What Would Jefferson Do? Part Two

I am appalled at the current situation off the Somali coast. The U.S. Navy, the most powerful navy in the world, is by all accounts sitting on its collective ass and allowing a handful of CRIMINALS to dictate policy.

This is intolerable.

Is there not one man of courage and vision in the Administration or Pentagon who truly sees the situation?

Thomas Jefferson did when he was President. Rather than give in to the Barbary Pirates as every other nation had done, he sent in the Navy and the Marines, thus was born the a tradition of non-appeasement that we should damn well remember in these trying times. We should long remember the heroes from that war: First Lieutenant Stephen Decatur USN, and First Lieutenant Presley O'Bannon USMC.Each of whom has a current U.S. Navy ship named in their honor. It would be most fitting if the destroyer U.S.S. O'Bannon and the guided missile cruiser U.S.S. Decatur were sent to these troubled waters.

What Would Jefferson Do? Part One

April 13th marks the 266th anniversary of the birth of Thomas Jefferson, who was among many things, the third President of the United States, the author of the Declaration of Independence and one of the founders of the Democratic-Republican Party.

Today's modern Democratic Party celebrates Jefferson as one of their founders, therefore it is appropriate to examine the political philosophy of Jefferson and contrast it with the current policies and beliefs of today's Party.

Let us begin with Jefferson's thoughts regarding a central, national bank. Jefferson was a staunch anti-Federalist and strongly opposed the First Bank of the United States. Ironically, it was a Democrat, Woodrow Wilson, who gave us the Federal Reserve System which is in essence a central, national bank. It is not my intention to debate the issues surrounding the Fed and the current banking and credit situation, but to simply state Jefferson's position. A position shared by the other man celebrated as one of the founders of the modern Democratic Party, Andrew Jackson whose opposition to the Second Bank of the United States is legendary.

In Jefferson's own words we have, "The incorporation of a bank and the powers assumed [by legislation doing so] have not, in my opinion, been delegated to the United States by the Constitution. They are not among the powers specially enumerated."

Jefferson was also a champion of States' Rights. He believed that the federal government must not violate the rights of the states. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 (written secretly by Jefferson and Madison) proclaim these principles. These resolutions provided that the federal government had no right to exercise powers not specifically delegated to it (Strict Constructionism. Should the federal government assume such powers, its acts under them would be void. Thus, it was the right of the states to decide as to the constitutionality of such laws passed by Congress. Again, it is not my intent to debate the wisdom of these resolutions, whose principles would eventually lead to the "Nullification Crisis" during the terms of Jackson and later the Secession of South Carolina in 1861, but to demonstrate the principles Jefferson believed. In his own words, "I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people. [X Amendment] To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition."

Jefferson believed that Republicanism is the best form of government and representative democracy is needed to prevent the tyranny of the majority, and that, "democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." Can the same be said of the current Democratic Party?

[To be continued...]

Cap and Trade or Bait and Switch?

The Obama budget includes a provision for auctioning off "carbon pollution permits". This can only result in higher energy costs for all American consumers as the vast majority of our nation's electricity is derived from the combustion of fossil fuels. Most of the expected 646 billion dollars that is anticipated to be raised over the next ten years by this measure would be reflected in a $400 tax cut per individual or $800 per couple. The rest would be given to wind and solar power research. The pollution permits are part of a program termed "Cap and Trade".

Here's what's going to happen.

1. Coal and oil burning utilities will be forced to buy these permits to remain in operation.
2. The limited nature of the permits will result in speculation.
3. The cost to obtain a permit will be significant,
4. The utilities will pass the expense on to the consumers.
5. The "Tax Break" may or may not be sufficient for most Americans to cover the increased costs of electricity.
6. As energy prices grow the government will reap more revenue in the form of taxes on the energy sold.

The results: The government wins, speculators win, the energy companies may break even and the American taxpayers will suffer.

Never mind the fact that no one has demonstrated conclusively that "global warming" is the result of human industrial activity as opposed to a natural cycle occurring over thousands of years.

I guess it's just all part of change we can believe in.

(Don't take my word for it, check out the followinfg link http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/636.pdf )

No Wonder We're in Trouble

Last Wednesday I heard Glenn Beck mention that on a recent episode of Jeopardy! the three contestants were stumped by the following clue:

Category: NIGHTLY NEWS WORDS (for 1000)

A Marxist stage before communism, this is government control over the economy; I thought it meant friendliness.

The correct response: What is Socialism?

It's true, none of the contestants rang in. The episode aired Tuesday Feb 17, 2009. No wonder we've got trouble.

This is also one of the reasons I never watch the show anymore. If these contestants had been my opponents back when I was a two-day champ in March 2006, I'd still be on there today.

Where There's Smoke, There's Ire

In 1998 I awoke one morning and decided that I would stop smoking. I went out and purchased my first nicotine patches and my last pack of cigarettes. Over the course of the next 12 weeks I successively ended my use of cigarettes. That was 11 years ago and I have no desire to take up that habit again, although I do enjoy an occasional cigar whether it be on the golf course, sitting on my patio or at a cigar bar or similar establishment.

As a former cigarette smoker I was ecstatic when Marion county’s first smoking ban went into place. I liked the idea of being able to go into a restaurant of my choice and not have to breathe in cigarette smoke. Now upon further reflection, while still appreciative of the result of the ordinance, I have trouble reconciling it to my views on the role of government in a free market. Ideally, market forces would determine whether or not a particular restaurant or bar allows smoking.

So let’s talk about smoking bans and employee rights. If a person accepts a job at an establishment that allows smoking, such as a tavern, smoke shop or cigar bar, then that employee is accepting the risk that accompanies that job. In the case of smoke shops and cigar bars, there is an expectation that customers will be smoking in these establishments, after all that is the only reason these businesses exist, to sell tobacco products, allowing for their use on the premises is good business.

Do smoking and second-hand smoke pose serious health risks? Yes. There is ample evidence to support the connection between cancer, heart disease and a variety of other conditions. Will banning smoking in all enclosed public places prevent people from getting these diseases? No. Only a complete ban of the sale of tobacco products in the State of Indiana would have a truly significant effect on public health. However, it is doubtful that the State would be willing to forgo the tax revenues gained from their sale. Therefore, a simple smoking ban is in keeping with the lack of political courage that the legislature routinely exhibits. Until such time that the legislature is ready to take such a stand, they should let the market dictate policy.

Wanted - A Few Good Libertarians

The Libertarian Party of Marion County is in the process of expanding our grassroots organization. We are recruiting Libertarian minded men and women who think that the time for debate is over and that the time for action has come. As the new county Vice-Chairman, I am organizing a network of precinct, ward and township chairmen. These individuals will be responsible for attending neighborhood meetings and local business group meetings in your areas. Additionally, you will advise the Vice-Chairman of upcoming events (block parties, festivals and fairs) in your areas regarding the possibility of having a Libertarian presence there. You will also be responsible for explaining the basic tenets of Libertarianism to those wanting more information, and recruiting new members.

No experience is necessary, only a desire to see the local party grow and become a stronger presence in local politics.

A New Year, A New General Assembly, A New Congress, A New Administration

When I began this blog one of the first posts I wrote dealt with the dangers of citizen apathy. I began that post with the following poem:

First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew.

Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up, because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.

Variation on a poem attributed to Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)

Niemöller was a Protestant minister who, although an early supporter of National Socialism and Adolph Hitler, eventually became a strident opponent of Nazi policies. For his beliefs, he was imprisoned first in Sachsenhausen and then in Dachau concentration camps. In 1945 he was liberated by the American 5th Army. His poem is a lament on the inactivity of the German intellectuals, including himself, who did nothing to oppose the initial rise of the Nazi Party. It is a stark rebuke regarding the dangers of apathy.

This week will see the convening of the 111th US Congress and the 116th Indiana General Assembly. January 20th will mark the inauguration of President-Elect Obama.

Now is not the time for Indiana's citizens to assume that their civic duty ended at the ballot box. We elected these men and women. We must now hold them accountable to their words. We cannot assume that they will automatically fulfill the promises made on the campaign trail. We must hold them to every single pledge and position taken in the pursuit of their elected office. After all, this is the reason they were elected and the voters deserve to receive that which they paid for with their votes.

There are those that will argue that campaign rhetoric should not be taken seriously, that what is said in the heat of battle should have no bearing on policy, that this is the way the political game has always been played.

If politicians have no intention of following through on the promises and pledges they made to the voters of this state and this nation, then they are truely without honor. This includes every single position taken. If a legislative candidate put forth a plan which would increase the state income tax, even if only for a select group of Hoosier taxpayers, then it is that legislator's duty to follow through by introducing that legislation. If a legislator campaigned on a platform which included voting to keep the Property Tax caps from becoming part of the Constitution, then we should expect that when the vote comes up they will be true to their word.

These are extreme examples, meant to provoke thought, but the basic premise is sound.

As I stated earlier, we must hold our elected officials accountable. Our civic duty does not stop at the ballot box or the jury box. We must be vigilant. We must not be apathetic, and unlike Niemöller, we must speak up. Who will do so if we do not?