10 year Quit Smoking Plan has same sincerity as 10 year Federal Spending Plan
Why do our politicians like to announce 10 year Federal Spending Plans. It's obvious that 10 year plans can be and are likely to be completely voided by unforeseen events....economic crisis , natural disasters , geopolitical events, etc. But the politicians like to sport big numbers....which don't tell us how much will be cut this year, and how much the remaining budget deficit will be. They stink..the politicians!
Why doesn't one Republican politician ....Michele Bachman, Jim DeMint, Speaker Boehner, Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, Ron Paul ...conservatives I would have hoped would see the world for what it is....
 attack the loss of almost all consumer product manufacturing in the USA.  That loss is obvious to anyone who shops. Common Sense must tell us that our current economic malaise is really most likely due to that loss and all the jobs that went with it. Instead all the Republicans can talk about is cutting spending...which is necessary but not nearly the complete remedy to our problems.Cutting spending might save the dollar and keep the Federal government from going bankrupt, but  wont bring back the millions of jobs that went overseas.
Only Trump has the guts and/or the independence to denounce the suicidal foreign trade policies, maintained by the Establishment...Republican and Democratic for more than 20 years....that has destroyed almost all of American consumer product manufacturing. Trump could do better with some of his message, but at least he's on the right target. Trump should say we need to penalize all foreign nations that sabotage the currency markets to maintain a large trade surplus with the U.S.  ...not just China. Trump
was right to demand some compensation from all the nations we have helped with our blood and treasure...Iraq and Afghanistan and now Libya.....but obviously taking Iraqi oil at the point of a gun and getting more American soldiers killed is not a wise course.
Trump is also the only one who had the guts to demand Obama prove his birth in the USA...something the other Republicans should have done long ago...especially that nitwit McCain
At this point, I have to say:  Trump for President

I was watching a story about John Denver and it came to me...we need a John Denver Conservatism. A new ethic for this nation, one that doesn't rape the Earth while it worships and bends the knee at the idol of materialism. How do we get there? Well start with reversing the suicidal trade policies this nation has pursued for the last 30 years that have resulted in almost the complete loss of American consumer product manufacturing and the millions of good paying jobs it provided. We need a President and Congress that will not tolerate currency manipulation by the Asian nations. We also shouldn't tolerate foreign industries that compete unfairly by poisoning the Earth...especially since their pollution eventually finds its way here. Our manufacturing won't come back right away and we will have to suffer through inflation before it does, but it will be worth the wait and sacrifice. Prices will he higher but people will then prize what they buy. Yes they won't buy so much that they need closet organizers and garage sales to make room for the latest new fashion item. And children will grow up unspoiled, with a better sense of what is needed and how to stay out of debt. Their working parents might even be able to sit down during lunch and work a humane number of hours for decent wages. Yes, because their companies won't have to engage in an insane level of competition with foreign companies given an unfair edge by foreign governments. And our new industry will provide the social mobility for those new to the American dream. It will give them the dignity only gainful labor can provide. One other benefit, in the new America, since foreign nations won't be buying our debt, our government will be forced (just like families) to live within its means. Coming back to John Denver Conservatism (JDC). The reversal of our suicidal trade policies will happen because JDC will demand much more faithful adherence to the principle of Equality Before the Law. We wont allow foreign nations to take advantage of us for the benefit of Wall Street bankers, big Agriculture and the drug industry. Yes, Equality Before the Law, not only demands a flat income tax, but a trade policy that doesn't hand out plums to a privileged few who unduly influence the Congress & the President while the rest of America goes unemployed and impoverished.
P.S. ..I know John Denver was a liberal but his songs celebrated the natural environment and disparaged materialism. In his memory and the pleasure his music gave, I dedicate this article.

                                                              

Wholistic Libertarianism

A libertarian demands that the government give the highest priority to the preservation of individual rights.  How does government best honor that priority when protecting one person's rights might endanger the liberties of many?
For example: antitrust laws and American flag desecration. The conventional libertarian employs an inflexible approach that limits the appeal of their philosophy and destines them for political failure. Wholistic Libertarianism instead seeks the greatest preservation of liberty. With insight from American history, it asserts there are seven other auxiliary principles in addition to LIBERTY, that can  help guide the formulation of law
The principles are:
> LIBERTY
>SOCIAL CONTRACT
>NATIONALISM
>EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW
>REPUBLICAN DEMOCRACY
>CONCENTRATION OF POWER
>COMMON DOMAIN
>HUMAN REALITY

 The principle of individual liberty, or liberty for short, is the premier principle and the raison d'etre for all the others.


Liberty

Liberty is the first and foremost word in our American political heritage. Why is that so, why is it so important? Well if you are minding your own business and somebody comes up to you and gives you a bloody nose, will you understand then? If the government banned condoms, would you care? Or when the government gives you a ticket for not wearing a seat belt to protect your own safety, would you be offended? Or perhaps if the government takes a third of your hard earned income and gives it to somebody who spends his life getting drunk, high on drugs and fathering illegitimate children he doesn't support, will you be outraged? Now the simple folk amongst us know instinctively about liberty and they will even defend it with their lives. Ah, but the better educated, sophisticated folk know better. And if they pride themselves on their compassion, they know how to pick and choose the liberties worth defending. Yes, they will say, you should avoid the selfish instinct not to share your income with the poor and you should remember the government knows best about your personal safety...it is a foolish instinct to resent being ticketed for driving without your personal seat belt.  And when war comes, many of them will know that the higher moral plane demands they abstain from the bloodletting.  What is the truth here? The truth is the simple folk who will defend their liberties and those liberties they don't even use are full of valor and virtue. While the sophisticated compassionate folk who will not do so are contemptible hypocrites or mercifully maybe just not as smart as they pretend to be.

Now in the abstract:
Liberty is the natural and rightful condition of a reasoning human being. Centuries of human existence have demonstrated that the least strife and greatest prosperity are achieved only when individual liberty is respected. The victory of the free enterprise system, in the twentieth century gives testimony to that belief. While liberty cannot be easily defined, its loss or infringement is sensed without any training. When you are minding your own business and somebody limits what you can do with your own body or steals the wealth that is the product of your labor, the natural outrage you feel is the consequence of your liberty's violation. When your liberties are violated, you will eventually, if not immediately, naturally retaliate against your oppressor. The ensuing violence usually results in the loss of life and property (wealth). Since the retaliatory response, to the violation of liberty, is natural, it may be concluded that liberty itself is natural. Since a society's health is imperiled by a continual loss of life and wealth it is rightful we protect liberty.

The more each individual, rises to his or her, full potential, the greater prosperity, that nation will attain. The diversity of individuals requires they follow different paths in life. Who knows better the abilities of the individual, than the individual himself. A free society allows the individual to use his self knowledge to rise to his highest potential.  Further, the search for the truth moves at its quickest pace when freedoms of opinion,religion, speech, press and assembly are respected. And with truth, comes prosperity.
 
In these times of do-gooder ordained tyranny that has forgotten LIBERTY, I must point out that there is no more basic liberty than the right to do with your own (adult) body, whatever you please....for better or for worse....certainly in the privacy of your home. You are the owner of your body and there is no more flagrant abuse of power than for government to dictate what you can do with it.  Examples of this are of course the ban on controlled substances (their use, possession), prescription laws, also ban on suicide, compulsory medical insurance, seat belt laws and many more. I don't deny that some people will use their freedom to slowly or quickly kill themselves...as in drug addiction. Indeed they do so even now while government denies them their freedom. With freedom many will overdose and dropdead earlier. A blessing for the rest of us who will suffer less  from the criminal mayhem committed by the drug addicts.



Social Contract

If an individual is naturally free (as shown above), then the power to control him is something he must have voluntarily allowed. It is an agreement called the Social Contract. That agreement is between the government and its citizens and is the sole conduit for the flow of power from the people to the government. Government cannot claim power which lies outside of the Social Contract and thereby does not originate from the consent of the people.

The Social Contract between the individual and his government is a contract borne of the inability of unorganized individuals to adequately protect their liberty. If there is no organization (government), the weaker individuals will almost certainly be victimized by the stronger. Such a situation will be so intolerable and for so many people, that individuals have banded together and consented to the formation of government. They do so to retain the greater portion of their liberties while realizing that they will never again be totally free. This is a gamble. They hope that government will allow them to retain more liberties than if there was no government. They must obey red lights, pay taxes and share in the responsibility of protecting their nation. In return they expect that government will protect them from assault, criminal and foreign. This defense of liberty is the raison d'etre for the Social Contract and must be considered its primary element. Are there other elements to the Social Contract, besides the defense of liberty? Any other element must  not conflict with the primary element. The Social Contract principle defines governmental authority and thereby  restrains the governmental tendency to trample upon liberty instead of protecting it. The Social Contract principle is therefore a valid augment to the Liberty principle and an essential part of WHOLISTIC LIBERTARIANISM. Further even if the Social Contract is not written down, not something we actually signed, but only something, we sadly imagine, it is a concept worth examining and drawing wisdom from.

Some people (Socialists and fellow travelers) believe that the insurance of a minimal living standard for everyone is another element of the Social Contract. All the elements of the Social Contract must have been approved by the majority of its signatories, otherwise it wouldn't be a Social Contract. The majority of signatories must have been at least self sufficient (net producers of food or goods or services of equivalent value). If it were otherwise, that society would not have survived... to write a Social Contract.  Therefore, if the majority of signatories were  self sufficient, they did not sign the contract to obtain their sustenance. It is more likely they sought those things that were lacking in an ungoverned society.

Indeed,  the Pilgrims at Plymouth acquired this same wisdom the hard way, after two years of unsuccessful communal farming.  In their third year, fearing for their continued survival, they decided to respect private property rights and were consequently rewarded with plentiful production. Read William Bradford's own words for the proof.
Taken from William Bradford's memoir , History of Plimoth Plantation:

The experience that was had in this commone course and condition, tried sundrie years, and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanitie of that conceite of Plato & other ancients, applauded by some of later times;—that ye taking away of properties, and bringing it in communitie into a commone wealth, would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God.
For this communitie (so farr as it was) was found to breed much confusion & discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefite and comforte. For yet young men that were most able and fitte for labor & services did repine that they should spend their time & strength to worke for other men’s wives and children with out any recompense.

Yes, isn't that the experience of socialism, wherever it has been tried? SOCIALISM IS CONTRARY TO LIBERTY AND HENCE HUMAN NATURE.

Those who would include a minimal living standard in the Social Contract, dishonestly ignore or belittle the  redistribution of private property that such a standard requires. When the self-sufficient are forced to give by the coercive power of government, it violates their liberty....that is the right to keep one's property and the fruits of one's labors. Thus the inclusion of a minimal living standard conflicts with the primary element of the Social Contract and cannot be considered a part of the Social Contract.

And make no mistake about it, a minimal living standard does require redistribution. There is no supply of food, housing and health care that the government can magically call forth into existence.  No, it is owned by others and they must be deprived of their ownership, if redistribution is to be realized. So what Socialists are really asserting is that the poor have a right to steal from the self-sufficient. The truth is money and all the things that money can buy, don't grow on trees. The only unowned things you have a right to, are those freely provided by nature...the air you breathe.  You cannot have a right, if its implementation means, that someone else's rights will be broken in the process.

Is the US Constitution our Social Contract? First, we didn't get the chance  to sign it. The original constitution didn't ban slavery, so it certainly wasn't. Even as currently amended and as interpreted by the Supreme Court, it hasn't stopped the government from routine redistribution of wealth and violation of our freedoms to do with our bodies as we please. However, the existence of the Constitution is evidence, that government derives its power from the governed and of the validity of the Social Contract principle. The Social Contract is not the US Constitution; it is something we must work towards; something that lives in the hearts of a free spirited people.


Nationalism

The Social Contract enables the birth of government. A government that will protect liberty. But it can only do so if it is empowered by the resources of a nation. It is the nation that will provide the soldiers to protect against foreign assault and the police to protect against criminal assault. The nation is not composed of just any people; there must be common features that unite them. Our nationhood is marked by the common features of language and a shared appreciation for freedom and democracy. Nationhood is essential for the protection of liberty and therefore is another augment to the Liberty principle. Within reason, that which promotes nationhood, is consequently good for the preservation of Liberty. Alternatively , within reason, that which diminishes or subverts nationhood is bad for the preservation of Liberty.

Flag Burning:
For example if you own a piece of fabric and wish to destroy it, that is your freedom. But if that piece of fabric is the American flag, should you be allowed (if your intent is desecration)?  No , because the principle of Nationalism and the greater preservation of liberty that it promotes, is more important than your individual exercise of self expression. It is here, we see how the concept of WHOLISTIC LIBERTARIANISM better defines the just powers of government. If we just followed the principle of Liberty, we would say you have a right to desecrate the American flag. That is  the path of conventional Libertarians. It is a simple and unenlightened path. It is a path that the majority of Americans will never be drawn to, because while they are attracted to Liberty they are also repulsed by the rigid beliefs of that simple path, as in the above example.

Similarly the promotion of a common language, a necessary ingredient for nationhood, sometimes forces us to slight the principle of Equality Before the Law (a principle to be discussed later). That may be the case in laws which call for English only in the public schools or administration of the law. But our nationhood and the liberties it protects is more important than the distress of those who haven't learned English yet.


Equality Before the Law

Equality Before The Law (EBTL) is derived from the principle of the Social Contract that exists between the government and its citizens. "Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776. Papers, 1:429 . The individual consents to the rule of law in the expectation that the existence of government will allow greater protection of life and liberty than could otherwise be expected. Since each individual has given the same consent, equal treatment by the government is expected in return. How could it be otherwise? Would any man pledge the same things and expect an unequal and inferior return? That's  unlikely. But each individual must do more than give his/her consent. There are responsibilities that they must honor too. For example, what about those unwilling to risk their lives  during wartime for the defense of this nation?  For those women and men who would object to such service, it's logical that their voting rights reflect their lesser commitment. The same could also be said for those who cannot fulfill their tax obligations. That being said, the importance of EBTL cannot be overstated. It is crucial for a nation with our diverse origins. Unfortunately, EBTL is one of the more difficult principles to get right. First, it is confused with the ridiculous notion of equality. People are almost universally unequal in their abilities, their appearances and almost everything else. To seek or demand equality in anything, but our relations with government, is folly. Second, EBTL compliance is almost completely neglected in matters of taxation, while at the same time the principle has been corrupted to demand equality in the voluntary relations between individuals. Is it EBTL to have different income tax rates (percentages) . Is it EBTL for a person whose employer provides a CAFE plan, to have his health benefits go untaxed, while the retired person who pays for his own health insurance, with dividend income, must pay taxes on that income. It must be conceded that the tax code pays little attention to the EBTL principle, and neither does the Supreme Court. Our federal government has demanded that local governments give equal access to the handicapped. That sounds good except when you learn their idea of equality means unequal expenditures. In education, it could mean spending 10 times as much on the handicapped student as the normal student. In public transportation, it means scheduled bus service for the normal population and a (100 times or 1000 times more expensive?) door to door, special bus service with wheelchair lift for the handicapped. Is that EBTL? No, that has nothing to do with EBTL. It has to do with the social agenda of do gooders who impose their charitable objectives on the rest of us. And what if you're a dentist who refuses to take the extra risk of treating people with AIDS. He's not violating EBTL; he's just exercising his freedom to choose his business clients. EBTL is by definition, something, that only the government can violate. EBTL has nothing to do with the relations between individuals. But it has been corrupted in a wholesale way to make all sorts of demands on our private interactions.

Foreign trade policies and tariffs should also comply with EBTL. Frequently the nation's trade policies have been designed to suit the needs of special interests while imposing burdens on the general public or other American groups. Generally the only special interest that should be protected are those connected with national defense. In all other areas we should generally rely upon freely operating currency markets to balance our foreign trade. When other nations sabotage the currency markets by buying up their exporter's American dollars, those nations should be penalized sufficiently to negate any advantages achieved by the currency sabotage. If another nation subsidizes some of their export goods, the damage done to our domestic suppliers of those goods. should be undone by a similar subsidy funded by tariffs on the foreign country's exports. If they impose a tariff on the exports of industry X in the USA, we should grant industry X a subsidy funded by tariffs on imports from that other nation....preferentially first on industry X products but extending to other products  as needed.

Guest Workers and Immigration: The owners of the USA are its current citizens. We are not obligated
to allow immigration into our country. We only do so as it suits our needs. Conventional Libertarianism
tends to treat all individuals the same, whether or not they are American citizens. EBTL  can only be applied to American citizens, as foreigners are not signatories to our Social Contract. Certainly the rate of immigration must be limited so as not to endanger our national security or culture. Culture would include the domination of the English language and the ideals enshrined in our Constitution...including Freedom of Religion / No Established Religion, Equality before the Law. Consequently any would be Muslim immigrants must renounce those sections of the Koran in conflict with our Constitution. Importation of foreign labor as in guest workers is not the same as importation of foreign products. They pose risks that products don't. They should not be allowed to undercut existing American labor or deny opportunity to American unemployed. The effort to enforce that principle has been noticeably deficient. The US must grant preference to its own citizens and limit the number of guest workers so as not to endanger our national security or culture.


Republican Democracy

The Social Contract provides for the establishment of government; but what type of government? Our American heritage gives the best answer. It is a democracy, meaning the majority rules; and a republic, meaning that rule is achieved through representatives elected by the people. Democracy allows for the satisfaction of the majority and thereby encourages its allegiance. The majority is not always right but no one else has a better track record over the long run. The business of government is conducted by representatives of the people because the complexity of the task demands it. However, in the coming age of the Internet, it will be feasible and beneficial to make more of the legislative outcome directly subject to a vote of the people. While the majority rules, the principles of Liberty and the Social Contract must limit the scope of its authority. The Bill of Rights in the US Constitution is a good example of these limitations and the protection offered to minorities.


Concentration of Power

Everything has its limits. We cannot allow any individual or non-governmental organization to amass such economic power that its economic power transcends to overbearing political power. At that point its economic and political powers would be mutually reinforcing and perpetuating. The nation faced such a situation at the advent of the twentieth century. The economic power of monopolies in vital industries was such, that they could corrupt the political process and thereby void the protections granted by the Social Contract. Simultaneously, monopolies were an obstacle to economic progress by negating the benefits of a competitive marketplace. An extreme example will serve to illustrate this concept. Say for example, you have a company town where all the services and manufacturing are under the control of the company. The company owns the grocery store, gasoline station and medical facilities, etc. Say one of the employees steps out on a limb and tries to unionize the previously union free workforce. Or, say he decides to run for the part time job of city counselor on an anti-company platform. If that society is true to conventional libertarianism, the company could insure that the employee looses his job and access to all the necessities of life, without any legal recourse. The employee's only other recourse would be to move from town. But if he owns a house, his only buy offer might be one equivalent to forfeiture. If the employee accepts the buy offer, what he receives is equivalent to robbery. If he stays or never steps out on a limb, he will only be as free as the company permits. Effectively the concentration of economic power, that the company enjoys, has permitted it to violate the freedoms otherwise guaranteed by the Social Contract. That is why the run away accumulation of economic power must be denied. Monopolies must either be prohibited or be subject to the close inspection and regulation of government. Wholistic Libertarianism through its principle of the Concentration of Power, recognizes that it is better to circumscribe the right to the accumulation of unlimited economic power, than not to do so and thereby endanger the fundamental liberties and well being of the majority. All non-governmental organizations should be scrutinized by the Concentration of Power principle. That includes unions which monopolize all the labor in a industry, over a wide geographic area. Imagine a union which represented all the hospital workers in a multi state area. If that union went out on strike, it would imperil the lives of millions. The threat of such a strike would allow it to economically blackmail the rest of society. The hospitals, in the face of public pressure, would be forced to grant any demands made by the union. To prevent this, labor monopolies must also be scrutinized by the Concentration of Power principle.


Common Domain

No man is an island. We all make use of the common domains: the atmosphere and the water resources of the planet. Our use of the common domain is necessary for our physical and economic survival. But at the same time, that use may be harmful to others. That harm can be considered as an attack on liberty, but the principle of the Common Domain grants us a waiver. When we breathe, we consume oxygen while adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. The oxygen is vital for our survival while the carbon dioxide is harmful in excess. We also occasionally, emit other gases which are noxious. And don't forget our body wastes. The point is: even if one only examines our bodily interactions with the environment, we are polluters. It's true for us and for all other animals. To live is to pollute. However we are blessed with an amazing, self cleansing planet which can rid itself of much of our animal and machine emissions. The principle of the Common Domain recognizes that our survival and well being requires the use of the common domain and sets reasonable bounds for that use. Those reasonable bounds vary with: the negative effects of our pollution on the health and well beings of others, the local and world wide ability of the environment to self cleanse itself, the availability of cleaner or pollution trapping technologies and the purpose and/or necessity of our pollution generating activity. The main point about the Common Domain principle is that it seeks the middle ground of optimal well being. It does not absolutely forbid pollution but it does discourage that which is unnecessary and/or poses a distinct health danger.

The Common Domain principle covers any domain or its use, where private use becomes public exposure. Electromagnetic transmissions through the atmosphere (radio and television) are a good example of this. The Common Domain principle also has another side which seeks a reasonable balance between public and private ownership. If all the land was held privately, where would the corridors of commerce (roads) rest? It's likely that such a society would be more backward and prone to conflict. By reserving some land for public use, we avoid the conflicts and the violations of liberty they foster.


Human Reality

The HUMAN REALITY principle deals with the needs and limitations of human beings while simultaneously trying to minimize the loss of liberty incurred by meeting those needs and limitations. If a person is at the verge of starvation, can he be expected to respect the property rights of his prosperous neighbor? For many people, the answer would be no. Thievery, for whatever reason, must be punished. On the other hand, the starving person may have been a law abiding and productive citizen, at other times. Society doesn't gain much by punishing such a person. It would be better for everyone, to prevent the starvation than to deal with the consequences. It is then a matter of expediency, that can and should lead the government to extending a safety net to desperate individuals. On that basis, HUMAN REALITY would allow some elements of welfare policy to continue. Conventional libertarianism would not and thereby ignores human and societal reality. Socialist and liberal thinkers can see no evil in welfare and ignore both liberty and human reality. They think the welfare recipient has a right to such aid while simultaneously denying any injury to the liberty or well being of the taxpayer. They would also ignore the parasitic behavior their philosophies encourage and thereby ignore another side of human reality. The HUMAN REALITY principle allows government aid to the desperate person, but conditionally. Such aid is granted on a basis of expediency and NOT as a matter of right. As such, any conditions that tend to minimize the burden on the taxpayer while keeping the
safety net intact, are welcome. Welfare recipients who are able to work, should be required to perform public service when private employment is unavailable. They will then contribute towards their own support and the support of other recipients, unable to work. Government can also demand that the recipient refrain from unnecessary behavior that increase the taxpayer's burden while taking all actions to decrease the taxpayer's burden. The unnecessary behavior would include drug and alcohol abuse, foolish diet by the unfit obese and sexual reproduction (while on the public dole). The actions meant to decrease the taxpayer's burden would include looking for work, education and relocation if that is the only path to employment.

While the principle of Liberty abhors any restraints on what we can do with our own bodies, the principle of Human Reality does provide some limits. The reality is we are sexual beings, naturally attracted to the opposite sex and that our mental powers to resist such attraction are not unlimited. If a beautiful woman walks down main street, naked, in the evening hours; can she reasonably expect to go unassaulted. In a society where clothing is the norm in public, the principle of Human Reality demands that individuals safeguard their liberties by being appropriately clothed.

Again, is the liberty of our persons absolute; for example, can we voluntarily submit to slavery? The principle of Human Reality says no. While few in this century would consider such a proposition, it is instructive to ponder such a question because it probes the boundaries of our liberty. To become a slave is to surrender future liberty. The slave has no political rights, must submit to all wishes of the master and whatever punishments the master wishes to impose and also be at the beck and call of the master continuously and without end. It is a set of conditions that rankles the spirit of any person and inevitably brings him into rebellion. However good, the intentions of the would be slave, were at the outset, slavery is not a condition he can forever abide by.  The spirit demands liberty and because ultimately we do not have dominion over our spirit, liberty is not something we can sell. That is Human Reality. With this knowledge, it is rightful that government prohibit slavery, self imposed or otherwise.

The relationship of government to desperate people must be guided by the principle of Human Reality. People can reach a state of desperation because of the obligations they have incurred. Generally, we have a right to enter into agreements with our fellow citizens and seek legal enforcement if the other party fails to abide by those agreements. But this right should not be seen as unbounded. The previous paragraph discussed one limitation. Additionally, the agreement must be voluntarily made between competent adults. The subject of the agreement cannot involve an illegal activity. You cannot hire someone to kill another person. The terms of such an illegal agreement are null and void from the outset and neither party can demand governmental enforcement of its provisions. That is part of the risk of making an agreement. You must know what is legally enforceable. Also inherent in any agreement is the risk of default by the other party. The competent adult must appraise that risk before entering into a agreement. Accordingly, while he can expect legal recourse if the other party defaults, there are limitations to that recourse. You cannot demand payment of the other party's debts at the expense of his life or liberty. It is here that the principle of Human Reality limits what can be demanded and thereby avoids a state of desperation.


Addendum:

Flag Desecration
First, it must be realized that a desecration of our American flag is an attack  on our whole  national  identity. It is different
than criticism of a government official or even the whole government. Many libertarians, while upset by the desecration of the American flag, will still insist the desecrater has that right. The following response should assuage those feelings: First it is desecration only if done in view of others or is otherwise communicated to others. Secondly, we don't actually have to punish the desecrater with a jail term or fine. But we must draw a logical conclusion from the act. The act almost proves that the desecrater is disloyal to this nation, that he is in effect renouncing his citizenship. Then the consequence of American flag desecration should be a public and compulsory inquiry into the loyalty of the desecrater. If the inquiry produces any other evidence of disloyalty or bad citizenship, the desecrater should be deported while receiving some measure of compensation.

With respect to other issues, some libertarians will feel that this puts us on the slippery slope of sacrificing liberty for the national good. Not so. We can clearly define the circumstances where national security or welfare is paramount. Activities that cross the national border should be subject to the scrutiny and control of government along with desecration of the American flag  or incitement to the forceful overthrow of the government. The Nationalism Principle must prevail when we interact with foreigners. On the other hand the Liberty Principle must still protect domestic personal activities or business activity that are viewed (by the majority) as self destructive and consequently not in the national interest.

National Defense
When a state of war has been declared by the Congress, the level of scrutiny should increase. Such scrutiny would punish support for the enemy via public demonstrations. To a lesser degree scrutiny should also be increased if Congress has declared a state of enmity (a new concept) with another nation. In that situation the government should be empowered to identify and collect intelligence (wire tapping, etc)  on those citizens who have demonstrated their sympathy to our enemies. It would be imprudent and irresponsible of the government to do otherwise considering that a state of enmity might precede a state of war.

During war time or a state of enmity, our national survival and the Social Contract principle can justify the draft of citizens into the armed forces. That contrasts with the conventional and impractical libertarian opposition to the draft under all circumstances. During war time many unselfish citizens will volunteer for military service. But many other citizens will not; however they would willingly abide by their obligation to share in the common defense if they are nudged to do so by the draft. Otherwise, what good would their liberty do if we all fall victim to foreign conquest?

In the natural state those animals and people that are unwilling to defend themselves, will go extinct. During the Frontier era that was probably the case. But now in these more prosperous and comfortable times where the civic infrastructure generally protects against assault, most never need to defend themselves. Additionally we have a volunteer military. This, unfortunately has allowed the growth of pacifist and cowardly sentiment which could not long exist in a natural environment.  Like our  ballooning  national trade deficit, it cannot go on forever without dire consequences. It is unnatural. Ultimately when pacifist sentiment prevails, our nation will not survive. The Social Contract Principle and national survival demand that we provide disincentives to those who will not provide for their own defense or the common defense. Pacifist citizens can be placed into three categories:
1>those who reject any personal effort towards the national defense
2>those who will not join the military but will benefit the national defense by domestic employment in a defense or essential industry
3>those willing to join the military but not as combat soldiers assigned to killing  the enemy
Warrior Category > those willing to kill the enemies of the U.S. as authorized by their military superiors

Category Three pacifists should loose their eligibility to be elected U.S. Senator or President, thereafter.
Category Two pacifists should loose their right to vote for U.S. Senator and also suffer the penalties of Category Three, thereafter.
Category One pacifists should suffer the Categories Three and Two penalties. Additionally, during a state of war, the government at its discretion, should be able to revoke their citizenship and then deport them at its convenience.

These categories should be chosen by the citizen when he/she becomes otherwise eligible to vote.


Conventional Libertarians tend to think the state should have little or no influence or control over:

homosexuality
polygamy
incest
adultery
substance abuse
education
divorce
abortion
pornography
bestiality
animal cruelty

How awfully wrong they are. Awful as in the awful society their policies would engender. Especially in today's world where religion has taken a back seat and Hollywood seeks profit by eliminating sexual impropriety. Without a strong moral framework, as in religion, humans tend to do anything they can get away with. Certainly anything in the sexual arena between 2 or more consenting adults. And that is exactly where many Libertarians go astray for there is a limited but legitimate role for government to play with regards to children. Without calling upon any one particular religious tradition for guidance, government must insure that parental responsibilities are met and that the social environment does not sabotage their efforts. The state must oppose the breeding of children like wild dogs by absentee, irresponsible parents who let their brood descend upon society to free load or work mayhem upon it. Oppose it because children are owed something for bringing them into this world and because the security and prosperity of society demands it. Before you think I am exaggerating here, consider that most crime comes from children raised or unraised in broken families or families that set poor examples for substance abuse.

Parental responsibility must include food, shelter, protection from harm, education and provision of a self perpetuating family life...that is one that  enables and educates the maturing youngster to replicate the process

The process is replicated in a family headed by a husband and wife...1 man and 1 woman. The facts that children naturally result from the union of a man and woman and that the population wide birth ratios of male to female is generally one to one, lends support to this. Therefore the state can outlaw family units based upon homosexual or lesbian partners. The state can give preference in adoption cases to families headed by a husband and wife. As libertarians advocate, consenting adult individuals should be free to engage in any type of sex they choose but NOT so when children are conceived and born. Couples who reproduce outside of marriage, must marry or be sterilized. And even then, father and mother must bear financial responsibility for their offspring. The above facts also support a prohibition on polygamy. We suspect that polygamy will generate intolerable social tensions in many communities, because it will deprive some men of marriage partners (if the polygamy is 1 man and many women). The increased risk of birth defects supports a ban on incest. Besides incest between a parent and child is a betrayal of parental responsibilities. Regrettably, incest between consenting adults, who practice birth control, might escape prohibition. Adultery is a betrayal of the marriage oath and family responsibilities when children are present. When there are no mitigating reasons for adultery and with the consent of the victimized spouse, financial penalties should be imposed by the state on the adulterer or adulteress. If the marriage is with children  the penalties might also include physical punishment or sterilization. It may sound severe but it would work wonders on large segments of the population who currently breed like wild animals and damage society severely through their own actions and those of their offspring.

Protection from harm includes a family environment free from substance abuse. Substance abuse could be defined as the use of harmful substances that immediately and lastingly impairs the ability of the user to act in a rational and productive manner. Immediately might mean within one day and lastingly as in excess of one day.  So cigarette smoking (while reprehensible) could be allowed but not many narcotics. There have been good families that smoke. But there are none that stumble through life in a narcotic or alcoholic stupor. Of course, in adoption cases the state can disfavor family units with any unhealthy habits.

Parents of natural born children are their custodians and their rights to raise them as they wish must not easily be subjected to state control..Such state control would be an attack on a very basic liberty. The words "immediately and lastingly impairs the ability of the user to act in a rational and productive manner" convey the wisdom that can differentiate between acceptable and unacceptable state control. The libertarian certainly despises mandatory seat belt laws for the driver. But with the prior wisdom in mind, seat belt laws for minor children are also unacceptable. There is no certainty of harm from driving without a seat belt as there is no certainty of a automobile accident. It follows there is no certainty of immediate and lastingly lost ability to live in a rational and productive manner. The level of risk must be subject to parental discretion and not the control of the government. Allowable religious rites can also be a vexing question for the libertarian. For example male & female circumcision. Since child consent is not required, is liberty being violated? Again the prior wisdom proves valuable. There is NO lasting inability to function for the male. Indeed many studies reveal health benefits for male circumcision. So it should NOT be subject to state control (except that it be done safely by properly trained individuals). But female circumcision, better described as female genital mutilation (FGM) is another story. Girls subjected to certain types of FGM are more likely to suffer urinary and reproductive tract infections, infertility, painful intercourse and psychiatric consequences. So, the state can rightfully outlaw FGM. Freedom of religion cannot be a defense. Freedom of religion only demands that government abstain from declaring religious rites illegal strictly on the basis of religious connection. FGM should be illegal for everybody, whether in a religious context or not. Parents who run afoul of these standards for protection from harm should risk loss of custody or criminal penalties if they harmed their children...as in offering narcotics to their children or ordering  FGM.

Parents must be legally obligated to provide their offspring with an education that will allow them to become self supporting. The type of education should be determined by local standards. If we go back in time or to some remote corner of Alaska that standard might mean the young males would learn how to hunt  and the females how to become homemakers. Self supporting means they will not be a burden on society or a source of criminal activity or social unrest. Obviously for present day America, a higher standard is required.  But still some variation in local standards is acceptable.

Parents should fund their children's education up to some level and the child  thereafter. If the parents are unable to do so, the state should step in. The state should offer no interest loans (no interest for a limited number of years...incentive for prompt payback and for the state to minimize inflation) that will be repaid by the parent up to some education level and then by the child, past that level. As some parents or children will fail to repay, it would be beneficial that those that do pay, pay a premium, more than they owe (premium might be proportionate to the loan) Then the redistribution of wealth from the general taxpayer will be minimized. The conventional libertarian probably opposes any government involvement. Wholistic libertarianism allows involvement that is minimized and  acknowledges that national security is adversely affected by a poorly educated population. Public schools should not enjoy a monopoly. As any monopoly is inferior to a competitive environment. When state loans are made available, the spending option should include private schools certified by the state to perform at or to exceed local educational standards. Irrespective of the school chosen, the maximum loan amount should correspond to the per child expenditure by the public schools for a purely secular education. Consequently the government would not be guilty of promoting religion, should the school be a religious one. By not relying totally upon public schools we reduce the ability of the state to indoctrinate the younger generation.

A marriage license is a license to reproduce and raise children and must include a vow of fidelity. A vow of fidelity must be included for the same reasons, self imposed slavery is illegal. Perhaps prenuptials should be required before any marriage license can be issued. Prenuptials that must indicate terms of separation in case of divorce. Then the state would have a reasonable basis to impose penalties instead of relying upon tradition or someone else's ethics.

I believe a middle ground should be chosen in the abortion debate.  A ban on abortion at even the earliest date after conception or under the worst circumstances (rape, incest, severe birth defects, etc.) must be judged more as an article of someone else's religious faith than as a article of common sense. Such a ban also undoubtedly violates the mother's rights to her own body and future life. On the other hand, a mother who procrastinates and desires to abort a more mature fetus that is already capable of living outside the mother, should face restrictions.

 Government must insure that parental responsibilities are met and that the social environment does not sabotage their efforts. Under those guidelines and in concert with community standards, government can ban public nudity or public displays of pornography. It is parental responsibility to protect from harm and the burden of denying access to media pornography to children must fall on their parents. At most government can demand that free media conveyors identify / rate their products before and during transmission to facilitate parental decisions.  Free media include the internet  & TV / radio broadcast freely through the air. Media content  requiring purchase already gives parents opportunity to exercise their judgment as parents.

Bestiality can be lumped in with animal cruelty. Certainly cruelty directed at migratory animals should be illegal, as they are not owned by the perpetrator. Pet owners should also be banned from animal cruelty as tormented/ tortured animals will pose a risk to other people in addition to their owner. You can abuse...torture...a machine. It doesn't have feelings and will not strike back. But any animal subjected to torture will strike back when able to. So a ban on animal cruelty is motivated by some of the same reasoning that opposes the violation of human liberty. Food from animals subjected to inhumane conditions should be mandated to carry a disclosure of such. It is likely the quality of such food will be degraded and the consumer is entitled to know that. 

The care of all individuals unable to provide for their own upkeep or survival can be provided by a state arrangement. The arrangement should mandate a common living environment, otherwise it will easily encourage fraud & abuse by those seeking assistance...as is common now. A common living environment will also impose a smaller burden on the taxpayer. Those in need of temporary (as in 2 months) public assistance might not be forced into this arrangement.  Since those individuals enter into this arrangement voluntarily and are generally free to leave at any time, the arrangement can impose requirements that  would normally be considered to violate liberty.  Each resident would be required to work as best as they can. Hopefully, the output of many would exceed  their own needs and would thereby provide for those unable to labor. Thus any  taxpayer subsidy to this arrangement would be minimized. The administration of this arrangement should  NOT be contracted out to private companies as the profit motive would likely conflict with arrangement goals. Some free time to arrangement residents must be mandated to allow them to search for a way out and also be humane. Arrangement residents should not be allowed to sexually reproduce and would loose their right to vote for a Congressional Representative. The type of work done by the arrangement residents should support their own needs (agricultural ) and/or be work normally done by public employees. It should not be work that competes with the private sector and thereby undercuts the private sector workforce. I said "generally free to leave at any time"  instead of "free to leave at any time" because the rules should include measures to prevent abuse of the system...collecting free meals and then leaving...or women entering the system in a pregnant condition. The arrangement should provide basic health care to meet the acute (as opposed to chronic) health problems of the residents. Good nutrition should be provided to the residents, as it will alleviate chronic problems . It will also improve their ability to become valuable members of society and speed their exit from the arrangement. It should be said that the work requirement for residents is not just for the taxpayer's good but very much for their own good and dignity. The arrangement will also be provided by a single, easily accessed, government agency that will not impose  intimidatingly difficult paperwork admission requirements on those seeking assistance....possible because of the common living environment. While liberal critics will declare this scheme demeaning, they should appreciate a system that detects  truly desperate people and does not allow them to fall through the cracks. They will be provided with good nutrition and not be deterred by paper work and multiplicity of programs and agencies. "All individuals" includes  the unemployed, the physically or mentally disabled,  adult disabled children with living parents and disabled parents with adult children. It might be wise to separate some of these groups.



                                                            

First he waited so long that the Libyan rebels were one day from having their Benghazi capitol overrun. Then despite contradictory public
statements, he had the USA participate in air strikes that allowed the rebels to retake the territory they lost. And now it seems on
Tuesday and Wednesday (March 29,30) the Western allies are holding back on air support. Again there is a rebel retreat. How many cycles of advance and retreat, does Obama think the rebels can sustain. This is heartless. Is the reason for this, because there are new suspicions that the rebels are infiltrated by too many Al-Quaeda elements. I don't know. But there is one certainty, Obama is inept. A good leader would have ascertained the loyalties of the rebels in the first place...and if they ID'ed good would have provided timely and continuous air support to them. If not, we should have avoided any involvement. Not stop and start. As it stands now....Obama could be leading us into the worst of places...a quagmire, a stalemate...one where both sides are bled mercilessly, become cynical and hateful of us.

Another thing: Obama was arrogant to embark upon this Libyan adventure without any approval from Congress...a resolution if not a Declaration of War. And Congress was derelict in its duty not to insist upon that.

And Obama is inept because his mind seems to be controlled by the wrong motivations. As I said previously, if the USA assists the rebels, it should be primarily because the rebels if successful and IF they are indeed lovers of freedom (as the media paints them to be) will be valuable allies for us in our fight against Al-Quaeda. Instead Obama claims humanitarian concerns demand our participation. He is naive and not up to the task of the Presidency. Also we must make it plain...so that we are not continually accused of hypocrisy....that our participation will always be guided by the practicality of the situation. Obviously if there was a similar revolt in China or possibly even Iran, no one should expect the same level of intervention.

There is more evidence of Obama's ineptitude....lurching from one crisis to another....reacting instead of be pro-active. I'm talking about
Obama's new effort to gain energy independence for the USA.
See http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2011/03/obama-and-energ-1.html
One thing I would add....if we were proactive and had a courageous leader...he would get serious about finding and using a central & safe disposal site for nuclear reactor waste. One big factor that diminishes nuclear reactor safety is the use of onsite pools for storing spent nuclear fuel which requires continuous cooling. If this factor and others could be dealt with, nuclear has appealing advantages....I'd rather live next to a nuclear reactor than a coal burning plant...once in 40 years the nuclear reactor poses a danger....whereas the coal burning plant is continuously poisoning the air and me with....nitrogen & sulfur dioxides, mercury, arsenic, etc.

Anybody with brains should have learned the following from the last 50 years of no win wars the US entered.

1> You never get into a war unless you are willing to win it, to kill and annihilate your enemy. War is very nasty and if you don't have the stomach for it, you don't get into it. To do otherwise, is a betrayal of our men at the front line who should not have to risk their lives unnecessarily because their leaders, sitting in warm cozy houses, don't have the guts or stomach to kill our enemies. It's also a disaster because our enemies will sense the cowardliness of our leaders and be encouraged to fight to the end.

2>Preferably when we get into a combat situation we should get out of it as soon as possible. We should attack with air and naval forces, using our most destructive weapons, doing it quickly and decisively. We shouldn't do nation building and we should not commit ground forces UNLESS they are required to win our objectives. Ground forces should never be committed for the purpose of aiding an uncertain ally who has NOT displayed a willingness to sacrifice their own lives for a mutually shared objective. Ditto for an ally who is corrupt.

Looking back, we certainly screwed up in Iraq and Afghanistan. The moron Bush who came into office promising not to do nation building, did just that in Iraq. Both in Iraq and Afghanistan corruption rules and we never had worthy allies...certainly not at the national level...I'm sure there were individuals who were worthy....but we didn't limit our alliance to the few worthy ones we found. We should have killed our enemies from afar and exited...returning how ever often was necessary....still at much much less cost to ourselves. As of now, despite all the American lives and treasure lost,  it is quite possible that Iraq will be a failure...and when they buddy up to Iran, it is extremely galling.

Now to Obama the Dunce. He says he wants American involvement in Libya to be short and limited. But his public stance on Libya actually works against that. If you want it short and limited, if you don't want a stalemate, a quagmire  then you should want the Libyan rebels to win as quick as possible. How does saying our effort should be limited to enforcing a no fly zone for Ghadafi's air force square with that.  No, Obama says we shouldn't try to kill Ghadafi, and NO we should not destroy his tanks and rocket launchers....although strangely American planes have been doing some of that. So there are many contradictions here which will not work towards a quick and successful exit from Libya. And then there was also the very very slow leadup to our military action....we could have maybe, saved  thousands of Libyan lives and propelled them to a quick victory with less cost to ourselves if we had acted earlier. And then there is also the great observation we cannot help making.....unlike the Iraqis and  the people in Afghanistan...the Libyan rebels have displayed great willingness to die for their cause....a cause that is not about rivalry between religions....but a quest for freedom and democracy...goals we
can share and benefit from. For if the rebel do topple Ghadafi, and if we have identified them correctly...which is of the utmost importance..as friends of freedom and democracy, they will also be our friends and a model for the region and a thorn in the side of Al-Qaeda ...now that would truly be in our national interest....not some UN mandate or international humanitarian quest....for if we make that our course, we would be involved in every basket case Africa has to offer....that seems to be the course Obama finds appealing....you be the judge...here is the Dunce's own words:
from  http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/03/22/president-libya-we-have-already-saved-lives

"Now, with respect to our national interests, the American people and the United States have an interest, first of all, in making sure that where a brutal dictator is threatening his people and saying he will show no mercy and go door-to-door hunting people down, and we have the capacity under international sanction to do something about that, I think it’s in America’s international -- in America’s national interest to do something about it.

That doesn’t mean that we can solve every problem in the world.  It does mean that when you have not only the United Nations but also the Arab League and also other countries in the Gulf who are saying, we need to intercede to make sure that a disaster doesn’t happen on our watch as has happened in the past when the international community stood idly by.

It is in America’s national interest to participate in that because nobody has a bigger stake in making sure that there are basic rules of the road that are observed, that there is some semblance of order and justice -- particularly in a volatile region that's going through great changes like the Middle East -- than does the United States of America."

We now have proof of what the title says. After all the Interior Ministry of Saudi Arabia...which has the blessing of Saudi Arabia's king...which must be an authority on Islam ( Mecca is in Saudi Arabia), said:  ....the kingdom bans all demonstrations because they contradict Islamic laws and society's values.  If Muslims want respect and freedom from suspicion they'd better form a new branch of their religion...one that renounces the other branches and all the statements in the Koran that conflict with Freedom of Religion, Equality before the Law and honest dealings with non-believers

Thanks for doing this series on Made in America. I usually don't watch ABC news, but now I am! Better yet, I very much hope you follow this up with an a thorough investigative report on who has profited and who has lobbied for our suicidal trade policies. And also by what means do they control our political leaders. Especially investigate our non reciprocal trade deals...like the one, before Dec 2007 the US agreed to a Chinese ban on American exports to any of its mid-sized cities. Was any part of America closed off to Chinese imports? I suspect Wall Street and/or Big Agriculture got some plums in return?? Yes that's one thing wrong with your current report...it suggests that Americans as individuals can correct a mess that is caused by our corrupt or incompetent government.

Unfortunately I couldn't post this comment at ABC World News webpage, because they demanded I read & agree to their Terms of Use... 17 sections of legal gobblygook....way too much to read...and I refuse to lie about not reading all their terms!  I also thought how ABC is owned by Disney....and how that might prejudice any report on trade with China....Disney got permission from China to open theme parks there.

You ever wonder why Latin America didn't prosper at the same rate we did??   I'm sure corruption...specifically Crony Capitalism..played a big part in that. Crony Capitalism is where government hands out privileges to a select group of individuals and companies. The privileged then get rich while the rest of the country becomes impoverished.  Of course this is all an old story. In feudal times the privileged were the nobility. Now we have Wall Street, the Drug Companies & Big Agriculture...that poisons our food supply and is trying to do that to the rest of the world, With Obama add a new group...the so called Green Companies. Our American Revolution was suppose to put an end to that...by demanding  EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW. But we have a nearly worthless Supreme Court that ignores that principle. Yes if we want a return to prosperity for all of America, we are going to have to demand what was suppose to be guaranteed by our Revolution and the Constitution.

Amend the US Constitution:

1>Direct popular Election of the President and Vice President with runoff when no candidate secures a majority of votes cast

2>100 member House of Representatives elected at large and voting in House with number of popular votes won. Only federal taxpayers will be eligible to vote for Representative.     The election for US Senator will be subject to a runoff when no candidate secures a majority of votes cast. Only citizens who are willing to risk their lives in defense of the USA during wartime will be eligible to vote for Senator or become one or become the President or Vice President of the USA.

[ This line in red...would be the greatest thing, it alone could change almost everything...end the power of liberal/socialist demagogues who buy the votes of the poor with wealth stolen from the self supporting....see my article  Real Democracy    for the details]


3>Only the federal Supreme Court may rule a federal or state law unconstitutional (with respect to the US Constitution) and therefore null and void. The Federal courts may only dictate what the Federal or State government may NOT do, not what it must do to comply with provisions of federal law or the US Constitution. Anytime a law is declared unconstitutional, the members of the legislative body who voted it into existence and the executive who signed it, will be penalized. They shall suffer the loss of a month's salary (at the time of the law's passage) and also a month's pension income for every year they receive such pension. The federal and state courts shall have no jurisdiction over the affairs of foreign citizens except for rights granted to them by treaties that the US government has ratified.

4> The US Congress may not ratify any foreign or international treaty that modifies the provisions of the US Constitution, nor may
it cede authority over the domestic affairs of American citizens to any foreign or international organization.

5> No federal or state taxation may violate the Principle of Equality Before the Law. All taxation must reflect the benefits of government received by the citizen or company. This requires that all income taxes and property taxes apply the same percentage to every citizen. Punitive taxes levied on legal behavior or products will be forbidden.

6> English shall be the official language of the US and shall be the only language used by federal and state governments in the writing and administration of law.

7> Any person who desecrates the American flag shall be suspected of disloyalty to the US and be subject to an investigation. If the investigation reveals any other evidence of disloyalty he may suffer loss of citizenship and consequent deportation with compensation for loss of assets.

8>Neither federal nor state government shall make any law that dictates what the citizen cannot or must do with his own body in the privacy of his/her home.  Neither shall they outlaw or penalize any product with that same objective. Nor shall any government dictate what a competent adult must do to protect his/her safety or health. Individual or commercial speech and the written word (paper or electronic) shall not be subject to pre- approval by the government. Only products, speech and writings that are proved fraudulent in a court of law may be banned.

Comment: this would invalidate the new Federal Health Reform law (mandatory medical insurance & Federally dictated terms of insurance) and rein in the FDA tyrants.

9> No piece of Federal legislation may exceed 100 pages in length ( #12 font on pages 8.5 inches by 11 inches) in its entirety (including any attachments). Anything larger must be broken up and voted on independently. Additionally, all proposed federal legislation that will remain in effect for 1 year or more must be published on a website maintained by Congress, that allows the public to view it for 30 days before it can be voted on and enacted.

Comment: transparency in government is impossible and the will of the people is thwarted when bills of 2000 plus pages are allowed

10>The judiciary MUST interpret all language in the U.S. Constitution literally. The federal Supreme Court shall advise Congress every 4 years as to the shortcomings of the U.S. Constitution. A Supreme Court Justice who is accused of disobeying this Amendment by at least
4 other Supreme Court Justices will face a one time disbarment vote by the citizens of the U.S. If the disbarment vote is 75% in favor, he/she shall be removed from the U.S. Supreme Court.

Comment: this will stop the judiciary from rewriting the Constitution and leave that task to the American people

The article title says it all....if you agree with the stupidity of modern child upraising. In this case the timeout corresponds to calls for six party talks, international condemnation , more sanctions, naval exercises...and worse, making believe China is our friend and begging them to restrain their naughty ally. We have to understand the reluctance of S. Korea to react in any worthwhile way...and therefore Obama's hands may be tied in that respect...but I strongly suspect he is of the same mind...willing to ignore just about any provocation. The danger in this, of course, is that N. Korea will keep on escalating its provocations...it may not tomorrow...but good chance of that in a month or two. Not only that, but the recent disclosure of their increased abilities to enrich uranium...and produce nuclear weapons...may one day entice them to be still more aggressive....as in nuclear proliferation to other enemies of the US or even to terrorists. We can say now that we should have acted more forcefully years ago when N. Korea didn't have nuclear weapons. What will we say 5 or 10 years from now, about today?
At the very least we should pronounce that if the US becomes the victim of a nuclear blast from a terrorist or unknown source, we shall
immediately assume that the nuclear weapons were supplied by either or both of Iran and N.Korea and promptly retaliate with their complete obliteration....unless these countries decide to give up their nuclear ambitions and allow verification of that.

Yes, we need effective airport security, but one that doesn't needlessly rankle millions of patriotic Americans. We can do it by implementing a foolproof biometric national ID and dropping the politically correct BS. If you're a citizen of this country, one who has pledged his loyalty to America, pays his taxes, etc....do you have a right to remain anonymous??...of course not. If you're a citizen you have joined a club..sort of a club...you expect certain benefits...the protection of your liberties and in return you pay your dues.....you can't do that if you insist on remaining anonymous....the delivery of your benefits would become impractical and it would make the job of the club's administrator (government) impossible. Our society already recognizes that because it has a hod podge of ID methods. Ones that are imperfect and inadequate for the task of air travel security. Now unless you're a stick in the mud (who objects to anything new), an anarchist, a snob, devoid of common sense or an enemy of our country, you will admit that a secure national ID is something we need very much in this age of Muslim terrorists, illegal aliens , identity theft and ever present scam artists.  Let us employ the best of technology to create an ID that is easily and economically administered by airport security people without a revolting invasion of privacy or risk of radiation damage. The new technology can rely on a combination of biometric identifiers like finger prints, retina scans, dna and computerized facial recognition. It won't require an ID card... a blessing to the forgetful.

So with this new ID we can identify our citizens and their background. Searches could be limited to non citizens...especially those from Muslim countries...yeah I said Muslim...that's where all the 911 hijackers came from...this is where we drop the politically correct BS....we get with reality and employ logic and common sense. It's too bad if peaceful Muslims don't like it...for their own safety and those of others, they will have to submit. Americans whose parents weren't born here and of course those on watch lists will also have to submit. Security personnel could also target people who exhibit nervous, suspicious behavior.   

Hip Hip Hooray for my Congressman...Donald Manzullo. He alerted me and rebuked the Pentagon for desiring to use American taxpayer dollars to buy 21 Russian made helicopters for training Afghan pilots. Isn't that outrageous....at a time when our economy is in the tank, the idiots at the Pentagon want to buy Russian.....and considering the Russians are NO friends of our.....built nuclear reactor for Iran, sending them sophisticated anti-aircraft missles. This should NEVER have happened, let alone now. Isn't there anyone in government (except for a few souls like Manzullo) who puts America first???  You know what the Pentagon's reasoning was??...........well the Afghans have a lot of Russian equipment left over from the time they were occupied by Russia...so it would be supposedly easier to train them on Russian helicopters. But meanwhile our helicopters have better technology and are even cheaper...."American-made Sikorsky Aircraft says its S-61 model is similar in size and ease of operation and is actually less expensive than the Russian version."  Isn't that incredible, it's Americans who are dying in Afghanistan, nor Russians....and at a time when we can least afford it, this Afghan war is draining us of a lot of money....and the Pentagon idiots will NOT put America first! 

Go to http://www.anh-usa.org/raw-and-organic-almonds-lawsuit-scores-its-first-major-victory/  and see how our damn government has
trampled on freedom. I will recount some of it here:  Due to some salmonella outbreaks the Almond Board of California got together with
US Dept. of Agriculture and ordered all the almond farmers to sterilize their almonds. All the methods made the almonds less healthy to eat, some of the methods included a very toxic, cancer causing gas or radiation. These sterilized almonds were fraudulently allowed to be labeled as raw. Small scale farmers were still allowed to sell directly to the public at roadside stands, truly raw almonds. But they were denied the right to tell the truth that their almonds were truly raw and untreated! The FDA has also forbidden walnut growers to cite mounds of scientific evidence that make heart healthy claims for walnuts.
What's wrong here? First the freedom of farmers to sell their products...as long as they correctly disclose any danger associated with their products...they should be able to sell those products (assuming this country was still a free country). It is then the buyer's choice. But if you have a serf mentality you might insist that we need the government to protect us from ourselves. I suggest you're not a true American and I would love if you emigrated to North Korea or Cuba where their loving governments can protect you from yourself. Another thing, much of what we hear about food poisoning is really due to the poor health of most Americans...their gut is lined with harmful bacteria instead of healthy ones and they are vulnerable to most minor infections. Meanwhile people who actually pursue healthy eating are denied their freedom and ability to buy truly nutritious food such as raw nuts. Then there is the question of lies. The FDA allows and promotes the practice of poisoning these products (nuts) with radiation or toxic gas while trying to prevent the disclosure of this. The FDA also does this with a host of other things...bovine growth hormone, genetically modified food, fluoridation of water, mercury dental fillings. And then the FDA denies people the right to speak the truth....how can this be called a free country when you don't even have the right to speak the truth!!.
ABOLISH THE FDA*****ABOLISH THE FDA*****and put all their workers on the unemployment line

Government throughout the ages from ancient times has always cited safety as a reason for denying freedom. They will protect you from others and from your own misguided behavior...just surrender your freedom. Unfortunately we have naive do-gooders who think they have a direct line to G-d who buy into this line and/or actively promote this way of thinking.
There is decadence in this country...lots of it...and one of the worst decadent behaviors is the lack of appreciation for liberty on the part of many Americans. When the country started it was a nation of small farmers...people who were largely self sufficient...they worked hard and made a living with their own hands...they were well schooled in many life talents...they made their own decisions and took responsibility for the risks they incurred...consequently they would not tolerate the rewards of their labor being stolen or their free choices being diminished......and hence America was born...land of the free and home of the brave.
Now what do we have....Obama the would be dictator and his liberal/socialist lackeys...people who will deny you free choice...no, they know what's best for you...you must buy medical insurance....that the healthy don't need...medical insurance to pay for the quack, symptom relief of the drug pushing medical establishment. And under the guise of protecting your safety they will even deny freedom of speech (as the almond & walnut growers know first hand)
At the same time we suffer under a decrepit democracy....dominated by 2 parties that take turns at corruption and incompetence. The solution won't come fast until we get real democracy....let us realize the wonders of the internet and make many issues subject to a direct vote of the people...bypassing a corrupt Congress...and let's reform all elections so that there is runoff counting or elections when no candidate wins a majority vote....then we would be able to vote for the people we truly favor.

August 5, 2010: Obama decided to give $1 billion to a CO2 storage project in Illinois, known as
FutureGen 2.0. They are taking an old shuttered coal burning power plant, retrofitting it to use pure
 oxygen instead of air (I assume this is being done to decrease the volume of exhaust gas, but will
probably make it a more expensive operation) and then building a 175 mile pipeline to a town, also in
Illinois to store the exhaust gas underground. Supposedly the ground under this town has ideal features
for storing gas. Many people see this just as a pork barrel project for Illinois...Obama's home base.
If the project works, are they going to build pipelines from all over America to this Illinois town!!
Isn't it ridiculous to spend so much money on moving hot air...hot CO2. There are many scientists worldwide
who think man made global warming is a fraud.. But meanwhile there is no controversy about
REAL POLLUTION CAUSED BY REAL TOXIC CHEMICALS....like mercury
and arsenic. Our country is experiencing an explosion in autism, attention deficit syndrome, alzheimer's...
isn't it possible that some of these health problems are due to the toxic chemicals all around us...but Obama
and the green idiots are fixated on CO2 ...a gas that passes in an out of every human being without ill effects...
a NON TOXIC gas.  There is no doubt that marine mammals in the oceans....like whales...are also experiencing
ill effects...like reduced lifespans.
See Solar Cell Roadways  at the end of my Corrupting Link article for more Obama spending stupidity.

The Outrageous article in August Reader's Digest grabbed my attention: NYC teacher collecting $100,000 salary while doing nothing because he can't be fired. Yes there is a nation wide problem with public employee unions getting sweetheart deals from politicians...in turn the unions bribe the politicians with huge campaign contributions...per the article in California "the biggest teachers union spent $212 million over the past decade" . Clearly there is a link between politicians and public employees that betrays the public interest. As long as politicians control the pay level and employment policies for public employees, the link will remain. My response: we need a revitalized democracy,
we need Real Democracy ....something that could really stir the pot... would be direct voting thru the internet. All legislation that remains in effect for more than 1 year and that can be fully stated on 2 pages of paper (#12 font, 8.5 by 11 inches) should be eligible for a direct vote by the people..at the frequency of 1 proposal per month. And we should turn internet voting into a reality. Millions of Americans, every day, do their banking on the internet. I don't see why the same level of security is not possible with internet voting. You could vote from your home computer or people without one, could vote from library computers.  The people who oppose this, I place in 2 categories:
Stuck in the mud people who oppose anything new
Snobs who really don't believe in democracy.....the problems we've had in this country aren't because of too much democracy, but too little...like a system dominated by 2 parties that take their turns at incompetence and corruption.

Getting back to the politician / public employee link...we need to mandate that salary and employment policy changes for public employees will require a vote of the people.  Then the unions would loose their incentive to corrupt our politicians.

Another topic:   where some of all the money, Obama is spending,  is going:
per July Popular Science..roadways made from solar cells covered by glass, funded by the US Dept. of Transportation...the developer's target is 12 foot by 12 foot section costing less than $10,000. He hopes to gain a second round of funding for $750,000. The article acknowledges the problems....durability, traction, weather, passage of 40 ton trucks. I think it is ridiculous, but Obama who is a spendthrift and is infatuated with so called green technology, evidently thinks nothing is too expensive. I think he ought to read some history of technology. I think much of the present day green technology...solar cells, windmills, biofuels....and the goal of trying to use them to alleviate our dependence on fossil fuels is like trying to build computers, cell phones etc with vacuum tube technology. Before transistors and integrated circuits came along....there was money going into the miniaturization of vacuum tubes. Clearly now, from hindsight, that was a very misguided and unproductive expenditure. The same will probably be said one day for solar cells, windmills, etc.
The government should really be lending support to novel ideas...even if current theory doesn't support their possibility.  What about Blacklight Power ?  Also, Obama wants to explore the outer planets, not the Moon. Also ridiculous...as long as we depend on chemical propulsion (rockets) we will never make much progress....and getting back to the Moon is hard enough, getting to other planets is truly ridiculous....or maybe that goal was just a ploy...knowing that it would go nowhere....Obama probably doesn't want to spend any money there...he'd rather spend it on socialist give-aways and green lunacy.

The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is indeed turning into a catastrophe...with oil piling up on Louisiana beaches...is Miami Beach next?..and all the dead wildlife. I'm not an oil production expert...but I have to wonder...certainly after seeing the videos....why can't they put large upside down funnels over the gushing oil leaks and collect the oil thru large diameter pipes, leading up to tanker ships on the surface??? The oil naturally rises to the ocean surface...why can't it be funneled and directed to a tanker???
If they can't string large diameter pipe to the surface, how about ringing the oil bore hole with explosives buried in the ocean floor. Set them off simultaneously and hope the bore hole will be pinched. Or, instead of using dispersants, how about adding some chemical to the gushing oil that will coagulate it...clumping it together...so that it either sinks to the bottom...doing less environmental damage...or it rises and is more easily collected.

This is on Obama's watch....if Bush could be blamed for the Katrina disaster...Obama is just as culpable. Why didn't the government demand that there be credible means of plugging leaks like this before BP was allowed to extract oil from 5000 feet below the ocean's surface. What about the north shore of Alaska...I've always been for drilling in a responsible and safe manner, but if the oil industry can't do better than this...then we've got to reconsider about off shore drilling in an even more hostile environment.

But our reaction, under Obama, to the sinking of the S. Korean ship, Cheonan, really sickens me. An international panel of experts has now unanimously concluded the sinking was due to a torpedo attack by North Korea. This is an ACT OF WAR.....and what is our reaction...from Obama and that empty skirt Clinton...."I think it is important to send a clear message to North Korea that provocative actions have consequences.  We cannot allow this attack on South Korea to go unanswered by the international community.  So we will determine our best options moving forward and send a clear, unmistakable message to North Korea regarding the international community's and its neighbors' concerns about its behavior,"
What a cowardly and worthless reaction....perhaps our military is no longer up to the task...but that would be Obama's fault too...indeed he intends to draw down our nuclear armaments...whose interest does he serve... America's...or some demented liberal version of "world opinion". Yes, the Obama Administration was hoping (begging) China would restrain / punish its malevolent ally...but true to past behavior, China will do nothing. It shows how  bankrupt  the thinking of Obama is and his liberal followers. First they weaken our military, then they behave like wimps when attacked and finally they plea to be rescued by make believe friends.
 
Now that there is concrete evidence this was done by North Korea.....fragments of the torpedo....one has to wonder about the reports a few weeks ago, that the oil rig explosion in the Gulf was not an accident, but a similar act of war by North Korea...again using a mini submarine and a torpedo. Considering Obama's reaction to the Cheonan sinking....we regretfully have to consider how far would Obama go to to avoid war...would he do a coverup. Do you remember during the past presidential campaign, when people wondered if our enemies would test Obama, knowing his liberal weak knees...well, looks like it is coming true....on purpose or not.

Then the incompetent Obama must also answer for his dealings with Iran and Russia. Clinton was just bragging about cooperation we would receive from China and Russia on sanctions for Iran. ...as if sanctions would really do the job of deterring Iran from becoming a nuclear power...but you know what the sanctions are?? or better yet what they do NOT include?   "the draft includes a loophole that would exempt a 2005 Russian deal, valued at hundreds of millions of dollars, to sell Tehran five S-300 surface-to-air missile systems capable of intercepting ballistic missiles and aircraft" (from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/21/AR2010052102590.html".  Now if Russia can export these anti-aircraft missiles to Iran and probably kill our pilots or Israeli pilots, should we resort to war....what type of cooperation is that...it's worthless cooperation....and this President Obama is WORTHLESS TOO...indeed he has earned his nickname....the Abominable Obama
And simultaneously  "the Obama administration revealed it had ended sanctions against four Russian entities involved in illicit weapons trade with Iran and Syria since 1999." (again from the same Washington Post article). Also let us not forget Obama's lifting of plans to erect radar stations in eastern Europe in deference to Russian sensitivities....
And while Obama makes nice to our enemies he castigates our friends...like Israel. One can only hope that there is a Conservative sweep in November and they restrain Obama from doing his worst.

Looking at domestic affairs...at the state level...there is much to regret too. Have you heard about the John Gardner case in California?
He admitted to raping and killing two beautiful young girls and was also convicted of attempted rape of another girl. Is he going to be executed??? NO.......he will serve life sentences in prison....where he can cost/harm  the taxpayers/ law abiding citizens probably 50 thousand dollars or more per year.  This is outrageous. What stinking justice we have in America...thanks to all the liberal jerks. Others have said that it would be more costly to execute Gardner considering all the legal appeals. That's another outrage....there is almost NO justice for the victims when they have to wait 12 or more years on the average for a murderer to be executed.
Also consider that previously Gardner  "in 2000 was sentenced to six years behind bars after pleading guilty to assaulting a 13-year-old girl. He ultimately served just five years." (from http://www.examiner.com/x-1168-Crime-Examiner~y2010m4d16-John-Gardner-confesses-to-killing-Chelsea-King-and-Amber-Dubois).  So not only is punishment inadequate but the deterrence of rape and murder ineffective.