Freedom

"I believe that every individual is naturally entitled to do as he pleases with himself and the fruits of his labor, so far as it in no way interferes with any other men's rights." 

Abraham Lincoln

Waking Up to Economic Realities

by Ron Paul

Last week the financial markets were roiled by Standard & Poor’s announcement that they will change their outlook on the fiscal health of the United States over the next two years from “stable” to “negative.” The administration decried this decision as political. However, it seems the only political thing about this decision is the fact that it took so long. The Washington Post recently reported that the White House and the Treasury Department put tremendous pressure on S&P not to do this. However, if S&P made its ratings based on political pressures rather than economic reality, it would cease to have any relevance to the business community. Even if S&P delayed its announcement that U.S. government bond market would be downgraded, at some point it would become obvious that the finances of this country are out of control and our leadership is out of touch. All credibility would be lost if S&P simply continued to assign U.S. debt a AAA rating.


S&P noted in its announcement that negotiations among leaders in Washington to address deficit concerns did not sound promising, and expressed skepticism that politicians could agree to any viable budget compromise. Of course this has been obvious for years but in the midst of the current debate over raising the debt limit it is perhaps the wake-up call that Washington needs.



For decades politicians and government officials have been able to maintain their denial about our real financial situation, patching the system together by passing emergency and supplemental funding bills, issuing more debt, and allowing the Federal Reserve and foreign creditors to paper over deficits with more monetary expansion. I’ve said many times the real day of reckoning comes when fiscal and monetary tricks no longer work and there are no buyers for our debt.


Even the most conservative budget that has been proposed by Republican leadership requires raising the debt ceiling by an additional $9 trillion by 2021. This demonstrates absolutely that no one in power right now has any real intention of addressing our spending problems or paying down the debt. They simply expect to continue to borrow and run up more debt forever, without limit. Yet they always imagine our dollar will have value no matter how many we print. This expectation is foolish and naïve. I guarantee that those buying our debt are not foolish and naïve enough to go along with this charade forever.


The S&P announcement may just be the harbinger of economic realities acting as a restraint on government expansion. Government is not anxious to cap its own growth, in spite of misnomers like “debt limit” or “deficit reduction.” Government will continue to grow like a cancer, sapping our country of its wealth and freedom until the laws of economics no longer can be ignored.

Obligations

For the past several weeks and for the next several months, there will be wrangling in Washington about the budget. We all know the mess we’re in. The fact that Standard and Poors downgraded their outlook for the United States to negative is proof that we have gone way too far in debt. The fact that the last deal the Republicans made cut less than one hundred million dollars in real terms over the next six months, coupled with the speech the president gave, demonstrated to all that the Republicans either don’t have the guts or desire to stop the president from his plan to continue to spend in ways beyond reckless.



In this debate on the budget, several terms are always thrown around, the conversation is always pretty much the same. Both sides say cuts need to be made. Democrats want to cut defense, Republicans want to axe NPR. The new twist this time around is that both sides are giving lip service to restructuring entitlements. Certainly congressman Ryan it to be commended for his attempt to reform that third rail of politics, the third rail that is breaking the collective bank. However, both sides still believe that the programs are essential to our country and society. Both sides talk about our "obligations" to our seniors, the poor, the sick and whomever else they desire to give someone else’s hard earned money to. This is the language of the collectivists. If we ever question whether it is right to take more of our money, if we the people ever entertain the thought that maybe we have given enough, we are reminded of our "obligations" to provide for the old, the poor and of course, the children. Certainly the only proper way to ensure this provision is through government and government bureaucracy. It is only the wise oligarchs who have degrees from Harvard who can justly ensure that we give our "fair share" and that it is applied properly in the fulfillment of our obligations. Are we really "obligated" to take care of everyone else? Does everyone else have a right to our property, the fruits of our labor? It is time we understood what exactly our "obligations" are before we allow the politicians to continue to use this idea to shame us into their scheme of redistribution.



What is an obligation? Webster’s Dictionary defines it this way. An obligation is the "binding power of a promise or legal contract, indebtedness for a favor or kindness, a duty." Something that is obligatory is "binding either legally or morally, it is compulsory." The sense we get from the definition is that an obligation is either the result of a contract between two parties or as a result of the action of one party that was enough of a benefit to another to place some sense of reciprocal action upon them. The first is easy to understand. When we enter into a contract or make a promise, it is our moral duty-obligation-to fulfill it. You can look at the morality of this two ways. If you are religious, it is God who has laid down the moral code; you shall not lie-not do what you have promised, or you can recognize that without people keeping their promises there is no way society can function; language becomes meaningless because the words are disconnected from any action in the real world and we will be reduced to each against everyone. Either way, adhering to the terms of our contract or our promise is imperative in a functioning society.



I would propose that there are two kinds of obligations, positive and negative. I define positive obligations are as those in which we must act to fulfill morally or legally. These obligations are rightful claims on our wealth or person because of promises we have made voluntarily through contract or relationship for which society has the right to expect our compliance. If we do not fulfill these obligations, society or the state has the right to punish us. If we fail to fulfill the terms of a contract, we can be sued or prosecuted for fraud. If we are known to lie, society can shun us or otherwise demonstrate its displeasure.



Under that part of the definition, are the politicians right? Do I have an obligation to allow them to take the fruits of my labor and give it to another just because they are old, sick, poor or whatever? As I sit in Maryland, do I have an obligation to pay the pension of a senior citizen living in Arizona, the emergency room bill of a poor person in Chicago, or for a hot meal for the homeless guy in Dallas, none of whom I have ever met or will ever meet? Have I entered into a legal contract with any one of them, have I made promises to them for which the power of the state can be utilized to force my performance? No, of course not. It is, in reality, an absurd notion. My property cannot be legally obligated to three hundred million of my fellows, or morally, to the six billion other people in the world. I would quickly be reduced to the very state of the ones to whom I am supposedly obligated, or worse. How can I be obligated to support another individual just because they have reached a certain age and chose not to save for their own twilight years? How can I be obligated to pick up the pieces for a teen age mother who made bad choices? How can I be obligated to pay for the medical care of the obese man who had no self control? Under what sense of justice, fairness and morality can I be forced to pay for the bad choices other people have made, or even their bad luck?



This, of course, is the collectivist ideal, steal from those who produce and give it to those who do not until all are equally poor and miserable. The problem is, when you confiscate everything from the producers to give to those who have made bad choices or are just lazy, the moochers, the producer will stop producing because they gain no benefit from their efforts. The incentive for productive activity ceases, which is destructive to any society. When that happens, there is nothing for the looters to give the moochers. The moochers, who know nothing of productive activity by definition, find themselves in very dire straights when the money affording them their free ride is no longer coming in. The will be like abandoned children who have no idea how to provide for themselves. The looters will become more and brutal in their desire to extract their lifeblood from anyone they think has anything, reducing both the producers and the moochers to slavery and in so doing, finding themselves impoverished as well. There is no way enforcing obligations that do not exist can lead to a just and moral society. In fact, inventing obligations for the sole purpose of stealing the property of another is immoral on its face.



What about the "obligations" we enter into by virtue of our citizenship? Does the Constitution legally obligate us to one another? No, not at all. The constitution is a contract between "we the people" and our government. The constitution is primarily a document that limits the power of government over us, recognizing the natural rights that we have and severely restricting the government in its authority over us. It says nothing about our obligations to one another nor can those obligations be "invented" from the document because the tenth amendment is clear. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Let us look at the other part of the definition, the "indebtedness for a kindness"? Has the aforementioned senior citizen, poor person or sick individual done any "kindness" to me, much less one which would morally require my positive response? Of course not. How could they, I’ve never even met them. If there is no relationship there can be no obligation and even within a relationship, obligations are strictly defined because they are legal constructs. There are only a few relationships that in any way rise to the above standard and those are family relationships. I would propose that children have an obligation to their parents to the extent that their parents showed them "kindness" in their provision under the age of majority. I believe parents are obligated to their children because they voluntarily brought the obligation to provide for that child until the age of majority upon themselves. If someone actually performs a "kindness" that would require a response, saving your life, for instance, not out of a legal obligation that is part of a job like a doctor or fireman but at risk to their own, then a moral obligation could be imposed. Beyond that, there are no positive obligations beyond those we voluntarily and legally enter into with people we actually have a relationship with. There is no such thing in a just society as an entitlement, a claim on the wealth or person of another by virtue of their circumstances.



Finally, there is the favorite argument of many statists here in America. It goes something like this. You were fortunate enough to be born in the United States, a winner of "life’s lottery." Because of our wonderful system, you have been able to make a success of yourself, you have accumulated wealth. Therefore, it is just and right, it is your "duty" to "give back" some of that wealth to those "less fortunate." First, let’s forget this idea that that those who have wealth got it because they were "fortunate" or "lucky." With the exception of the miniscule number of people like the Kennedy’s who inherit wealth, wealth that was, at some point, the result of someone’s hard work, the vast majority of people who are "rich" are so because they worked hard. Luck has nothing to do with it. That being the case, what is it they are to "give back"? What have they "taken"? If an individual comes up with a good idea and convinces a lot of people to freely purchase the results of that idea, how can anyone claim they have "taken" anything? If I agree to trade a widget I made to you for ten dollars, once that exchange is made, our obligations are fulfilled. I delivered the widget and you delivered the money. The end. I am under no obligation to "give back" a portion of that ten dollars to you or anyone else.



Second, the people to whom this wealth is supposed to be given have also won "life’s lottery" and been born in the United States. They have the same opportunity to use the wonderful system we have to make something of themselves. If they choose to make bad choices, why should those who have taken advantage of the opportunities of the system be forced to pay those who do not. Staying out of the relatively cushy poverty found in the United States is rather simple. Anyone who does four things in life is very unlikely to be poor. Graduate from high school (education others are forced to provide under threat of confiscation of their property), don’t have children before graduation, stay off drugs and out of jail. That’s it. If a person chooses not to take advantage of our system of freedom, another should not be forced to support them.



Before you write me off as completely heartless, let me say that charity is an essential part of a good society. There are some who actually can’t take care of themselves through no fault of their own, those with genetic diseases for example. The fact is, because of our Judeo-Christian heritage, Americans are the most generous people on earth. Even after the government confiscates so much of our money to force their idea of charity upon us, we still give more to others than any other people. It is Americans that give to fund medical research or to help victims of natural disasters. It is Americans who run food drives and whatever-a-thons and put cans at convenience stores to collect change for sick children. Whether we do it for religious reasons, personal reasons or just because we innately know its the right thing to do, we give-voluntarily. It is hard to be a cheerful giver with a gun in your back. Charity should be private and voluntary. If we have extra, should we give? Yes we should; but "should" is very different than "must."



What about negative obligations? These are obligations we have to not do something, actions we must refrain from doing. By virtue of our participation in society there are negative obligations we are all bound by. We are legally and morally bound not to do things that would harm the life of our fellows, restrict their liberty or steal their property. The fulfillment of these obligations require nothing from us but our restraint. I do not have to pay money to not do something. I do not have to use some portion of my wealth to refrain from negative behavior. I do not have to pay to fulfill my negative obligations, neither society or the state can have any claim on my person or wealth in the performance of negative obligations.



That being said, there are only two legitimate functions of government, the state, in the area of obligations. The first is the aforementioned enforcement of contracts or the persecution of fraud. The second is to prosecute those who negatively impact the life, liberty or property of another through violence or theft. That’s it. We have no obligations to strangers, fellow citizens, mother earth or anyone else. No longer can we allow these politicians to use that word to guilt us into giving them more of what belongs to no one but us.



Mike Calpino

www.michaelcalpino.webs.com

Swartz on Legalizing Marijuana

I wanted to point to Michael Swartz's post on Monoblogue about legalizing Marijuana. Michael's arguments in support of this issue are rational and well presented. I disagree with him on how effective it will be on decreasing the power of the Mexican Mafias, because legalizing it will significantly reduce their cash flow, which will reduce their power.

As always, Michael's articles are great reads.

Lawmaking

"Letting lawyers make laws is like letting doctors make diseases."

Anonymous

Political Parties

"Multiple political parties are a fact of life throughout Europe and most of the West. Today the only countries without strong multiparty political systems are the United States and a number of third world military dictatorships."

Thomas H. Naylor

Capitulati​on and Betrayal



Mike Calpino

 After months of wrangling over continuing resolutions and the threat of a government shutdown, which is a farce all by itself, the ruling class got together and put together their budget deal, a deal they heralded as a significant reduction in spending. All the news organizations were saying what a great victory it was for Speaker Boehner and the new Republican majority in the house, a majority that only exists because of the TEA party. Even the president had been crowing about its significance in reducing federal spending. The amount of this hatchet job to the Federal budget? $38 billion for the next six months.


That, my fellow patriots, is an insult to all of us who understand the dire straights we’re in. That means we will cut a little more than $3 billion a month. Consider that we are borrowing between one and two hundred billion dollars a month and cutting that monthly deficit by three billion is insignificant. $38 billion is only a third of the budget of the worthless department of education. There are stupid earmark projects that cost more that $38 billion. Back when the Republicans said they were going to cut one hundred billion dollars, I derided that amount as insignificant in the face of a $1.5 trillion deficit. This is like deciding to forgo your Starbucks coffee now and then while continuing to run up thousands of dollars in credit card debt every month. It is a worthless gesture.

Consider even Congressman Ryan’s budget. He says he is going to cut the budget by $6 trillion over the next ten years. That sounds like a lot but at our current pace we are going to borrow $15 trillion in those same ten years. That means under this dramatic plan of draconian cuts, ten years from now our children will have a $23 trillion dollar debt instead of a $29 trillion dollar debt. Certainly I give credit to congressman Ryan for making a credible attempt and taking on entitlements in creative ways but this is not going to cut it.

We are in real, serious trouble.. As we approach the third anniversary of the first TEA party demonstration, I am reminded of the words I spoke on April 15, 2009. I stated that we "stand on the edge of the abyss" as a country. As I, and we, have learned, our situation was worse than we thought and rapidly becoming catastrophic. We need $6 trillion in cuts over three years and a complete overhaul in entitlements just to put us back on the edge. We need significant and drastic action, real drastic action, not what counts for "drastic" and "extreme" by Washington standards. We are not going to get it, not now, not with the next budget, not ever with the ruling class still deeply entrenched.

Hobgoblins

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed – and hence clamorous to be led to safety – by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

H.L. Mencken

Freedom

"If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom; and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money that it values more, it will lose that, too

."

Somerset Maugham

Webster

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." 

Daniel Webster (1782-1852)

Mises

"Whoever prefers life to death, happiness to suffering, well-being to misery must defend without compromise private ownership in the means of production." 

Ludwig von Mises (1920)

Paine

"An Avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he a establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." 

Thomas Paine (1795)

Churchill

"We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle."

Winston Churchill (1903)

Adams

"America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She well knows that by enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standards of freedom." 

John Quincy Adams (1821)

The Time Is Now To Move Our City Forward

In December when I filed to run for Salisbury City Council I began this campaign with the following message and I feel it is only appropriate to make this my last message before Election Day.

Our campaign has been about ideas, solutions and action. 

For too long our city has been embroiled in the politics of personal destruction and the clash of personalities.  This has caused much embarrassment for the City of Salisbury and the wonderful people, who live, work and play here.

Meanwhile, businesses are struggling, crime has steadily risen, property rights are under attack and in the end our quality of life deteriorates.  We must put aside our differences and come together to address the many issues we face.

I believe in having everyone at the table.  All are stakeholders in this city whether you are a homeowner or business owner, landlord or renter, employer or employee, you have a right to be heard.  We all have a stake in this community and passing it on to the next generation better than we received it is not just the right thing to do, it is our duty.

Join me as we bring forth a positive message of healing, reaching out to our neighborhoods that are disenfranchised and opening up our doors for business.  We have so much work to do and it is going to take all of us putting aside our differences to do what is best for Salisbury.

Separation of Church and State - Communication between Jefferson and the Danbury Baptists

Letter from the Danbury Baptists:

The address of the Danbury Baptist Association in the State of Connecticut, assembled October 7, 1801.
To Thomas Jefferson, Esq., President of the United States of America

Sir,
Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office, we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your inauguration , to express our great satisfaction in your appointment to the Chief Magistracy in the Unite States. And though the mode of expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, sir, to believe, that none is more sincere.

Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter, together with the laws made coincident therewith, were adapted as the basis of our government at the time of our revolution. And such has been our laws and usages, and such still are, [so] that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation, and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights. And these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgments, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore, if those who seek after power and gain, under the pretense of government and Religion, should reproach their fellow men, [or] should reproach their Chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dares not, assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.

Sir, we are sensible that the President of the United States is not the National Legislator and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the laws of each State, but our hopes are strong that the sentiment of our beloved President, which have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of the sun, will shine and prevail through all these States--and all the world--until hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and goodwill shining forth in a course of more than thirty years, we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the Chair of State out of that goodwill which he bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you--to sustain and support you and your Administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to rise to wealth and importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.

And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.

Signed in behalf of the Association,

Neh,h Dodge }
Eph'm Robbins } The Committee
Stephen S. Nelson }

*A cite for this letter could read:

Letter of Oct. 7, 1801 from Danbury (CT) Baptist Assoc. to Thomas Jefferson,
Thomas Jefferson Papers, Manuscript Division,
Library of Congress, Wash. D.C. 

President Jefferson's Response:

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

 Gentlemen
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

The New Colonialism

by Paul Craig Roberts

What we are observing in Libya is the rebirth of colonialism. Only this time it is not individual European governments competing for empires and resources. The new colonialism operates under the cover of "the world community," which means NATO and those countries that cooperate with it. NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, was once a defense alliance against a possible Soviet invasion of Western Europe. Today NATO provides European troops in behalf of American hegemony.

Washington pursues world hegemony under the guises of selective "humanitarian intervention" and "bringing freedom and democracy to oppressed peoples." On an opportunistic basis, Washington targets countries for intervention that are not its "international partners." Caught off guard, perhaps, by popular revolts in Tunisia and Egypt, there are some indications that Washington responded opportunistically and encouraged the uprising in Libya. Khalifa Hifter, a suspected Libyan CIA asset for the last 20 years, has gone back to Libya to head the rebel army.

Gaddafi got himself targeted by standing up to Western imperialism. He refused to be part of the US Africa Command. Gaddafi saw Washington’s scheme for what it is, a colonialist’s plan to divide and conquer.

The US Africa Command (AFRICOM) was created by order of President George W. Bush in 2007. AFRICOM describes its objective:

"Our approach is based upon supporting U.S. national security interests in Africa as articulated by the President and Secretaries of State and Defense in the National Security Strategy and the National Military Strategy. The United States and African nations have strong mutual interests in promoting security and stability on the continent of Africa, its island states, and maritime zones. Advancing these interests requires a unified approach that integrates efforts with those of other U.S. government departments and agencies, as well as our African and other international partners."

Read the rest

Jefferson

"I have ever deemed it fundamental for the United States never to take active part in the quarrels of Europe. Their political interests are entirely distinct from ours. Their mutual jealousies, their balance of power, their complicated alliances, their forms and principles of government, are all foreign to us. They are nations of eternal war."

Thomas Jefferson (1823)

Students Who Get It!

College students are rejecting statist dogma and embracing individual liberty

John Stossel

I went to Princeton in 1969, where they taught me that government could solve the world's problems. Put the smartest people in a room, give them enough taxpayer money, and they will fix most everything. During those years, I heard nothing about an alternative.

How things have changed!

I recently spent time with several hundred college-aged people at a Students for Liberty conference in Washington, D.C. Here were hundreds of students who actually understand that government creates many of the problems, and freedom—personal and economic liberty—makes things better.

I appeared at the conference along with David Boaz of the Cato Institute. Here are some highlights.

Karina Zannat, a student at American University in Washington, D.C., said, "A lot of my professors seem to think that even when politicians spend money in seemingly wasteful ways, we should be OK with it because every dollar spent is one dollar that goes toward income for an American citizen."

This is a common canard known as the "broken window" fallacy. The 19th-century French free-market writer Frederic Bastiat exposed it with the story of a boy who breaks a shop window, prompting some townspeople to look at the bright side: fixing the window will stimulate economic activity in the town. The fallacy, of course, is that had the window not been broken, the shopkeeper would have spent the money in more productive ways.

People often commit this fallacy—have a look at what's being written in the wake of Japan's tsunami.

Read more reason.....

A Most Dangerous Man

"The time to guard against corruption and tyranny

is before they have gotten ahold of us.

It is better to keep the wolf out of the fold,

than to trust drawing his teeth and talons after he shall have entered."

Thomas Jefferson

As one crisis after another has spread across the globe, particularly in the Middle East, many people are scratching their heads and wondering exactly what drives President Obama’s decisions in foreign policy. Its obvious he has lost interest in it now that it has become much more than an apology tour. It is Secretary Clinton, who was a ghost for the first year and half of the Obama reign, who is now the face of American foreign policy in the absence of the president. She jets around the world, she hold news conferences, she makes statements, while he enjoys spring break in Rio, goes golfing and hosts Motown parties in the White House.

However detached he may appear, Barack Hussein Obama is still the president and he is still the one that drives American policy. It would appear that our decisions are made "on the fly" and place a glaring spotlight on his complete lack of experience. While that may be partly true, and while it may often be more reasonable to ascribe bad decisions to stupidity rather than malice, in the case of this White House and this president, I don’t think that we can cut them even that much slack.

It is my belief that this president has two primary motives for every one of his actions and if we understand these motives, what he does makes a lot more sense. Most past presidents were not hard to figure out. George W. Bush was motivated by his born again Christian faith and his belief that America should not only lead the world but should spread "democracy" by whatever means necessary. This explains why he would go to war so quickly and why he would preside over such a large expansion of domestic government programs. "Compassionate conservatism" embodied both concepts. Clinton just liked being president and he wanted everyone to like him as president. That is why his policies were pragmatic or poll driven. He wanted to do what was popular. Was he an ideological leftist, sure, but that took a back seat to popularity. He had no qualms about dropping "Hillarycare" or eventually signing welfare reform. He had no interest in getting us into long, drawn out, unpopular wars which is why he conducted war from thirty thousand feet and cut and run when it looked tough. Clinton enjoyed the perks of the presidency, sometimes a bit too much, but the "popularity president" explains much of what he does.

President Obama also has motives for being president. There is no question that, like Clinton, he loves the perks. But unlike Clinton, we get the feeling that Obama uses the perks like a stick in our eye, as if he thinks we have denied him what was owed and now he is flaunting his new found status as our overlord. The constant vacations, the air force one flyby of the Statue of Liberty, his arrogance in press conferences all seem to stem from this idea. But that is a side-show to the main event.

There are two things that motivate Barack Obama and while we may dismiss the talk show jock who proclaims "we have elected the enemy," there is no question that Barack Obama has embarked on a course of action that is severely detrimental to the health, and yes, honor, of our nation. The question is why? Two reasons. First, he divides the world into two camps-the haves and have nots, the oppressed and oppressor, the good and the evil. While traditionally we have viewed ourselves as the guys in the white hats, to Barack Obama, we definitely wear black.

This explains many of his actions toward our traditional allies like Great Britain. If there was ever an oppressor, great Britain and its colonial heritage fit the bill for Obama. In fact, with England, it is personal. It was the policies of Winston Churchhill that led to the imprisonment of his Marxist father in Africa. He has a deep seated hatred of previously colonial nations and his actions toward our traditional allies demonstrate this bias.

His division of the world is also based on his Marxist ideology. He believes in the redistribution of wealth not just from Joe the Plumber to the welfare queen but from the "haves" to the "have nots" of the world. That is why we will shut down American drilling in the Gulf of Mexico but grant drilling privileges to Brazil, which happens to be led by a fellow Marxist, a twofer for Obama. We will never move toward energy independence under Obama because by sending our dollars abroad we are facilitating a huge wealth transfer.

The second motivation is one which will, no doubt, put me in the camp with the tin foil hatters and conspiracy theorists. But if we accept the fact that we could elect an anti-American communist it should not be a stretch to say that we could have elected a Muslim radical as well. Yes, I said it, president Obama is a Muslim. Just as his Marxism was hidden in plain sight during his campaign and has become obvious in his policies, so his Islam was, and is, obvious if you look. In two interviews before the election he had a "Freudian slip" in which he referred to "My Muslim Faith," the one with George Stephanopolis being the most memorable. His early years were spent in Indonesia, the largest Muslim country in the world and one in which radical Islam has more than a toehold. He went to a Madrassa where he was taught Islam, a fundamentally anti-Semitic, anti-western ideology, a perfect complement to his anti-colonial Marxism.

This motivation will explain his actions in the Middle East. If the stated policy is to encourage "democracy", his actions are inconsistent at best. Why ignore the Iranian protesters, who may be the only pro-American group in the region, and throw support behind the Egyptian protesters? Two reasons. First, Iran is already anti-western and virulently anti-Israel, no need to support regime change there. Egypt under Mubarak, however, was nominally an ally of the United States and had maintained peace with Israel for over thirty years. That was a regime that could go, no problem. In fact, his policy in the Middle East is best explained by his support for radical Islam represented by the Muslim Brotherhood and other fundamentalist groups. That is why he has no problem pulling the plug on "secular" Arab leaders like Mubarak or Assad of Syria. So the "Obama Doctrine" is to basically ignore nations undergoing transformations from one anti-Semitic, anti-Western regime to another and support the transformation from secular, nominally pro-western, pro-Israel regimes to jihadist ones. The reason Obama has been so inconsistent on Libya is because while it falls into the former category, Khaddafy is a friend of his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, and a major supply of oil for the European nations that pressure us through the United Nations. He would rather stay out of it but was compelled to intervene by outside forces and is trying to make the best of it.

This "doctrine" is very bad for two reasons. One, although I don’t think we need to be supporting brutal dictators, particularly with taxpayer money, I don’t think we should be encouraging their ouster if they are likely to be replaced by radical Muslims who are going to be open in their support for anti-western terrorism. An Assad or Mubarak or even a Khaddafy may not like the West or America and may quietly support terrorism but their over-riding priority is maintaining their own power and they know, as Khaddafi found out in the Reagan years, they can go too far and put their very lives in danger. If, however, a group like the Muslim Brotherhood or the Revolutionary Party in Iran take power, their rhetoric will escalate in their religious fervor and they may not care about what they do. Martyrdom, after all, is their highest goal. On a national level, that is a thousand times worse than an Al Qaeda, as we have seen with Iran. Nations run by people who strap bombs to the chests of children have no concept of Mutually Assured Destruction. There is no negotiation with such regimes, none of the traditional means of applying pressure will provide deterrence. Killing the infidels, even if it means their own destruction, is an acceptable exchange for them.

While the ascendency of radical Islam to positions of power in several nations in the Middle East will certainly be a concern for our security and well being, the real threat is to the nation of Israel, whose very existence is put at risk. There has not been a major war between Israel and her neighbors since 1973. Between the peace with Egypt and a practical truce with her other neighbors, the situation has been one of relative peace, Palestinian suicide bombers excepted. If, however, the secular leaders of Egypt, Syria and even Jordan are replaced by radicals who join with Hamas in Gaza in the belief that waging jihad against Israel is the highest religious duty, Israel’s position becomes much less secure. Add to that our apparently official policy of backing off our support for Israel in favor of the very radicals that desire her destruction and Israel’s very existence is threatened. If Israel can no longer count on us and her enemies know that, they will be emboldened like never before.

I don’t think most people understand the ramifications of what the President is doing. His Marxism is leading to the weakening of America. He is accelerating the transfer of our wealth to other nations through his energy policy, impoverishing the citizens whose best interests he is supposed to represent. But he thinks we, as Americans, deserve to lose what be believes are our "ill gotten gains." Domestically, he is doing this three ways. First, through the energy policy mentioned above. Second, by placing us under loads and loads of debt by expanding government and rewarding his friends through the internal transfer of wealth. Finally, by destroying the dollar he is exasperating out trade deficit and undermining the very foundation of our economy. In foreign policy his anti-colonial, anti-Semitic ideology supported by his "Muslim faith" is making changes in the world that will have ramifications long after he is gone. He is supporting the ascent of radical, jihadist Islam across the Middle East and North Africa. Not just as a small cadre of terrorist groups within those nation states but as rulers of nation states themselves! Do we know what the world will look like when Taliban like governments rule nations from Iran to Morocco? If jihad is a threat when supported primarily by two nations, Saudi Arabia and Iran, imagine the mortal threat it will be when actively supported by the entire region. Outside the Middle East he is supporting the ascension of China, a repressive, communist regime. He is destroying our relations with our traditional allies, allies like Great Britain and Israel who share our fundamental values. Finally, he is subverting our very sovereignty as a nation to international organizations like the United Nations.

What makes such destructive policy catastrophic is the fact that the things he is doing cannot, in most cases, be reversed. Sure, we could repeal Obamacare and save some money in the future but the treasuries have been sold, the money is gone, the debt accumulated. If the dollar is destroyed, it is gone and even if it isn’t destroyed, it will take years to recover any of its value. Once domestic energy production is eliminated through regulation and tax policy, it will take years to get that back even if those regulations and policies are eliminated. We have seen this in the Gulf of Mexico. Once the moratorium of drilling was enacted, the drilling rigs moved elsewhere, companies are not going to wait around and lose money in the hopes that two or six years from now a more amenable administration will take power. Once the Muslim Brotherhood or some other group of Muslim radicals-Al Qaeda in Libya perhaps-is in control of some country, that’s it. We have condemned an entire nation to an oppression likely to be much worse that what was there before. We will have placed the nation of Israel, the only nation in the region where a liberal democracy protects the rights of its people, where beheadings and stonings don’t happen, where Jew and Arab live together, in a position where they and their enemies know they no longer have our support, a situation as grave as they faced in 1948. If we allow Israel to be destroyed, there is no going back. The flow of wealth and technology we have transferred to China cannot be reversed.

This is a direct result of the fact that we have placed entirely too much power in the hands of one man. Historians call this the development of the "imperial presidency" and it has been going on for over a century. Over time, the executive branch through its growing bureaucracy, the rise of the power of the Federal Reserve, an assumption of police powers through one crisis after another, has become, for all intents and purposes, an elected dictatorship. We may hope that the person we choose to lead our nation and, in may respects, the world, respects our history, institutions and traditions of freedom and limited government. Today we have a man in that office who sees our history as one set of oppressions after another, holds our traditions in contempt and believes in using the levers of power to destroy cherished institutions. For over two hundred years this great nation has been the example of what free men can accomplish. For the last hundred we have been in a position to lead the world, economically and militarily. We have not been perfect and sometimes made mistakes but the world was a better place because America led. We are starting to get a taste of what the world would look like when America no longer leads, its not pretty. Presently we choose not to but in the future we may not be able to.

The question is this. Will historians look back on the Obama presidency as a great transformative event, one that saw the decline of America and the genesis of a new Dark Age? It has become obvious that it is no longer simply our nation that is at risk. This generation of "we the people" have a burden at this time, in this moment, that will have ramifications for the world; not just for years but decades, perhaps centuries. We can no longer use the slow, timid approach, attempting to right the ship through incremental measures. We need bold action, bold policies. We need our representatives to shut down Obama’s ability to destroy by taking back their power, our power. We are supposed to have a government with checks and balances. It is time we used them. And if the weak-kneed Republicans won’t, "we the people" must.

"There are extraordinary situations which

require extraordinary interposition.

An exasperated people who feel they possess power

are not easily restrained within limits strictly regular."

Thomas Jefferson

Mike Calpino