http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=19205. While this analysis shows the weakness of the decriminalization aspect of the Libertarian drug position, I think there is a stronger underlying weakness in the entire Libertarian premise that, essentially, all men are islands (apologies to John Donne).

I believe it is fair to portray as a core Conservative belief that the purpose of civil society is to provide the most benign environment for families and societal institutions to bring new generations of free individuals into such a society, nurturing them until they are self-sufficient and able to assume responsibility for constructively participating in that society, freely and independently. A fundamental aspect of this process is the total dependence on society of the newly born person for the good will and resources of contributing members of that society. This dependence lasts decades and involves many members of society and considerable amounts of their resources. Thus, a thirty year old has an accumulated “debt” to society that I contend creates an obligation to spend the rest of their life returning, with interest. The method of that repayment differs dramatically between Conservative and Radical philosophies, but Libertarianism would seem to object to the entire premise, stating rather “as long as one’s actions hurt no one else, individuals are free to do whatever they want, even if they hurt themselves.” I contend that actions that hurt oneself in fact hurt others, analogous to having a wild party and trashing a home given to you by your parents. Doing such a pointlessly destructive act squanders the life energy and physical resources put into the asset by others, even though the immediate effect is to harm your personal quality of life. Those resources squandered were applied to the asset by productive members of society with the implicit intent of their constructive use toward the preservation of civil society, not as fuel for self indulgence.

I can only hope that such citizen activism as the Tea Party and other civic participation will tend toward Self Government Conservative principles (“Rights are inseparably associated with duties.”), resisting the dual siren songs of Big Government Radicalism (“I’ll give you other people’s money.”) and No Government Libertarianism (“Every man is an island.”).

Time for an American Raj in Haiti?

2010-01-24T05:58:00.001-08:00

A recent post to one or another of the blogs I monitor suggesting that we annex Haiti as we did Puerto Rico brings me to suggest a better approach (having lived in Puerto Rico as a boy, I can relate to the suggestion, but like mine better).

The British Raj in India, for all of its typical British colonial excesses, had the end result of leaving behind a governmental and industrial infrastructure capable of evolving into the India of today, which its current blossoming middle class would probably say is a good thing.

The roots of the British Raj in the British East India Company gave me the inspiration to suggest that we take a slightly different tack than did Britain and put a uniquely American stamp on an attempt to establish a sustainable Haitian nation.

Rather than dumping billions of welfare dollars into the rat hole, I suggest that we enlist the services of Steve Wynn to develop Haiti into the premier resort country of the Caribbean. The U.S. Government can plow the same dollars into infrastructure as it would anyway, but private industry would be given an exclusive 50 year license to implement the construction and operation of that infrastructure, all for the prospect of the profits such an operation would yield. The American West Indies Company would pay for the use of the physical plant that it specifies and builds, as well as fees for use of roads and ports. At the same time, the Company would manage the construction and operation of private housing and commercial infrastructure, with a lease/purchase option offered to the citizens. The training of the large complement of employees required for all aspects of this operation would be an expense of the Company (since they would be the immediate beneficiaries), and would include the teaching of English, both spoken and written, mathematics, and civics, with a strong emphasis on the American Constitution. Additionally, all Haitian children would have access to these facilities, with the incentive to participate being the opportunity to qualify for employment by the Company or private business enterprises operating the commercial infrastructure, of which there would be a great need.

Physical security, law, and order would be subject to martial law, administered and enforced by the U.S. DoD, until such time as a generation of citizens has emerged from the training / education system, at which time a Constitutional Convention would be convened to establish self governance by the Haitian people. The physical plant infrastructure would be granted to the new Haitian government by the U.S. and our role would cease. The American West Indies Company would be dissolved and an open bidding process for the license to operate the resort business would be instituted at the end of the 50 year period.

There would be no U.N. role in this process and any charitable organizations wishing to contribute volunteer labor and materials would be welcome, given they submitted to management oversight by the Company. No restraints on the practice or teaching of religion would be applied.

Anyone objecting to this intrusion upon the sovereignty of Haiti would have to point to a viable sovereign Haiti that exists for an intrusion to be applicable. If the American taxpayer is going to be footing the bill for the billions that will be flowing into Haiti anyway, it only makes sense to establish a mechanism, based on proven results, to ensure it isn’t just the next wasted dumping of welfare upon a failed state.

The Real Litmus Test

2009-12-09T08:49:00.001-08:00

Movement Conservatives have trotted out a wonkish list of hurdles which they insist would-be Republican candidates clear before they are exempted from the label of Republican-In-Name-Only (RINO). As a column at today’s American Thinker by Pedro Primavera, They Are All RINOs, observes, it’s probably a good idea to follow the advice of Stephen Green on his Big Government posting, The Political Landscape: The Slobs Versus the Snobs, where he says, “Kick the bastards out, all of them. We certainly couldn’t do any worse.”

I would suggest that American Conservatives apply a litmus test to themselves and the citizens around them, set aside the Bastards of the Beltway. Here are a few hurdles which any good American should be able to clear:

Do you recognize that the Constitution, as strictly constructed and amended, is 1) the supreme law of the land, or 2) a “living document”, subject to interpretation through the filter of contemporary cultural values?
Whether or not you believe in a Higher Power, do you think 1) people who do are intellectually fit and holding a right to their belief, or 2) superstitious fools whose beliefs are open to ridicule and suppression?
Do you think that 1) Budweiser, NASCAR, and Wal-Mart are respectable American products, or 2) that a person must exclusively quaff certain vintage wines, know who won last year’s Gran Prix, and shop at Nordstrom to be a respectable sophisticate?
Do you recognize 1) that the USA and American culture has done more good for more people in the history of the human race than all other countries and cultures combined, or 2) do you think (as does the President) that there is no such thing as American exceptionalism?
Do you think common sense and life experience are equal (if not superior) to intellect and higher education?

I’m sure you could add to this list or develop your own along similar lines, but I think you get the idea. My urging to the reader is to take such dichotomies to heart and apply them to themselves and those around them critically, speaking out to those who don’t clear the hurdles not as Bad Americans, but as Bad-at-Being Americans. Until we quit tolerating defects of the American character, we are sustaining it.

If Palin Were Nominated, Would You Vote for Obama?

2009-11-24T05:33:00.001-08:00

I have a thought experiment for the (Country-/Yacht-/Racquet-/Men’s-) Club Republicans: If Sarah Palin were the Republican Party nominee for President in 2008, would you:

Vote for a third-party candidate to tangibly lodge your disapproval (donations to the Perot Presidential Library will be forwarded to the Clinton Presidential Library, so you needn’t question your credit card statement)?
Withhold your vote to tacitly lodge your disapproval?
Vote for Junior?

A RINO with a remaining shred of integrity would pick 3, the other choices being merely the back door equivalent. That way, you’d at least show the character to accept joint responsibility for the blood that is on the hands of the Surrendocrats, and the rest of us would know to ignore your insincere hand wringing about your grandchildren’s posterity.

Palin Derangement Syndrome (PDS) – A Useful Forensic Tool for Useful Idiot Identification

2009-11-22T08:07:00.001-08:00

One of the phenomena I find revealing is the visceral contempt shown Sarah Palin by some of my circle of correspondents (who would undoubtedly prefer to have themselves thought of as Conservatives).

The common thread in all of the derision is a palpably elitist strain, including unsupported judgments of stupidity, dismissal of any and all executive experience based on it having been gained in Alaska, snobbish discounting of a degree from the University of Idaho, and guilt by association with supposedly inbred hayseed “Wal-Mart shopper” types. This brings to mind nothing more than the reception by Club Republicans to Ronald Reagan that I witnessed first-hand in Omaha during the 1964 Presidential campaign (this is not to anoint Mrs. Palin as the reincarnation of the Gipper, but merely to characterize prototypic behavior).

This behavior, when displayed, can be considered a service to those of us who want to restore and grow American Conservative ordered liberty in our society. The last thing we need to do is tolerate the useful idiocy of these deranged sorts. In addition to my knowing what these sorts are—useful idiot enablers of Junior Obowma, I know what they are not—American Conservatives. Their terminal PDS allows more thoughtful people to relegate this sort to the same category as the radicals now attempting to destroy the last best hope of mankind on earth.

Bowrack Obowma

2009-11-16T04:52:00.001-08:00

I don’t know how much longer the grinning idiot from Plain is going to tolerate Junior’s attempts to wrest the trophy as Worst President in 100 Years, but his inevitable effort will no doubt be sickening in its craven Quisling extreme.

Good Mahometans Are The Problem

2009-11-11T04:01:00.001-08:00

When I have spoken to individuals and groups on the history of interaction between Western Civilization and the followers of the Prophet Mohammed, the conversation inevitably tends toward consternation that “good” Muslims don’t stand up and confront the “radicals” whom they see as perverting the “religion of peace” as they wage jihad. One of the few of my friends who has no reservations in speaking his mind on such matters counters that “there are no good ones.” While I empathize with his blanket condemnation of a group of people who consider the only choices for an Infidel to be conversion, dhimmitude, or death, I believe we need to be more aggressive in facing down the knee jerk political correctness that the Fort Hood terrorist attack has exposed. Dismissing the offending group outright will not temper their deadly behavior.

Some time after the Iran hostage taking and before the first World Trade Center bombing, I came to the conclusion that I had a civic responsibility to inform myself about Mohammedans (I use this term, despite Wikipedia telling me it is now another source of offense for the comically thin-skinned followers of the Prophet). While it is repeatedly said that one cannot fathom the Koran if read in other than Arabic (funny, that doesn’t seem to stop Indonesians, Pakistanis, Africans, Malaysians, etc. from being counted among the faithful), I sought out and read English language translations of the “holy” book, as well as making a serious effort at reading the Hadith and Sunnah. I could come to but one conclusion from all of this tedious research: my friend is wrong—there are “good” Muslims and they are the ones waging Jihad. One of the reasons that the jihadis have no compunction in slaughtering mostly fellow Muslims when they wreak their havoc in their home countries is that the Koran makes it clear that those not waging jihad are only slightly less repugnant than an Infidel.

This leaves a small point to concede to apologists for “good” Muslims. There are many people adhering to Islam who are peaceful, raising good children, hard-working, and honest. I would call them good people adhering to Islam badly, not “good” Muslims. There is no hope to be held out that these people will ever stand up to the jihadis and “take back” Islam from the “radicals” because they know (even if we won’t admit it) that they will be mowed down as quickly as any Infidel if they show such apostate tendencies. And I must concede that the jihadis are nothing if not consistent in their adherence to Islam by taking such a stand.

I fear that the American character finds the concept of absolute and eternal intolerance of others (the essence of Mohammedism) so alien that they will never be able to bring themselves to believe it is lodged in the soul of Islam. Thus, it will take a slaughter much worse than Fort Hood or 9/11 before there is any hope of action. Even then, it will be an existential survival reaction, not an awakening to the nature of the threat source. I pray none reading (or writing) this will be victims of this cultural blind spot when the inevitable happens.

Gridlock for [Fill in the Office]

2009-10-26T03:47:00.001-07:00

A give-and-take with one of the local Junior Obama worshippers elicited a comment from me that we Conservatives should keep in mind. I told the fellow that I was something he should fear much more than a Republican—a Conservative. I told him the reason is that we Conservatives don’t care if we never hold an elected office—we are satisfied merely to be sure that Statist radicals (and RINO wannabes) are defeated. That is more than sufficient to maintain ordered liberty, since an officeholder of either major party that shows such tendencies (e.g., Dede Scozzafava) is harmful beyond party ideology. I personally am a fan of www.nota.org and have used that option on several ballots. It would be good to have it instituted into State law, but I suspect I’ll have to move to an American state (Idaho comes to mind) to have a chance.

Best Available Civics

2009-10-24T10:35:00.001-07:00

The Watermelon (Green on the outside, Red on the inside) radical enviro-warmers are constantly demanding the use of “Best Available Science” (BAS) (that would be science with which they agree) for all discussions of property rights infringements and the like.

I’d like to suggest that we have a similar principal for evaluating all proposals for expansion of government—“Best Available Civics” (BAC). The way BAC would work is that any proposal to expand government must : 1) point to a specific clause in the documents by which that level of government was originally constituted that requires or allows the proposal to be enacted, and 2) point to a specific prior implementation of expansion of government that actually worked as designed and intended. Absent clearing these two “hurdle” conditions, any such proposal would be abandoned.

Even more aggressive BAC should be applied by conducting a systematic review of all current government activities for compliance to the above conditions. Any activity which fails the conditions would be required to implement a shutdown plan that would be completed within 6 months.

Medifare Serfdom Corrupts Seniors and American Values

2009-10-17T03:45:00.001-07:00

As the “healthcare” debate rages on, there remains a pernicious situation that is left entirely un-discussed—the ongoing serfdom of American seniors and the corruption of the values on which they were reared, all as a result of the government welfare program called Medicare.

That the state should have no active role in the delivery or insurance of medical care is trivially obvious upon a thorough reading of the Constitution. That some should have the expenses of these things paid for with other people’s money is immoral, to say the least. For those who say that they paid for these “benefits”, you’ll have to explain to me, then why the annual Federal budget is in chronic deficit, year after year, if “your” money (drawn from its fictional lock box) is being used to pay the way.

I don’t know if the depth of the corruption is beyond the point of remission, but the $250 bribe to Social Security recipients may be American Senior’s 30 pieces of silver moment—we’ll see.

What Price Peace in our Time?

2009-09-29T08:00:00.001-07:00

As discussions over the options available to the United States in preventing Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons occur, almost all commentators opine that a strong blockade of vital supplies (the principal being gasoline) would be treated by Iran as an act of war, as it traditionally has been.

These same commentators regularly refer to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a madman, yet never extend that psychoanalytical assessment to the underlying genesis of their summary judgment—his subscription to Mahdiism (see Iran's President and the Politics of the Twelfth Imam).

It seems to me that the alternatives are to engage Iran in a shooting war without their having the benefit of a nuclear arsenal or to wait until they do have that option, with the full expectation that they are prepared to use it, indeed may look forward to the opportunity. The specter of United States naval vessels being fried by a nuclear blast makes Exocet missiles and bomb-laden speedboats pale in comparison.

McCain Pain?

2009-09-24T08:07:00.001-07:00

Glenn Beck has stirred the pot with his statement that John McCain would have been even worse for America, had he been elected, than how bad it is, having elected Barack Obama.

In thinking about this hypothesis, I am taken back to a conversation I had one evening early last year after dinner with the estimable Herb Meyer. Herb employed Socratic dialog to evince from me the answer as to who, among those vying for the Republican nomination, could best perform their duties in the existential fight for Western Civilization (see The Siege of Western Civilization) versus Islamic Fascism. We instantly agreed on the person—Senator John McCain. I have seen and heard nothing that would change that assessment, but that’s only half the story. Herb’s thesis is that the enemy within (radical secular humanism) is as much a threat to Western Civilization as is the Mohammedan external threat. On that front, I must agree with Mister Beck. Senator McCain would have, by the evidence of his record, would have been the next notch up on the burner of this multi-generational frog boil that finds us where we are in American culture today. Beck’s theatrical fake frog boiling on his show last night made a valid point that President Obama’s extremes have produced a valuable wakeup to the conservative mainstream of America. That would have never happened with a President McCain, even though Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid would still have had the exact same majorities in both chambers, with the same radical committee chairmen, leading to much of the same legislative agenda, but without the specter of a radical Democrat President to galvanize wavering Republicans.

It can be argued that the same results will come about in either case, but that just says that McCain would have been no worse, which sounds like damning with faint praise.

Racism? So What?!

2009-09-18T05:48:00.001-07:00

The assertion that racism is behind criticism of the President is as irrelevant as is the concept behind “hate” crimes legislation—that it matters why somebody does something, rather than whether that something is good or bad. It is not right to do something bad for a supposed good reason, just as it is not wrong to do something right for a supposed bad reason. If some of the people opposing the President’s flawed direction are doing so with hatred in their hearts for him because of his race, it’s sad but irrelevant.

Give Detroit a Dose of Milwaukee

2009-08-29T06:12:00.001-07:00

The statist kleptocrats were so beholden to the thugs of the NEA that something as obviously workable as school vouchers had to be “trialed” in Milwaukee so there wouldn’t be a nation-wide outbreak of flight from the government reeducation camps (AKA public schools). Well, I have a suggestion in the same vein. Since many have reservations about the wisdom of mass adoption of Obamacare, how about a trial of the program on all of the union healthcare programs of the AFL/CIO/SEIU/UAW/NEA, etc.?

Got Medicare? On Welfare! Self-Enslavement—The Ultimate Affront to Our Endowment

2009-08-17T08:37:00.001-07:00

As I help my wife transition from our “private” medical insurance (I put this in quotes because our current insurance is a plan provided by something called WSHIP—Washington State Health Insurance Pool—more on that in another posting) to Medicare, a sense of resentment rises in my mind at the fundamental corruption of this system.

Just as with Social Security, all of the government payments for Medicare, are fact, an extension of the debt obligation. Not only is there no actual money in the Social Security “lock box”, there isn’t even a lock box for Medicare, just continued debt extension.

There was a time where I kept a spreadsheet of my imaginary personal Social Security account balance, including an imputed interest rate. The premise in my mind was that, up to the point where I was done drawing on the balance in that account, I was taking back my own money that I had put into the “system”. I finally came to the conclusion that this was a fig leaf for my conscience, allowing me to ignore the fact that I was complicit, along with most of my conservative cohort, in tolerating the immediate transfer of all FICA withholding to the general fund. How ever many years I tolerated this known practice exhausted the years of “justified” withdrawals I was modeling from Social Security. The fact of the matter is that I tolerated the taking of my and my fellow citizens’ life energy (in the form of earnings) to be given, without due effort, to third parties who had not earned the money. All moral claim on the funds taken from my earnings has long since been irreversibly compromised—thus the corruption.

The sense of resentment arises due to the fact that, except for the very rich, a person reaching 65 years of age is co-opted into the de facto welfare system of Medicare. Certainly rich people like Rush Limbaugh and Edward Kennedy (just ignore the fact that he’s accepting medical welfare in the form of taxpayer funded health insurance) can afford the luxury of self-insurance, but most folks, including my wife and I, cannot realistically undertake such a financial risk.

Conservatives must take the lead in driving for a total privatization/personalization of retirement-stage matters such as medical insurance and post-employment income. The current systems being tolerated amount to voluntary enslavement by individuals in return for hollow promises of “security”. If other-enslavement is morally reprehensible, self-enslavement is morally abominable. Our lives are a gift from the Creator, improved by our parents, to be lived responsibly. They are no more ours to be sold into bondage than is the life of another. Until and unless conservatives concede their complicity in toleration of the current condition, we will have no moral authority to demand sacrifices of others, being unwilling to assume those burdens ourselves.

Property Rights as Proxy for Right to Life

2009-08-14T08:05:00.000-07:00

This speech was the "capper" at the San Juan County CAPR (Citizens Alliance for Property Rights) forum last month in Friday Harbor, Washington. San Juan County is the most liberal county in Washington (at least if you count the fact that it voted more heavily for Gore, Kerry, and Obama than did any other county, including the PRS--People's Republic of Seattle).

A grotesque regime of statist control of personal liberty, known as the Growth Management Act, is implemented in what are called Critical Areas Ordinances. This forum was to discuss upcoming changes to the County's CAO structure. I was asked by the hosting organization to put the whole property rights issue in perspective, and this short speech was my humble effort. Sorry for the poor quality, but the audio is clear enough and there's not much value lost in the fact that you can't see my face that clearly.

Modest Beginning

2009-08-14T07:45:00.001-07:00

I am, at long last, inspired by the young people I see standing up and speaking out. At my advancing age, my father taught me that my role now is to provide experienced counsel, when appropriate, to those taking up the cudgel of liberty.

I promise to keep it short and to the point.