jump to navigation

How Do We Get Back to Where We Were? January 29, 2015

Posted by Dr. Robert Owens in Uncategorized.
1 comment so far

It’s hard to be a conservative when there’s little left to conserve. The increasing pace of America’s progression from free markets to a command economy has reached such a pace and become so obvious that way back in 2009 the Russian Prime Minister used his spotlight time at the World Economic Forum to warn America not to follow the socialist path. The Russian newspaper Pravda, once the leading communist voice on earth published an article entitled, “American capitalism gone with a whimper.” People around the world can see the individual decisions of producers and consumers are being replaced by the form letters of a faceless central-planning bureaucracy even if the Obama boosters still haven’t swallowed the red pill and watched the matrix dissolve.

Pushed by the breathtaking speed of America’s devolution into a command economy some conservatives have entered the ranks of the radicals. They’re beginning to think about how to cure the systemic political problems precipitating the November Revolution of 2008. One solution some are embracing is known as the Sovereignty Movement. This is a movement of citizens and state representatives attempting to right the listing ship-of-state by appealing to the 10th Amendment which says, “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.”

The 10th Amendment addressed one of the most hard-fought points in the establishment of a central government. The States even though they surrendered some of their sovereignty didn’t want to lose it all. Specifically they didn’t want to lose the power to make internal decisions. They did not want to be powerless before a distant national bureaucracy. So as the cap-stone of the Bill of Rights the 10th Amendment was meant to reassure the States they would remain sovereign within their borders. However, since the 1830s, court rulings have garbled the once universally accepted meaning of the 10th Amendment as the Federal Government extended its authority from roads to schools to GM to Health Care to whatever they want.

Now some are turning to a resurrection of the straightforward meaning of the 10th Amendment as a way to mitigate the ever expanding power of centralized-control and social engineering combined with perpetual re-election and runaway pork-barrel deficit spending. But, is this enough?

As a Historian I always believe even a little history might help push back the darkness swirling around us.  In 1787, at the close of the Constitutional Convention, as Benjamin Franklin left Independence Hall a lady asked “Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy.” “A republic” replied Franklin “if you can keep it.”

Many have the mistaken idea that the United States is a democracy. It’s not. It’s a representative republic. The Framers distrusted unfettered democracy therefore they inserted several mechanisms into the Constitution which added some innovations between direct democracy and the power to rule.

One of the great innovations the Framers built into our system is the federal concept. Since this is an important component of our political legacy that has been overlooked in our contemporary education system let me define what is meant by federal. A federal system is a union of states with a central authority wherein the member states still retain certain defined powers of government.

According to the Constitution the Federal Government cannot mandate policies relating to local issues such as housing, business, transportation, etc. within the States. At least this was how the Constitution was interpreted by President James Madison, the Father of the Constitution. He expressed this clearly in a veto statement in 1817. In that there has never been anyone more qualified to address the original intent of the framers I believe it is important to bring his entire statement into this article:

To the House of Representatives of the United States:

Having considered the bill this day presented to me entitled “An act to set apart and pledge certain funds for internal improvements,” and which sets apart and pledges funds “for constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses, in order to facilitate, promote, and give security to internal commerce among the several States, and to render more easy and less expensive the means and provisions for the common defense,” I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling the bill with the Constitution of the United States to return it with that objection to the House of Representatives, in which it originated.

The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers, or that it falls by any just interpretation within the power to make laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution those or other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States.

“The power to regulate commerce among the several States” cannot include a power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of water courses in order to facilitate, promote, and secure such a commerce without a latitude of construction departing from the ordinary import of the terms strengthened by the known inconveniences which doubtless led to the grant of this remedial power to Congress.

To refer the power in question to the clause “to provide for the common defense and general welfare” would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms “common defense and general welfare” embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust. It would have the effect of subjecting both the Constitution and laws of the several States in all cases not specifically exempted to be superseded by laws of Congress, it being expressly declared “that the Constitution of the United States and laws made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges of every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” Such a view of the Constitution, finally, would have the effect of excluding the judicial authority of the United States from its participation in guarding the boundary between the legislative powers of the General and the State Governments, inasmuch as questions relating to the general welfare, being questions of policy and expediency, are unsusceptible of judicial cognizance and decision.

A restriction of the power “to provide for the common defense and general welfare” to cases which are to be provided for by the expenditure of money would still leave within the legislative power of Congress all the great and most important measures of Government, money being the ordinary and necessary means of carrying them into execution.

If a general power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of water courses, with the train of powers incident thereto, be not possessed by Congress, the assent of the States in the mode provided in the bill cannot confer the power. The only cases in which the consent and cession of particular States can extend the power of Congress are those specified and provided for in the Constitution.

I am not unaware of the great importance of roads and canals and the improved navigation of water courses, and that a power in the National Legislature to provide for them might be exercised with signal advantage to the general prosperity. But seeing that such a power is not expressly given by the Constitution, and believing that it cannot be deduced from any part of it without an inadmissible latitude of construction and a reliance on insufficient precedents; believing also that the permanent success of the Constitution depends on a definite partition of powers between the General and the State Governments, and that no adequate landmarks would be left by the constructive extension of the powers of Congress as proposed in the bill, I have no option but to withhold my signature from it, and to cherishing the hope that its beneficial objects may be attained by a resort for the necessary powers to the same wisdom and virtue in the nation which established the Constitution in its actual form and providently marked out in the instrument itself a safe and practicable mode of improving it as experience might suggest.

This is an eloquent expression of how the Constitution was meant to be understood. However, through expansive interpretations by activist judges this gradually morphed into almost limitless Federal control of the domestic affairs of the States.

Another vital component of our Constitutional heritage is the protection provided by a system of “Checks and Balances” wherein each level or branch of government acts as a barrier to other levels or branches of government from acquiring too much power. The most important check on the power of the Federal Government in relation to the constituent States was the Senate. In the Constitution the people directly elected the House of Representatives to represent their interests, the various State legislatures elected the members of the Senate to represent the individual states.

The adoption of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913 mandating the popular election of Senators fatally damaged this system. Since then, the States have been reduced from equal partners with the Federal Government to a group of individual lobbyists. Before this amendment senators remained in office based upon how they upheld the rights of their state. The hot-and-cold winds of populist considerations didn’t compromise the Senator’s ability to serve. This freedom to vote against populist sentiment allowed the Senators to balance the directly-elected House.

Now we have two houses of Congress trying to spend enough of other people’s money to make political profits for themselves. So what do I propose? Resurrect the 10th Amendment, repeal the 17th and while we’re at it we should drive a stake through the heart of the 16th which allows progressive taxation and all that’s still on the conservative side of radicalism.

Restore the balance and save the Republic!

Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion. He is the Historian of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2015 Contact Dr. Owens drrobertowens@hotmail.com Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens

Bankrupt Who’s Bankrupt? January 22, 2015

Posted by Dr. Robert Owens in Uncategorized.
add a comment

A few years ago, with tongue securely in cheek, I wrote about the Fed buying Treasury Bonds. I tried using the absurd to make a point. I explained this would be like issuing your own credit card, buying everything you want, paying for the credit card with your checking account, and filling the checking account with cash advances from the credit card. I was just kidding. I never thought this would actually happen. It has. Similarly, years ago when I wrote about the nationalization of GM and the financial system I was again trying to use absurdity to make a point. My problem is that it’s getting hard to be absurd in America today.

When I read the headlines all I do is mutter to myself, “You just can’t make this stuff up” because when I did no one took me seriously.

Today with the Fed buying treasury bonds America has in effect declared bankruptcy. We might not think so because the mainstream media hasn’t mentioned it but our creditors have noticed. China wants higher interest rates and collateral. Dancing down the yellow-brick road to Insolvency City our leaders announce a new trillion dollar something or other every day. A trillion here, a trillion there and eventually trillion doesn’t sound so shockingly big any more.

What comes after a trillion? It’s a quadrillion with 15 zeros then a quintillion with 18 zeros. What’s the difference between these bewildering figures? A trillion is a million millions. There are a million seconds in 11 days. A billion seconds is around 32 years. And a trillion seconds in approximately 32,000 years. To the average person it doesn’t matter whether it’s a million, a billion or a trillion they’re all too big to wrap our heads around.

What’s next? Nationalize the New York Times and the rest of the liberal media because people won’t support them any longer. How about, the thousands of Acorn workers who suddenly disappeared when it became obvious what a corrupt democrat front organization it really was magically reappeared as ACORN by other names still receiving government money. How about Comprehensive Immigration Reform which Congress repeatedly refused to pass becoming law by presidential fiat, with voting for illegal aliens in an election coming to you soon. Then we have Obamacare nationalizing 17 % of the GDP which may soon squeeze the private healthcare insurance industry out of the market. As people who don’t work at Wal-Mart demonstrate to unionize Wal-Mart. The Federal Government listens to and records everything everyone says without a warrant and the person who tells us about it is a traitor.

Could any of this happen in America the land of the free and the home of the brave? Don’t be absurd!

The current economic woes may not be popular with Americans but George Soros the Bankroll of the Left loves it. He says, “the financial crisis has been stimulating.” Then after mentioning the 11.6 billion he made during the 2008 crash adds, “It is, in a way, the culminating point of my life’s work.” Capitalism may be dyeing all around us but at least the Socialists are making money. And how did this prime mover of the socialist agenda in America make all this money? Did he build factories? Create Jobs? No he runs a hedge fund and makes money appear out of thin air through manipulation of currencies, monetized derivatives, credit swaps and other types of voodoo economics.

Obama’s much ballyhooed recovery may look great from the White House even though it looks quite a bit like the Great Recession from our houses. The mood of the American people is cratering through this Great Recession into everyone’s personal Great Depression.

We may be feeling down but at least we’ve got the Progressives that Soros supports looking out for us.

For example after the crash there was second-generation Senator Dodd who inherited his seat from his father. He’s the guy who fought so hard to stop all those greedy AIG executives from getting their excessive bonuses after he forgot he inserted the amendment into the pork-laden stimulus boondoggle to make sure the AIG executives got their bonuses when the company went on welfare. I’m sure it was a coincidence he received his largest donations from AIG and his wife served as a director of an AIG company. Nobody told Senator Dodd where his money came from, who his wife worked for or what amendments he offered so his outrage and bluster were obviously much more than theatrics.

Here’s a guy who gets sweetheart deals on mortgages for multiple houses and has the nerve to tell a national news conference he didn’t know getting a VIP rate was a special deal. This paragon of fiduciary integrity also voted for a Treasury Secretary who blames his tax deficiencies on not understanding turbo-tax. Giving oversight of the IRS to a man who didn’t know he couldn’t deduct the fee for his children to go to summer camp as a business expense because Turbo-tax didn’t tell him? Maybe the Senate should have held a hearing and investigated Turbo Tax? Maybe they could have ponied up some donations to make all the hub-bub go away.

Having people like these look after our finances is sort of like having the fox guard the hen house. Of course even after they have eaten all the hens these chickens will still come home to roost.

Looks like Chicago has finally made it to the Big Leagues, Big Al would be so proud. I wonder if this administration knows how to appoint someone who pays their taxes. Remember how poor Limousine Tom Daschle was forced to withdraw his nomination just for being a tax cheat? Now it turns out that’s no longer a disqualifier since if it was who would we find to run the federal government and decide how much we should pay in taxes?

Speaking of Chicago one of the people who led Freddie Mac over the cliff was Rahm Emmanuel. He was on the Board of Directors for 14 months. And all he got was $320,000 which is barely $22,800 per month so how much due diligence could anyone expect? Yet another humble public servant from Chicago, while out serving hash to the poor unfortunates, some unpatriotic news hound noticed Michelle’s sneakers cost $540. Thus the theater of the absurd has become main stream.

Bankrupt Who’s Bankrupt? Don’t be absurd!

Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion. He is the Historian of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2015 Contact Dr. Owens drrobertowens@hotmail.com Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens

Dr. Owens’ Newest Book January 19, 2015

Posted by Dr. Robert Owens in Uncategorized.
2 comments

Dr. Robert Owens announces his newest book:

Colonial American History: The Essential Story

From Westphalia Press

This work is written for non-Historians, and is a handy easy-to-read condensed look at Early American History. It is composed of short chapters each of which is designed to be a stand-alone treatment of a segment of time. It is my hope that this book will help fill the void that is exposed by the general lack of historical perspective which I believe is a major contributor to America’s current lack of self-awareness of and appreciation for the uniqueness which is the United States.

This exciting new book is available through Westphalia Press at https://www.createspace.com/5115518

Amazon.com http://www.amazon.com/Colonial-American-History-Essential-Story/dp/1633911349/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1418998571&sr=8-1&keywords=colonial+american+history+owens

And other sites online.

You can also request that your local library obtain a copy.

Do You have Hope? January 15, 2015

Posted by Dr. Robert Owens in Uncategorized.
1 comment so far

Marching out of Yorktown to surrender the British Army played the song “The World Turned Upside Down.” As I drive to Meg Lo Mart to make my latest deposit of monopoly money in a Chinese savings account all I can do is mumble the final tag-line of the Wicked Witch of the West, “What a world? What a world?”

There is a massive unspoken problem in America today, floating like the iceberg in front of the Titanic waiting to sink the unsinkable ship. Founded by revolutionaries crying “No taxation without representation!” the Republic these revolutionaries devised has devolved into a society where more than 40% of the people pay no Federal Income Tax and the number of people receiving government benefits is even higher. What incentive would these non-paying receivers have to reign in an overbearing and intrusive government? This unseen and unspoken problem is a cancer in the body politic.

Self-serving professional politicians buy votes by exempting non-productive people from personal financial responsibility while providing ever-expanding benefits at the expense of the productive. This is not the right versus left, conservative versus liberal, democrat versus republican he-said-she-said endless debate that devours the chatocracy of cable’s wall-to-wall talking-heads. This is not an academic exercise that pointy-headed political science and history majors with dueling pocket protectors debate for hours in their mother’s basement as they post their latest scoop on their samizdat blogs. If it is not any of these things what is it? It is a dagger pointing directly at the heart of our civilization.

Western Civilization awoke from the slumber of the Dark Ages enlightened and empowered by a belief, based in the Judeo-Christian tradition that humanity has an innate right to be free and a natural right to excel. Rights and freedoms are given by God not bestowed at the whim of some Legend-in-his-own-mind Leader. This civilization gathered steam in Europe exploding upon the world stage through an energetic period of exploration.

In America after a revolution fought by farmers and merchants against the greatest empire of the day the Founders, dared to declare “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” After centuries of government thugs standing on the windpipe of everyday people these self-sacrificing giants observed that in a civilized world government was not imposed by the strong upon the weak it was instead built upon a social contract between the governed and those entrusted with the privilege to govern when they said, “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Today this bold and unique experiment in freedom is being devoured from within and challenged from without. Those who believe the collective should reign over the individual, those who believe in the suffocating sameness of socialism over the rough-and-tumble of capitalism have worked for generations building a culture of dependency which has tempered the steel will of the pioneers into the sloppy demands of the couch-potato slacker waiting for someone to find their remote as they guzzle some refreshments and wait for the game as bread and circuses take the place of innovation and accomplishment. Schools teaching 2+2 might = 5, trophies for everyone, politically correct new-speak and affirmative action promotions have sapped the vitality from the citizens of our Republic. Politicians and their fellow-travelers use a system of cronies and sweet-heart deals to reward each other for siphoning trillions from the public treasury promising the dumbed-down descendants of revolutionaries that they just might win the lotto before they have to declare bankruptcy so they might as well re-elect the same old grafters once again.

There comes a time when those who are raising the sails and paddling the boat have to admit to themselves the ballast down in steerage weighs more than the cargo. There comes a time when even the most non-confrontational and loyal among us begin to ask, “Who is John Galt” as Atlas tires of his thankless job and shrugs the burden of dead-weight into the dustbin of history. As the perpetually-reelected and the propaganda spewing Corporations Once Known as the Mainstream Media trumpet the inevitability of government rationed health-care, cap-n-trade industrial suicide, comprehensive import-a-voter immigration reform and the surrender of sovereignty through treaties supposedly designed to deal with mythical global warming there shines a light in a bell tower, one if by land and two if by sea.

Without hope you’re hopeless and I refuse to allow the unbelievable changes currently assaulting our economy and our political system to bring about my own personal Great Depression. Those who believe in the Devil believe he comes to steal, kill and destroy. I believe if he can’t steal your joy he can’t keep your stuff and weeping may endure for a night but joy comes in the morning. Don’t despair pray. Don’t give up, give it up to God. Let me ask you, “Do you have hope?” I hope so. Personally as for me and my house we will trust the Lord for our hope is in Christ.

Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion. He is the Historian of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2015 Contact Dr. Owens drrobertowens@hotmail.com Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens

What Happens When Progressives Tax (and Spend) January 8, 2015

Posted by Dr. Robert Owens in Uncategorized.
add a comment

As Rush Limbaugh so rightly pointed out, “No nation has ever taxed itself into prosperity.”

So many people have accepted the argument that progressive taxation is just, necessary, and fair, so I know this article will offend many.  Hopefully it will also make a few people reconsider their acceptance of policy.  Many who are vehemently opposed to socialism, collectivism, and all the other trappings of the centralized corporate state believe that any injustice that might result from a free society would and should be mitigated by a policy of progressive taxation.  The government through its education arm and the politicians through their media arm have used both hands and done a superb job.

It hasn’t only been dumbing down it has also been indoctrination convincing the patient that it makes sense to cut off both legs to keep them from running amuck.  However; as James Madison said, “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives. A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy or perhaps both.”

The easiest thing to do would be to ignore this 800 pound elephant.  As the cop on the block says when something has happened and there is most definitely something to see, “Move along there’s nothing to see here.”  However as the Historian of the Future that would be irresponsible.  For it is in the mass acceptance of this inherently unfair coercive action as fair that the base of democratic irresponsibility forms the basis for the towering structure which is the Progressive State.

For generations this once unconstitutional procedure for wealth distribution has been accepted without question.  This was not always the case.

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, had some interesting things to say about unequal taxation.  Such as  in his Essay on Property, March 29, 1792, “That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest.”  And “A just security to property is not afforded by that government, under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward another species: where arbitrary taxes invade the domestic sanctuaries of the rich, and excessive taxes grind the faces of the poor.”

In Europe which is often the source and first scene of the crime when it comes to the Socialist/Utopian schemes foisted on the uninformed and unsuspecting American public, when progressive taxation was first proposed during the French Revolution the classical liberal Anne-Robert-Jacques Turgot, said, “One ought to execute the author and not the project.”

During the socialist led revolutions of 1848 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels frankly proposed “a heavy progressive or graduated income tax” as one of the measures by which, after the first stage of the revolution, “the proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeois, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state.” And these measures they described as “means of despotic inroads on the right of property, and on the condition of bourgeois production … measures …which appear economically insufficient and untenable but which, in the course of the movement outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production.”

According to John Chamberlain in 1961, “It was Marxian socialism—‘From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs—which fathered the great attack on proportional tax equity: a ‘heavy graduated income tax’ is a salient feature of the Communist Manifesto of 1848. But the Marxians would have made little headway if non-Marxian economists had not come unwittingly to their support with the theory that ‘it is not equal to treat unequals equally.’ In cases of charity, this is undoubtedly true, but no comprehensive legal system can be reared on a rule which begins by regarding everybody as an exception.”

After these proposals for income redistribution had been dismissed out of hand by economic experts and thinking people as inherently unfair they were smuggled in as supposedly rational arguments based on the need or desire to spread the sacrifice equally.  Those who presented this type of argument were careful to stress that they were not interested in income redistribution and that any progression beyond a modest scale should of course be condemned.  Opponents tried to point out that once the principle of progression was accepted there was no limit to which the progression could be pushed.  These opponents were said to be maliciously distorting the argument and showing a lack of confidence in democratic rule.  Even today the watch word for the advocates of progressive taxation is that everyone should pay their fair share.  This fair share is never defined.

The countries of Europe led by Prussia fell first to this pernicious scam.  In the 1910 and 1913 respectively Great Britain and then the United States bought into the lie that inequality in taxation provides equality in sacrifice.  At first the rates were moderate.  In Great Britain they started at 8.5 % and In America at 7%. However within 30 years the top rates were 97.5% and 91 %.  Within one generation that which its proponents said would never happen and its opponents said was inevitable came to pass.

This radical change in the rates and the progressive nature of the tax changed not only the degree but also the character of what was taking place.  This soon became a vehicle for income distribution and nothing more.  Social engineering based on the communist dictum “From each according to his ability to each according to his need.”  This is all based upon the difference between greed and envy.  Greed wants more and will do what is necessary to attain it.  Envy wants what someone else has and will do what is necessary to take it.

To solve the problem of greedy people making more than others, envious people created a system to take what the greedy had earned.

One of the foundation stones of the continuing support by the general non envious public for this institutionalized theft is the belief that the high rates levied on the rich make an indispensable contribution to the total revenue of the nation.  This is an illusion. If all the assets of the rich were expropriated in their entirety they would not cover the profligate spending of the political class.

In 2011 Steve McCann pointed out, “Using the latest statistics from the IRS, in 2004 there were 2.7 million adults with a net worth above $1.5 million.  If the government were to seize all the wealth above the $1.5 million threshold, Washington would realize a one-time windfall of $4.0 Trillion — and no one would again attempt to accumulate wealth.  Assuming it was applied to the national debt (unlikely with the Left in charge as they would spend it) the national debt would only be reduced from$14.5 Trillion to $10.0 Trillion.”  And that would be a once in a lifetime score. Today the debt stands above 18 trillion.

In 2012 John Stossel noted, “If the IRS grabbed 100 percent of income over $1 million, the take would be just $616 billion. That’s only a third of this year’s deficit. Our national debt would continue to explode.”

According to the non-partisan Tax Foundation’s David Logan, “Even taking every last penny from every individual making more than $10 million per year would only reduce the nation’s deficit by 12 percent and the debt by 2 percent.”  In any event according to Parkinson’s Law, “The expenditures of the State always rise to meet potential income.”

According to F. A Hayek:

“The real reason why all the assurances that progression would remain moderate have proved false and why its development has gone far beyond the most pessimistic prognostications of its opponents is that all arguments in support of progression can be used to justify any degree of progression.  Its advocates may realize that beyond a certain point the adverse effects on the efficiency of the economic system may become so serious as to make it inexpedient to push it any further.  But the argument based on the presumed justice of progression provides for no limitation, as has often been admitted by its supporters, before all incomes above a certain figure are confiscated and those below left untaxed.  Unlike proportionality, progression provides no principle which tells us what the relative burden of different persons ought to be.  It is no more than a rejection of proportionality in favor of a discrimination against the wealthy without any criterion for limiting the extent of this discrimination.”

  1. R. McCulloch expressed the problem with progressive taxation in this way, “The moment you abandon the cardinal principle of exacting from all individuals the same proportion of their income or of their property, you are at sea without rudder or compass, and there is no amount of injustice and folly you may not commit.”

When will the insanity of unequal = equal stop? It will never end because there is no ideal rate of progression that can be demonstrated by any type of formula. There is never a reason why “a little more than before” should not always be represented as just and reasonable.

Looking to the end result Alexis de Tocqueville told us long ago, “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”

Hayek assures us that this is not a general attack upon democratic principles.  It is instead the revelation that democracy must be guided by principles or it will founder on the shoals of expediency and the illusion of rationality.

Hayek expressed it well, “It is no slur on democracy, no ignoble distrust of its wisdom, to maintain that, once it embarks upon such a policy, it is bound to go much further than originally intended.  This is not to say that “free and representative institutions are a failure” or that it must lead to “a complete distrust in democratic government, but that democracy has yet to learn that, in order to be just, it must be guided in its action by general principles. What is true of individual action is equally true of collective action except that a majority is perhaps even less likely to consider explicitly the long-term significance of its decision and therefore is even more in need of guidance by principles.  Where, as in the case of progression, the so-called principle adopted is no more than an open invitation to discrimination and, what is worse, an invitation to the majority to discriminate against a minority, the pretended principle, of justice must become the pretext for pure arbitrariness.”

So what’s the answer?  First it should be obvious that the majority should not be able to impose a tax rate that it does not pay.  Secondly the maximum rate of taxation should be tied to the % of the GDP devoted to government.  If the government is absorbing 25% of the economy no rate higher than 25% should be allowed.  If in the case of a war or other national emergency the rate of government cost rises the rate could rise, and when it falls the rate should fall.

Raising tax rates as a way to solve the debt problem just doesn’t work.   Looking at the 1950s when the rates were higher than they are today Hayek pointed out, “How small is the contribution of progressive tax rates (particularly of the high punitive rates levied on the largest incomes) to total revenue may be illustrated by a few figures for the United States and for Great Britain.  Concerning the former it has been stated (in 1956) that the entire progressive super-structure produces only about 17 per cent of the total revenue  derived from the individual income tax’-or about 8.5 per cent of all federal revenue,– and that of this half is taken from taxable income brackets up through $16,000-$18,000, where the tax rate approaches 50 per cent (while] the other half comes from the higher brackets and rates.”

When Congress was debating the 16th Amendment to allow for individual income taxes Massachusetts Rep. Samuel McCall stated, “The character of the argument which had been made leads me to believe that the chief purpose of the tax is not financial, but social. It is not primarily to raise money for the state, but to regulate the citizen and to regenerate the moral nature of man. The individual citizen will be called on to lay bare the inner-most recesses of his soul in affidavits, and with the aid of the Federal inspector, who will supervise his books and papers and business secrets, he may be made to be good, according the notions of virtue at the moment prevailing in Washington.”

To paraphrase Parkinson ’s Law, “Government spending always rises to exceed revenues.”

So what happens when Progressives tax?  They tax us into poverty.

AND

Spend us into insolvency.

Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion. He is the Historian of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2015 Contact Dr. Owens drrobertowens@hotmail.com Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens

What is Christmas? December 22, 2014

Posted by Dr. Robert Owens in Uncategorized.
Tags: , , , , ,
1 comment so far

Yoko Ono and John Lennon, a Buddhist and a who-knows-what Maharishi chasing pop singer who said the “Beatles are bigger than Jesus,” wrote a Christmas song.  It’s a classic.  We hear it every year.  If you really listen to the lyrics it is about a world where everyone gets along, there is no fear, and “war is over, if you want it, war is over now.”  Everyone thinks the title to this much beloved and much played song is “So This Is Christmas.”  Those are really just the first words and part of the refrain.   The title is actually “Happy Christmas (war Is Over),” so it should surprise no one that it wasn’t written as a Christmas song. Instead it was written as an anti-Vietnam War song disguised as a Christmas song. Yet, it’s a classic.  We hear it every year.

This brings me to the question, “What is Christmas”?  I believe it is such a personal thing it can truly only be answered as “What is Christmas to me”?

Is it an arbitrary date instituted by the Roman Emperor Constantine (he was the first Christian Roman Emperor).  The first recorded date of Christmas being celebrated on December 25th was in 336AD during the reign of Constantine.  In 350 AD Pope Julius I declared December 25 the official date and in 529 AD Emperor Justinian declared Christmas a civic holiday.

There is no Biblical evidence to support the date.  Bible History tells us, “Celebrations of Jesus’ Nativity are not mentioned in the Gospels or Acts; the date is not given, not even the time of year. The biblical reference to shepherds tending their flocks at night when they hear the news of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:8) might suggest the spring lambing season; in the cold month of December, on the other hand, sheep might well have been corralled.”

We know it isn’t just a date.  So what is Christmas?

Is it a baptized celebration of the winter solstice? Is it a cultural holiday to celebrate love and family?  Is it all about Frosty and Rudolph and George Bailey?  No, I don’t believe that this is the answer to the question “What is Christmas?” and I know it isn’t the answer to the question, “What is Christmas to me”?

What is Christmas?

Culturally Christmas is more than the sum of all its parts.  It is the public declaration that we are a Christian culture founded upon faith in His declaration, “I am” when he was asked “Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?”  It is a public declaration that we as a people dedicate ourselves to living as Christ taught us we should no matter how imperfectly we do so.

What is Christmas to me?

It is a time to celebrate the love that Christ has birthed in my heart for friends and family.  It is a time to cherish the traditions which have become Holy through usage and dear through memory.  Above all it is a time to affirm in my heart that Jesus is the only name under heaven by which men must be saved and that Jesus is my personal Lord and Savior.

Christmas is a time to give gifts in memory of the greatest gift of all: Christ the friend of sinners given to a world that did not know Him when He arrived, does not honor Him now, and will not be prepared when He comes again.

The greatest gift I could ever give I give to you. The Bible is the unadulterated Word of God and it does not leave us any doubt about how to be saved.  In the Bible is something called by many the Romans Road.  I followed it years ago, and it changed me forever and gave me a new life.  I pray that it will do the same thing for you.

The Romans Road lays out the plan of salvation through a series of Bible verses from the book of Romans . When arranged in order, these verses form an easy, systematic way of explaining the message of salvation. There are many different versions of Romans Road with slight variations in Scriptures, but the basic message and method is the same. Many evangelical missionaries, evangelists, and lay people memorize and use Romans Road when sharing the good news.

Romans Road Clearly Defines:

  1. Who needs
  2. Why we need salvation.
  3. How God provides salvation.
  4. How we receive salvation.
  5. The results of salvation.

Romans Road to Salvation

Everyone needs salvation because we have all sinned.
Romans 3:10-12, and 23
As the Scriptures say, “No one is righteous—not even one. No one is truly wise; no one is seeking God. All have turned away; all have become useless. No one does good, not a single one.” … For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God’s glorious standard. (NLT)

The price (or consequence) of sin is death.
Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord. (NLT)

Jesus Christ died for our sins. He paid the price for our death.
Romans 5:8
But God showed his great love for us by sending Christ to die for us while we were still sinners. (NLT)

We receive salvation and eternal life through faith in Jesus Christ.
Romans 10:9-10, and 13
If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is by believing in your heart that you are made right with God, and it is by confessing with your mouth that you are saved … For “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” (NLT)

Salvation through Jesus Christ brings us into a relationship of peace with God.
Romans 5:1
Therefore, since we have been made right in God’s sight by faith, we have peace with God because of what Jesus Christ our Lord has done for us. (NLT)

Romans 8:1
So now there is no condemnation for those who belong to Christ Jesus. (NLT)

Romans 8:38-39
And I am convinced that nothing can ever separate us from God’s love. Neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither our fears for today nor our worries about tomorrow—not even the powers of hell can separate us from God’s love. No power in the sky above or in the earth below—indeed, nothing in all creation will ever be able to separate us from the love of God that is revealed in Christ Jesus our Lord. (NLT)

Responding to Romans Road

If you believe Romans Road leads to the path of truth, you can respond by receiving God’s free gift of salvation today. Here’s how to take a personal journey down Romans Road:

  • Admit you are a sinner.
  • Understand, that as a sinner, you deserve death.
  • Believe Jesus Christ died on the cross to save you from sin and death.
  • Repent by turning from your old life of sin to a new life in Christ.
  • Receive, through faith in Jesus Christ, his free gift of salvation.

So this is Christmas: The birth of Jesus Christ the Son of God, God Himself clothed in flesh, the incarnate creator of the universe here to open the way for his creation to be reunited with Him. This makes possible our new birth as a child of God.  It’s open to all.  It’s free.  It is yours for the taking, and you can unwrap this present any day of any year.

Merry Christmas.

Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion. He is the Historian of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2014 Contact Dr. Owens drrobertowens@hotmail.com Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens

Merry Xmas and a Happy New America December 19, 2014

Posted by Dr. Robert Owens in Uncategorized.
4 comments

In December of 1914 in the first bitter winter of a long bitter war the solders of the German Empire and the soldiers of the British Empire defied the orders of their officers. They abandoned their hastily dug entrenchments that would soon grow into an elaborate maze of trenches stretching from Switzerland to the English Channel to meet each other in no man’s land. They sang hymns and exchanged gifts in a spontaneous outpouring of the feelings of peace, fellowship, and forgiveness which were then the staples of a Christ centered Christmas season.

If you drench yourself in the torrent of Christmas movies that bombard us from Thanksgiving till December 25th you see that the spirit of Christmas in emotional America isn’t about the Christ child who came into a lost world to die as a payment for sin and to rise again to bring new life in harmony with God. It is instead about the sentimental ideal of love and the boy gets the girl or is it the girl gets the boy? Who knows sometimes they throw in a curve that really builds the suspense. There are movies about Santa Clause, his sons, his daughters; his elves and wingless angels all of whom help people learn the true meaning of Christmas which is never about Christ and always about family and friends and being nice people.

In commercial America Christmas is about Black Friday and discounts so deep they remind me of the street vendor in Mexico who follows you shouting “I’ll give you 110% off if you buy two!” The Chia Pets come out along with snuggies, pet rocks, and every other doodad imaginable to buy for people who already have too much.

The mountains of presents which obscenely bury Christmas trees in so many American homes are ripped apart by sugar-high children. Children who get into a frenzy of getting so intense they never have time to appreciate what they get. All they want is to get something else. The beautiful wrapping paper, the miles of ribbon, and the forests of bows are stuffed unceremoniously into big green garbage bags on their way to landfills.

So this is Christmas, and what have we done? Another year over, and a new one just begun.

In the still sweet morning of December 26 people start preparing for the next blast of holiday cheer, Happy New Year!!!

What will 2015 bring?

Whether the illusion of sequestration strangles us as we plunge over the so-called fiscal cliff or not it will bring us a New America. An America cast in the image of our newly re-elected Community-Organizer-in-Chief. This representative of the Saul Alinsky wing of the Progressive movement, this made man from the Chicago political Outfit won a second term. Whether it was through the voter fraud no one seems willing to mention or through the actual votes of those who bought into the Uncle Sugar myth and vote for Santa Clause, the man from Hawaii who says he’s from Chicago and who won’t tell us much of anything else, is poised to create the Age of Obama, or America in his own image.

In the New America more people qualify for disability than get jobs, more people get food stamps than start businesses, and more people forget that America was founded to provide individual liberty, personal freedom and economic opportunity and embrace America as a cradle-to-grave welfare state. People forget that when you limit failure you also limit success. They don’t understand that when you create a safety net so complete it becomes a hammock many people figure why work when you can play.

Incentive is stifled by entitlements, and innovation is strangled by regulation.

In our New America:

  • Taxes will go up and up as spending goes up even faster.
  • Regulations will pour out of the bureaucracy to fill in all the blanks in thousand page laws no one ever reads.
  • Our President will continue to bow before despots and our foreign policy will continue to support radical Islam in the Mideast.
  • No one will ever be held accountable for Fast and Furious, Benghazi, or any of the other scandals which will erupt from the pustule of corruption that is Inside the Beltway.
  • The burgeoning energy industry that has the potential to lift America out of its economic tailspin will be throttled as the coal industry, the fracking boom, and oil shale are all regulated to death.
  • We will pour billions down the green energy rat hole building industries that cannot produce enough energy to exist without government support.
  • Obamacare will destroy the insurance industry and eventually a single payer system will consign the rest of us to standing in lines in converted gymnasiums for impersonal care while our leaders take limousines and private jets to the Mayo Clinic all on our dime.
  • Industry will continue to flow out as foreign made goods flow in as more imbalanced trade agreements are called free.
  • We will be monitored by drones, wire taps, and computers as Big Brother extends his grasp till freedom becomes just another name for nothing left to lose.

This may be the New America that awaits us in 2015. Our families, friends, and neighbors have voted for it, and we all get to live in it: oh happy days are here again. The second coming of FDR has put food stamps in every pot and a Volt in every garage.

In our New America Christ has been purged from Christmas and sappy sentimentality has replaced the joy of being born again in a relationship with God our loving Father. So as you prepare to celebrate the New Year be sure and thank any of the millions of Obamazombies who get their opinions from the Corporations Once Known as the Mainstream Media, and who actually believe the economy is recovering and glory in America being knocked off its high horse for the New America we are all unwrapping under the Xmas Tree this year.

Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion. He is the Historian of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2014 Robert R. Owens drrobertowens@hotmail.com Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens

Why Social Security Hurts Society and Isn’t Secure December 11, 2014

Posted by Dr. Robert Owens in Uncategorized.
add a comment

The concept of a social safety net is well accepted throughout the Western World.  The idea that some provision should be made for those who through no fault of their own are unable to provide for themselves first appeared as a state policy in Germany in the 19th century as the Iron Chancellor, Bismarck, sought to coopt the popular appeal of socialism and strengthen the newly founded German Imperial state.  The idea struck a chord in the hearts of most people in Europe and in the hearts of its descendants around the world.

In days gone by the family, the parish church and the local community had filled this need.  However, with the growth of cities and the near total separation of these urban populations from the land, it became necessary for the wider community to accept this responsibility.

It was inevitable that since some sort of agency or bureau was needed to supervise the distribution of such aid this public apparatus would follow the trajectory of all bureaucracy: growth.  Mission creep would inevitably set in as the bureaucrats would seek to build their kingdom.  Services would increase so that the servicers would increase and one layer would insulate another.  From providing the bare necessities to those who through no fault of their own could not do so we have reached a stage where the modern ideal of fairness intersects and we have the self-selected indigent demanding a living wage for doing nothing.

This amounts to those who make provision for themselves being forced to make provision for those who don’t.  This must necessarily be so because the only way such a system to exist for any length of time is for it to become compulsory upon all to contribute for the benefit of some.  This then brings into play the economic truth that whatever you subsidize you get more of and viola the welfare rolls keep growing as the benefits keep increasing.

One of the tricks used to sell this scam to an unwitting nation was the use of the word insurance.  Everyone was familiar with the concept of insurance: pay a premium and expect coverage if the event insured against occurs.  The government called it Social Security Insurance and it seemed so reasonable.  The problem is the money has always gone directly into the general fund.  Therefore it was spent today with no provision for tomorrow.  Combine that with yearly deficit spending and the inevitable growth of the national debt and the money coming in has no relationship to the money going out.

It is a Ponzi scheme pure and simple and it always has been.  FDR and his Brain Trust social engineers knew that from the start.  The problem with a Ponzi scheme is that eventually the music stops and there are never enough chairs.  The most successful Ponzi scheme we know of was with Bernie Madof. It eventually came crashing down, and it was a pittance compared to the tenuous superstructure we have built up with Social Security.

In 2013 Social Security ran a $71 billion deficit.  This means there have been four years of consecutive cash-flow deficits, which means that the inflow is less than the outflow. According to the 2014 annual report from the programs’ trustees, the combined 75-year unfunded obligation of the Social Security and Disability Insurance Trust Funds (referred to collectively as the OASDI Trust Fund) is $13.4 trillion. That is a $1.1 trillion increase from last year’s unfunded obligation of $12.3 trillion, and this is without calculating the tens of millions more who will enter the system under President Obama’s amnesty decree.

Does anyone really believe we are ever going to make that whole?  Are we ever going to take enough out of other portions of our budget to fund these obligations?  If we don’t eventually someone will have to pay the piper.  If it isn’t us it will be our children or their children on and on until it crashes against the reality that the cupboard is bare.

This so-called insurance meant from the beginning not merely compulsory insurance it also meant compulsory membership in a unitary system controlled and enforced by the state.  The main reason such a centralized system is widely accepted as necessary was the administration convenience and the economy of scale that alone could make provision for everyone at once.  This is nothing except a government monopoly.  Not a closed monopoly where no one can compete against the 800 pound gorilla, but an open monopoly where everyone is forced to participate even if they make provisions for themselves and never take recourse to the guaranteed payout.

Even though competition is possible the accepted principle that all sheltered monopolies become inefficient over time applies here.  Just because the pyramid hasn’t collapsed yet does not mean that Social security earns the praise it garners as a successful program.  As the saying which typifies government inefficiency goes, it still equates to having the DMV run your retirement plan.

How has a system that was sold to the American public as a means to relieve the abject poverty of a few morphed into a tool for wealth distribution?  How has the once vigilant American public been convinced in not only the efficiency but the necessity of a program which is little more than a new way of packaging the discarded aims of Socialism?  It was done incrementally.

It reminds me of the story about the two pastors who meant at a conference.  Pastor A was approached by Pastor B who had once been the pastor at A’s current church, but he had been thrown out because he tried to move the piano from the right side of the platform to the left.

Pastor B: Hi, I heard you have moved the piano from the right side of the platform to the left side and that the people love you there.  When I tried it they threw me out faster than the Holy Spirit can say Jesus.  How did you do it?

Pastor A: One inch every six months.

What won’t be accepted today will be accepted ten years from now if we move there slowly.  This is classic Alinsky, and is straight out of his Rules for Radicals.

Whereas the people of the West fought for fifty years to resist the smothering embrace of Communism we have allowed ourselves to accept it by degrees under other names until what we have is in many ways indistinguishable from what they tried to make us accept.  The practice of the welfare state’s attempt to bring about a just distribution for everyone who has reached a certain age by distributing incomes in such proportions and amounts as it sees fit is merely another method under a new name of achieving Marx’s long promised goal, “From each according to his ability to each according to their need.”

It is of paramount importance that we understand the difference in a situation where a society decides to prevent the utter destitution of a few and a situation in which the state assumes the right to determine the just portion everyone must pay and the just portion everyone receives with state sponsored coercion to back it all up.  Individual freedom, personal liberty, and economic opportunity are profoundly threatened when the state is given the exclusive power to provide certain services.

This system was designed in the 1930s.  It has been tweaked and massaged several times since then however it is in essence a 1930s construct.  Whenever someone suggests finding a new way to provide for any or all of the needs now associated with the Social Security System we are greeted with visions of heartless robber barons throwing grandma off a cliff.  However it is eminently reasonable that when the best available solution based on the best available knowledge is frozen in place it becomes the most efficient way to prevent any new knowledge ever being applied to the problem.

When our desire to provide out of the public treasury for those in need is combined with a system for compelling everyone to make provision against being in need we have in effect created a third system.  This is a system under which people in certain circumstances such as old age or disability are provided for without consideration of whether or not they are able to take care of themselves or not.  Under this system everyone is provided with the standard of which the government has deiced they should have.  With no means testing we have the specter of people who make $100,000 per year receiving pensions forcefully taken from contributions from people who make $15,000 per year.

With the current average life span and the caps on the amount of income eligible for taxation almost everyone who lives long enough to collect collects more than they ever pay in.  How is that supposed to work?

Since most people want to earn what they receive and do not want a hand-out the reality of the SS Ponzi scheme has been wrapped in enough insurance type language to fill a phone book.  This has become an effort through concealment to persuade the public to accept what is in reality an income redistribution plan.  This was instituted and has evolved from an acceptable half-measure designed to induce hard-working people to accept what they haven’t earned and yet think it is fair, because they have paid in.  No matter that they routinely receive far more than they ever pay in.

One last aspect of this corrupt bargain that transfers the wealth from future generations to the present is that the SS administration uses some of the funds gained through compulsory deductions to employ publicity agencies to convince the majority of payees that the system needs to constantly expand.  Some of the money is also spent to lobby Congress for this constant expansion.  This amounts to nothing less than a group of self-interested executives allowed public funds to agitate for a larger organization to administer which means even bigger budgets for publicity and lobbying.  It is a self-perpetuating pyramid scheme that uses the money of the victims to gain authority over ever larger portions of the victim’s income and lives.

This superstructure has been built over generations by the elected representatives of the people and the bureaucrats they employ.  However, I believe it is doubtful if Americans would have turned their backs on the work ethic which made us great and embraced spreading the wealth around as a tool for social engineering.  If they had fully known where they were headed and what the end result would be: a centrally planned collectivist entitlement machine hurtling towards a fiscal cliff, they would have rebelled.

When we add this all up we find that the scales are now weighted against individual liberty, personal freedom, and economic opportunity.  In the end after every deduction and every benefit Social Security hurts society and it isn’t secure.

Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion. He is the Historian of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2014 Contact Dr. Owens drrobertowens@hotmail.com Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens

Why We Need a Third Party December 4, 2014

Posted by Dr. Robert Owens in Politics, Politiocal Philosophy.
Tags: , , , , ,
4 comments

It has happened just as foretold. The Progressive Republicans joined with their Democrat fellow-travelers and once again sold our inheritance for a bowl of promises. In 2010 we voted for an end to the out of control spending and what did we get? 3.5 trillion steps closer to the abyss.

Fast forward to 2014 and we did it again. We sent Washington a loud wake-up call that out here in fly-over country we are tired of this slow motion slide into collectivism. And what is the first thing our shiny new majorities do? Re-elect the same tired old progressive leadership that has compromised its way from debt to debt and legislation to regulation. Does anyone think for a moment this crowd of Democrat lite that call themselves Republicans are going to do anything to stop the emperor who has no clothes?

Does anyone think they will use their power of the purse to reign in the President Obama from doing things he himself said he couldn’t do because he wasn’t an emperor? Does anyone think they will do anything to bring out the truth about the IRS or Benghazi? They may play politics with investigations and hearings but at the end of the day the administration will not be called to account for turning the light out on America’s time in the sun.

It’s time to admit that when you fall off a cliff it doesn’t matter much if you were pushed or if you walked. The fall might not be so bad but that sudden stop at the end isn’t so good.

Maybe it’s just me but I’m tired of the same old same old in our politics.  The big-box monopoly parties have morphed into two sides of the same coin.  Today we choose between the Conservative Progressives’ policies of tax and spend, infringe personal liberty, and outsource our sovereignty or the Liberal Progressives’ policies of tax and spend, infringe personal liberty, and outsource our sovereignty.  We’ve been caught on the horns of a dilemma trying to choose between Tweedledee and Tweedledum, and since we don’t want to throw our vote away we must vote for one of the big boys after which the campaign promises dissolve and we’re hung out to dry.

As a voter I’ve had my Damascus Road Experience. The scales have fallen from my eyes. I’ve reached the point where I would rather vote for someone who might actually try finding another way to operate our government besides taxing like the Sun King and spending like a drunken sailor whose credit card limit is constantly raised and who can print his own money.

It’s time to stop talking. It’s time to take action. The Founders of our nation dedicated their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to birth our state and this noble experiment. It’s time for us to do the same. This nation was conceived as a representative republic designed to operate on democratic principles. For over 100 years the Progressives have worked to transform the land of the free and the home of the brave into a People’s Democratic Republic. What’s the difference? The difference between a Democracy and a People’s Democracy is “the difference between a jacket and a straight jacket.”

How did we arrive at the current situation?

James Madison our fourth president and the chief architect of the U.S. Constitution said, “There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.”  We didn’t get here all in one jump.  First the camel said, “Can I just stick my nose in your tent to stay warm?” and finally the generous man found himself out in the cold as the camel settled down for a nice warm nap, one inch at a time.

The compassion of our people built a safety net for those who needed help and the greed of the lazy turned it into a hammock.  America, the Land of the Free is being transformed into an America that is dedicated to the unsustainable achievement of, from each according to their abilities to each according to their need. When you rob Peter to pay Paul eventually Peter changes his name to Paul and the house of cards tumbles down.

The willingness to share our heritage led America to welcome more immigrants each year than the rest of the world combined, and the abuse of our generosity turned into a migration invasion that threatens to overwhelm us and destroy the future of our children.  Taxes imposed to meet the ever-swelling demands of government have turned into a blatant, wealth re-distribution program that makes most pyramid schemes look fair. It’s as if our predatory government looks at a productive citizen as merely a source of residual income.  Or as the ads promise, our Progressive leaders lay on the beach of self-importance and our checks just keep pouring in.  We’re no longer respected as Citizens.  Instead, we’re coveted as consumers or human capital.

It’s time for action.

We as citizens who love our country must to break the logjam caused by an imperial presidency, an abdicating legislature, an activist court, a suffocating bureaucracy, and the strangulation of regulation. The constant growth of government destroys freedom for “as government expands liberty contracts.”

It’s time to actively work for America’s acceptance of a different way.

And what might this Different way be?

Something radical, something that almost strains the bounds of the imagination, something that would immediately unleash the bent-up energy of a free people: a return to constitutionally limited government!

But how do we get there from here? We need to build a new party to win the reins of government from the two-headed bird of prey which has assumed perpetual power through perpetual re-election. What we need now are citizens willing to sacrifice their repose and enter the arena. We need non-professionals to clean up the mess and right the ship of state.

What we don’t need is one more election where the Conservative Progressives replace the Liberal Conservatives because as Albert Einstein said, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

We need a new party. We must work to unite the Tea Party Movement with the many splinter parties which hold the same basic values. We must reclaim our liberty from the professional politicians and professional radicals who have manipulated the system to achieve unlimited power which they use to spend us into insolvency, tax us into poverty, and regulate us into serfdom.

This new party must siphon off all the conservatives who are members of the twin party out of habit or family tradition. This new party must rise fast and work hard. It must capture the center and the right declaring boldly that it will defend what America stands for but not necessarily all that stands for America. The time has come to fight for the right before we are swallowed by the wrong.

Winston Churchill said, “If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival.  There may be a worse case.  You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”

We can’t let divisions divide us or they will bury us. United we stand, divided we fall. None of us can do this alone but together we can. Keep the faith. Keep the peace. We shall overcome.

Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion. He is the Historian of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2014 Contact Dr. Owens drrobertowens@hotmail.com Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens

 

What‘s Next? November 26, 2014

Posted by Dr. Robert Owens in Politics.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

Now that BHO has decreed that deportations will cease and work permits and other privileges of legal immigration will be granted to those who chose to enter our country illegally what’s next?

In less time than it takes to say “Fundamentally transform America” the chorus of usual suspects, Charles Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and their fellow travelers will start saying “It isn’t fair for all these people to pay taxes and not receive the full benefits of Obamacare, and the rest of the social hammock. Then along comes voting. Of course thanks to President Clinton and his motor voter law if our newly legalized guests can drive they can vote already.

Here’s the plan: inundate Texas and Florida with imported voters and turn the electoral map blue for at least a generation. By then we will have a nanny-state bureaucratic yoke firmly in place on the neck of anyone crazy enough to continue producing anything that can be expropriated. Tax and spend will be refined into TAX and SPEND on steroids as what was once the land of the free and the home of the brave careens into the third world.

This reminds me of the people who will flee red tape strangulation and try to blend into their new found haven by demanding all the government services that were the catalyst of their previous State’s meltdown. As we discard our freedom for the shabby paternalistic embrace of a fuzzy warm Progressive dystopia our newly legalized guests will feel right at home. Our once super-successful nation will be that many steps closer to the failed states they have left.

For a long time the best practical advice I could give anyone asking how to succeed in America has been learn Spanish and get a government job. That may soon be progressed to change your name to Juan del Pueblo and get in line. Uncle Sugar is about to raise your standard of living for free while he charges John Doe to lower his.

Now don’t get me wrong I am in no way saying that the vast majority of Hispanic people are not hard working family people who want to better their lives. I love Hispanic culture and find español para ser un lenguaje muy hermoso, or Spanish is a beautiful language. However, there right ways to do things and wrong ways to do things. For those who have come here legally, welcome. For those who chose to come here anyway, not so much. It is the difference between inviting someone to dinner and how you feel about meeting their needs and making sure they are comfortable and how you would feel about someone who broke into your house sit themselves down at your dinner table and demanded to be served. As a matter of fact they want you to take the food off your own children’s plates and give it to them. That’s a big difference.

Just look at the imperial decree. It lists strictures on who this applies to and who it doesn’t apply to. If the Emperor has decreed that you must have been here for X number of years to qualify how many years do you think everyone will say they have been here? Since they were in the shadows, who knows, obviously we don’t.

Here’s a question that always bothers me, “If in order to gain citizenship you have to pass a written test on American History in English, why does anyone need a Spanish ballot?” Yet Spanish ballots are issued in all 50 states. Of course this is just like asking, “If you need a phot ID to get into the Democratic National Convention what is wrong with asking for a photo ID to vote?” If you ask either of these questions the Corporations Once Known as the Mainstream Media brand you as a racist and marginalize you as a denizen of the radical right-wing fringe.

Was BHO’s imperial decree unconstitutional? Everyone knows it is. Are his examples of other President’s executive orders relating to immigration fait comparisons? Everyone knows they aren’t. Will anything meaningful be done by the loyal opposition? No. They are too loyal to the Progressive big-government tax and spend agenda of the twin-headed bird of prey which is our degraded two-party system.

So what happens next? Anything BHO wants. Our system of constitutionally limited government has run aground on the rock of a bureaucratically dominated collectivist self-aggrandizing central government supported by an oligarchy of perpetually re-elected hacks and their crony capitalist friends. The descendants of the colonists the great grandchildren of the Founders and Framers have become the vassals of an egomaniacal narcissist and a gang of two-bit jesters riding on donkeys and elephants in a parade to the ash heap of History.

Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion. He is the Historian of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2014 Contact Dr. Owens drrobertowens@hotmail.com Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 489 other followers

%d bloggers like this: