You’re hearing the proponents of never-ending war

You’re hearing the proponents of never-ending war, like McCain and Graham and these 37 frauds that claim to be conservatives that signed this letter that I read to you that they sent to House Republican leaders, said don’t you dare withdraw funding for our important mission, our American values-based mission in Libya. You’d better not do it. Here, “Conservatives Warn House Republicans.” These people are not conservatives. And if they are, well, then, you can count me out. That means that I’m not a conservative because they’re not trying to conserve anything.

But anyways, here, think about this. Here’s the point. You’re hearing these people saying, why, the public opinion polls are turning against the war now. Vast swaths of the American electorate are turning against the war. The public is diametrically opposed to the bombing of Libya. The public is diametrically opposed to bombing Yemen back into the Stone Ages, from conducting any more affairs or operations in Somalia or any place else, for that matter. Syria, you name it. And the public now is by a majority diametrically opposed to the continued occupation of Afghanistan.

Now, what does that mean? Well, if you listen to Lindsey Graham, and you listen to John McCain, and you listen to the rest of the DeceptiCons, that doesn’t mean anything. That means that the republic is a bunch of misinformed louts. “Why, these are people that don’t know what the hell – we know what’s good for you. Hah, screw ‘em, screw ‘em. You don’t know what’s good for you. I know what’s good for you. Screw ‘em. Screw you. We’re going to stay over there forever. If we say we’re gonna – we’re smarter than you. We’re politicians. We’re senators. We’re congressmen.” Oh, yeah? Think about this. And I have Lindsey Grahamnesty on this very subject. Here, play the digital media file here.

[Clip] Lindsey Graham: What the President does tonight, if he takes the political track of trying to basically play to the polls, then I think he will put our nation at risk at a time when we’re beginning to show success.

Rolling my eyes: “We’re beginning to show success.” Success as measured by whom? If he starts paying attention to the polls, if he starts doing this for political reasons, well, ladies and gentlemen, there is a reason why the power to declare war and the power of the purse which has to fund the war is vested in the House of Representin’, because the House of Representin’ was at the time the people’s house. This is where you sent your representative to go decide the great questions of the day, as it applied to the then-nascent union. Declaring war would have been one of those great questions. And if you chose wrongly, or if you chose war when the people wanted peace, well, then, you’d get unelected. And they’d send new people there that would upend what you had done and would bring an end to these wars. That’s why we weren’t engaged in any of these excursions. We weren’t engaged in any of these things until Teddy Roosevelt forced us into them in the Spanish-American War. That’s a different show for a different day.

But folks, the point is, is that the reason why the framers of the Constitution left this power in the hands of the representatives is because they wanted to leave it in the hands of the American sheeple. They wanted to provide a mechanism that would prevent presidents, tyrants, and rogue nut job senators like McCain and Graham from ramming war down our throats. They wanted to provide an out. They wanted to provide a check against it. So these people that are saying, why, you can’t read the polls on this, why, you can’t pay attention to the people, you’re missing the entire point, and you’re missing the entire point of why the Constitution and why our federal system was set up the way it was.

Remember, the Constitution was sold on the basis that it would discharge a very few, very limited set of things, very limited set of powers was it to discharge. And security, providing for the common defense, as the Preamble calls it, was one of them. But still, as Joe Pesci says in that famous clip that we have from “With Honors,” the people don’t trust the President, so they vest this power in the House. Why? Specifically so the House of Representin’ does have to take a poll. They do have to respond to their constituents. Have you ever wondered why there is a difference between the electoral terms? Have you ever wondered why there’s a difference between the term of a United States Senator and the term of a member of the House of Representin’? Has that ever posed a question to you?

You know what the explanation is; right?

No, okay. Well, this is talked about in the Federal Convention. The explanation is, is that the members of Congress need to be returned back from whence they came to go answer for what they have done, for what the federal government has done. So that if they got off track, they could be unelected. They could be kicked out of office, and someone new could be sent there to go correct the problem. The reason the Senate was chosen the way it was is because they were supposed to be the steady hand, the august body. And remember, ladies and gentlemen, under this system, the senators must be chosen by the state legislatures, remember that? Seventeenth Amendment changed all that, unfortunately. And now the senators are just long-term members of the House of Representin’. That’s all they are.

But the Senate was set up to be the august body that would provide clarity. It would be of the – the Senate was supposed to be comprised and composed of the wisest men of the era, those that had studied, those that were statesmen, those that were not kneejerk, and they didn’t have to be kneejerk. And the reason that they wanted the Senate to be like this is because they wanted the Senate to be a further check. They wanted United States senators in most instances to say no. To say no. This is why, if you study the debates on the Fourteenth Amendment, which is the greatest debate that was held on an amendment, you’ll find out that almost all of the important stuff that was ever said about the Fourteenth Amendment was said in the Senate.

And so my point is, and it’s a long way to get around to it, but I love talking about history, the point is, is that when the people are saying no more war, you people in the House of Representin’ better pay attention because we will elect people that are going to go there and are going to end this war. Whether you do it right now or whether we have to elect someone in 2012 to end this madness, we will do it.

Restoring Republicanism as the Proper Form of American Governance

go to ImaginativeConservative.org

There you will find Brad Birzer’s review of Mike Churches new movie "The Spirit of 76",  but it’s also a lot about the country. It’s a lot about the people. And as Birzer points out, the term “republic” comes from the Greek “res publica.” And that was Greek for that which is good. This is why the Greeks organized republics, because they thought they were good. We think that they’re good. We don’t have a republic anymore. And Birzer was recounting, and I found this amazing, being the history buff that I am. that as early as 1805, there were Mike Churches in 1805. Her name was Mercy Otis Warren. Yeah, I know. Go ahead and laugh.
Mercy Otis Warren was an early historian of the early country, of the early republic. And 1805, a mere 30 years, or 29 years after the American Revolution commenced in earnest, she was already seeing the beginning signs of the decay of the republic, the decay of republicanism. And she resolved, and Birzer quotes her here, to go ahead and write down what it was that the struggle for independence meant, what it was that drove and inspired the men that instigated it, that fought for it, that executed it, that stood by it, that pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to it and what have you. She did all these things. And she wrote them down, and it’s a history of the American Revolution, I believe is what – I think you can get it at Google Books. It’s probably in print, too. Mercy Otis Warren.

And what Birzer was recounting is that we have tried every remedy – and I just thought this was just so poignant and so relevant to today’s discussion. The people in this country have tried every remedy. We have bought every snake oil remedy there is out there. We bought porkulus. We bought stimulus. We bought tax cuts. We bought new presidents. We bought new congresses. We bought new policies. We created agencies. Why, we managed the air, we managed the land, we managed the sea, we managed everything. We regulated banks. We regulated stocks. We did this. We traded with the world. We entered world leagues. Hell, we fought the entire world. We fought terrorism. We did all these things, and we’re still continuing to do all these things. We managed our crops. We paid people to not grow crops. We ruined free trade in our own hemisphere. We tried that. We’ve tried everything. We’ve subsidized industries.
We’ve tried everything except – and this is Brad Birzer’s brilliant, salient point here. We have tried everything to fix our current malaise except republicanism. That gift, that glowing, burning, beautiful gift that those men called the Founders left us. We tried everything except that. That’s the only thing that is left on the damn table unused. That’s criminal. And there are some of us that see that as our escape hatch, as our way out of this. And there are some of us that recognize that it is not the best laid plans of men that lead to success, that lead to prosperity, that lead to happiness.



He also points out that, back in the Founders’ day, happiness was not to be found in an iTunes download. Happiness was not to be found in just abject economic prosperity. Happiness was not to be found at the end of a rainbow filled with gold coins. Happiness was being free. Happiness was having the liberty to govern yourselves. Happiness was having the liberty to move about the countryside without having to show ze papers. Happiness was knowing and was resting comfortable that you had finally established a government that was going to protect and safeguard your liberties, protect the value of your earnings through hard money, gold and silver coins. Happiness was being able to go to your town hall, your church, and debate amongst your friends and your peers and determine the answers to the great questions of that day. Not have them settled for you by nine bandits in black robes. That’s what they thought happiness was. None of this crap that we think it is.



So we’ve tried everything, Brad points out, except what the Founders left us. “Your probably asking why should we do what the fuddy-duddy idiot slave owners in the 17th, 18th centuries did, you idiot?” Well, dropping the slave-owning part, I would say that they were far more successful than Obama has been. I would say they are far more successful than any president in the modern era has been. Yes, that includes Ronald Reagan. I would say that a return to at least those ideals and at least those principles has to yield better results than Obama’s council of economic advisors, which is now poised to leave all of us high and frickin’ dry.

Why, there was going to be a new era, a new green energy economy we’re all going to prosper under so mightily. And the men and the women that designed this nightmare and engaged in it and forced us through the compulsion of government to participate in it, now that it hasn’t worked, now that it’s an unmitigated, inarguable disaster visited upon the good people of these states, now, what are they doing? They’re running for cover back in their universities. They’re running for cover. They get to go back and cash in. Do you get to cash in? What are we left with?
Thanks, Austan Goolsbee. Thanks, Christina Romer. Thanks, Lars Summers. Thanks, Peter Orszborg, Orszag. They’re all gone. They’re all making millions and millions of dollars – gee, I wonder how that happened – back in the “private sector.” But it’s really not the private sector any longer. They did just fine. What they did to us didn’t hurt them one iota. As a matter of fact, they benefited it from it mightily. Boy, talk about serving your country. Hah. How about serving yourself?

Just What You Needed: Higher Taxes

So, do you people out there really believe that its the republicans and the conservatives that want to kill grandma and take her medicare away and make her eat cat food???
Then read this, and keep in mind that barack obama is president and that his mandates are dictating financial policies...


While you hear a lot about the federal income tax, you don't hear much about the Social Security tax. That's odd because for many folks especially the self-employed Social Security tax can be the bigger hit. Here are some little-known truths about how the Social Security tax works and how much it can amount to.

As an employee, your wages are hit with the 12.4% Social Security tax up to the annual wage ceiling. Half the Social Security tax bill (equal to 6.2%) is withheld from your paychecks. The other half is paid by your employer. Unless you understand how the tax works and closely examine your pay stubs, you may be blissfully unaware of how much the Social Security tax actually costs.

The Social Security tax wage ceiling for both 2010 and 2011 is $106,800. If you made that much or more last year, the Social Security tax hit on your 2010 wages was a whopping $13,243 (12.4% x $106,800). Half came out of your paycheck. Your employer paid the other half.

For 2011, the tax hit is less, thanks to a one-year 2 percentage-point reduction in the Social Security tax withholding rate on wages -- from the normal 6.2% to 4.2% (your employer's 6.2% rate is unchanged). For 2012 and beyond, however, Social Security tax withholding on your wages will jump back to the standard 6.2% rate.

While many employees may not realize the magnitude of the Social Security tax, self-employed folks know it all too well. That's because the self-employed must pay the entire 12.4% tax rate out of their own pockets, based on the amount of their net self-employment income. This is one big reason why companies often prefer to treat workers as self-employed independent contractors rather than employees. Companies don't owe any Social Security tax on amounts paid to independent contractors.

For both 2010 and 2011, the Social Security tax self-employment income ceiling is $106,800 (same as the wage ceiling for employees). So if your 2010 self-employment income was $106,800 or more, you paid the Social Security tax maximum of $13,243 last year (12.4% x $106,800 = $13,243).

In 2011, the hit will be less thanks to a one-year 2 percentage-point reduction in the Social Security tax rate on self-employment income -- from the normal 12.4% to 10.4%. For 2012 and beyond, however, the Social Security tax on self-employment income is scheduled to return to the standard 12.4% rate.

To give you an idea of how the Social Security tax can add up over your working life, consider my personal situation. In 35 years behind the grindstone (about half as an employee and the other half self-employed), I've paid $219,000 in Social Security tax. My employers paid another $41,000. That amounts to $260,000 in total. During my time as a self-employed guy, I've had some years where my Social Tax bill exceeded my combined federal and state income tax bills.

Believe me, if I could get the $260,000 back, stop paying the tax, and forego receiving any benefits, I would do it in a heartbeat. In fact, if I could just stop paying the tax in exchange for walking away from any future benefits, I would do that too. Why? Because I have big doubts I will actually receive the promised level of benefits when the time comes.

And thanks to the government's official contention that there has been little to no inflation over the past few years, the Social Security tax ceiling has been stuck at $106,800 since 2009. However, the latest Social Security Administration projection says it will start rising again in 2012 and beyond. The projected ceilings for the next nine years are as follows.

If these numbers pan out, the maximum Social Security tax hit in 2020 would be $19,009 (12.4% x $153,300). That's assuming Congress doesn't increase the tax rate, which could easily happen. There's also a chance the ceiling will be increased beyond what you see here or even entirely removed in an attempt to put the system on a sounder financial footing. If there's no ceiling, you would owe Social Security tax on wages and self-employment income on every dollar you earn.

Another misunderstanding about Social Security: Some people think the government has set up an account with their name on it to hold the money to pay for their future Social Security benefits. After all, that must be where all the Social Security taxes on people's wages and self-employment income go, right? Wrong. There are no individual accounts. In fact, when the Social Security system runs a surplus (which it has in most years until now), the federal government sucks out the excess cash and issues the system an IOU. But the only way those IOUs will ever be paid is through future taxes. Meanwhile, the system is now projected to run out of money (including those nebulous IOUs) in 2036 unless taxes are raised or benefits are cut.

Notice that no one is even speaking about this in the main stream media...lets worry about giving billions to the rest of the world, or lets give billions in subsidies to illegals then to do whats right and take care of our own...





by Bill Bischoff
Friday, May 27, 2011

Is the Sun Setting on America?

Everything is not about economics. I know we’re taught to believe that everything has something to do with economics. Things don’t matter unless they have something to do with economics. Everything must pass through the economic lens. We view everything through the economic lens. We’re taught to view everything through the economic lens. We’re reared, we’re bred to view things through the economic lens. But not all things are economic. And Russell Kirk, one of the few conservatives in the last century that understood this – I think Ronald Reagan at some level understood this, too. And Kirk wrote this:

“Men read and write only because they are convinced that certain great subjects are worth reading and writing about. Four great themes, it seems to me, have been the inspiration of most important imaginative literature from the dawn of Greek civilization down to our age. The first of these is religion: the description of the relation between divine nature and human nature, as in Hesiod and Dante and Milton. The second is heroism: the nobility of strong and earnest men, as in Homer or Virgil or Mallory. The third is love: the devotion beyond mere appetite, as in classical legend or medieval romance. The fourth is the intricacy of character and class, ranging all the way from Chaucer to Conrad.

“Now, a society which has lost its religious convictions and its society denies itself the first theme. A society which denies the right to greatness and to distinctions among men deprives itself of the second theme.” We’re two for two so far, folks. “A society which takes love for no more than the carnal appetite cannot attach real significance even to the novel of adultery.” Three for three now. And finally, “A society which looks upon men as mere production and consumption units of interchangeable value cannot understand the subtle shadings of personality and rank of a different sort of age.” That’s four for four. “The springs of the imagination thus are dried up. For a time, satire can exist by pointing out the decay of faith and heroism and love and variety; but when even the memory of these themes fade, then satire, too, comes to an end. Then boredom triumphs in life and art.”

Spot on. That is just spot on. Could not be more spot on. And the interesting thing here is, what do you do about it? I mean, the interesting question is what do you do about it? How are you going to fix that? You have teachers that don’t even know who Dante is. Who in the hell reads Dante? Here, here’s a good question for the average reader out there. And I don’t mean to vilify; I don’t mean to impugn. Simply demonstrating – and maybe I’m selling you guys short because you guys are smart......

Finish the title of the work: “Dante’s blank.” And how many stages were there? Can you answer that question, well can you???





We got “Inferno.” But I’m not sure of the stages.....Right???

Hmm. Hmm. I’m not even sure that I’ve read some of it. The point is we don’t read these classics anymore. We’re immune. Why, we read John Grisham and Stephen King now. They're our heroes. And they all deal in adulterated rubbish. It’s all rubbish. We’re obsessed with the decay of great men, like Johnny Cash. We don’t want to hear about how good Johnny Cash was. We want to hear about him popping pills. We don’t want to hear about how great any artist was or any man was. We want to know the dirty underbelly. We want to know who he was screwing on the side. We want to know about his adulterous, illicit affairs. We’re not allowed to have heroes anymore, is the point. A hero is an adulterer who admits it. That’s a hero.

Maybe this is why many people turn and see men like Navy Seals as modern-day heroes.


Like Ilana Mercer was saying the other day, if you’re a big, manly kind of man, and you have all those virtues that once made men great, but there’s no market for those things anymore, you know, we ostracize manly men in society.





There’s not a man on television that knows how to screw in a light bulb these days. We have to have women do it. You watch a television show, the biggest, most badass cops on that Chicago police show, what is the name of that, the one with...

Yeah, yeah, “Chicago Code.” Yeah, Jennifer Beals is the hero.

Do you guys love that show??? Of course you guys do...

Well, sure, you got a chick hero. Watch “CSI,” the women are heroes. They're running the damn show. We’re not allowed to have male heroes. We’ve so feminized our society, Gal Qaeda has brainwashed everyone. Everyone’s equal. We don’t need women in the – women have expanded beyond doing this and that and the other. And women don’t – man, you’ve just taken one of the most beautiful things in human existence, which is the female form, and the feminine spirit, the mothering, maternal instinct, you’ve just taken it, you’ve just pooped on it. You want women to go out there and kill people? Really? Oh, God. Seriously? Where’s the goodness? Where’s the goodness. Where is the good nurturing, the motherly part? Where does that come in? “We don’t need that. We have government programs, you idiot.”

Do you not see the point? In this incessant suicidal drive to make everyone numerically equal, everyone equal in all things, you destroy the beauty that made them different. People don’t – you know what, there are not enough men and women on TV and radio and in print that say things like I just said and I was inspired to say by reading Birzer’s essay, posted at the Imaginative Conservative website. Not enough. Doesn’t happen enough.

You know one of the things that really pisses me off, ladies and gentlemen? And ladies, don’t take this wrong. It pisses me off, it angers me for what I think are all the right reasons. When I hear politicians and talking heads, dunderheads, droning on about our brave men and women in uniform. Pardon me, call me old-fashioned, I don’t care, I don’t want brave women in uniform. I don’t think that there are – I happen to believe that there are certain things I don’t want for my daughters, and picking up a rifle and having them go fight a war is one of them. Being enlisted and wearing a uniform is one other. Now, some of you are, “Chris, Chris, they have every....” Well, look, there is a role. But it’s not being the brave man or woman. It’s being the brave woman because men don`t count anymore.....

Obama Finally Visits U.S.-Mexico Border

The president is leading the progressive charge in forcing environmental conscientiousness upon the masses. He has made it his presidential mission to implement "green energy" and "clean jobs" into the American economy, market signals be damned. Obama believes that the accomplishment of such a wildly noble, unquestioningly beneficial goal must be solely the duty of the federal government, but if he were to examine past governmental efforts to intervene in environmental affairs, he might notice that those experiments did far more harm than good. President Obama laid out his plan for (amnesty) comprehensive immigration reform today in El Paso, Texas, saying (illegal immigrants make good democrat voters) immigrants are the way to expand the middle class, make America more competitive on a global level and said immigration reform is an economic imperative, which it is considering illegal immigration costs Arizona and California over $12 billion per year.

The President did what was expected by lumping all immigrants together and failed to distinguish the difference between the two, in fact, Obama went out of his way to make sure Americans believed their was no difference as he referenced immigrants from different countries coming to America and seeing Lady Liberty.


It was a reminder of a simple idea, as old as America itself.
E pluribus, unum. Out of many, one.
We define ourselves as a nation of immigrants - a nation that welcomes those willing to embrace America's precepts. That's why millions of people, ancestors to most of us, braved hardship and great risk to come here - so they could be free to work and worship and live their lives in peace. The Asian immigrants who made their way to California's Angel Island. The Germans and Scandinavians who settled across the Midwest. The waves of the Irish, Italian, Polish, Russian, and Jewish immigrants who leaned against the railing to catch that first glimpse of the Statue of Liberty.

President Obama said the fence was now "basically complete." This declaration is completely false. The fence along the southern border in total equals 670 miles. The entire southern border is 2000 miles long, which is nowhere near, "basically complete." On top of a meager border fence, the February 2011, Government Accountability Office report shows "1120 southwest border miles have not yet achieved operational control." Also, according to Sheriffs working and living on the U.S.-Mexico border, Obama's assertion that his administration has done it's part to enforce the border is laughable.


Well, over the past two years we have answered those concerns. Under Secretary Napolitano's leadership, we have strengthened border security beyond what many believed was possible. They wanted more agents on the border. Well, we now have more boots on the ground on the southwest border than at any time in our history. The Border Patrol has 20,000 agents more than twice as many as there were in 2004, a build up that began under President Bush and that we have continued.


They wanted a fence. Well, that fence is now basically complete.


So, we have gone above and beyond what was requested by the very Republicans who said they supported broader reform as long as we got serious about enforcement.

Obama took credit for confiscating 64 percent more weapons than ever before. Well, that's what happens when the federal government sends thousands of guns into Mexico in the first place through Operation Fast and Furious under the Obama Justice Department and ATF, of course it becomes easier to confiscate more guns when you put more into an area to begin with.

Obama also called again for the passing of the DREAM Act which failed in the Senate during the previous lame duck session. As a refresher, the DREAM Act if passed would allow children of illegal immigrants to gain citizenship if they go to college or join the military. Or as Obama put it, "Stop punishing children for their parents' mistakes."

Obama asked both sides to avoid playing politics with the issue in order to get to the next election, which was ironic considering the odds of completing immigration reform in the short time remaining during his first term are slim, making his speech today look solely like a political move.


That's one reason it's been so difficult to reform our broken immigration system. When an issue is this complex and raises such strong feelings, it's easier for politicians to defer the problem until after the next election. And there's always a next election. So we've seen a lot blame and politics and ugly rhetoric. We've seen good faith efforts - from leaders of both parties - fall prey to the usual Washington games.


On another note, Obama asked the audience if he needed to build a moat on the border to make republicans happy. There is already a moat on the border Mr. President, it's called the Rio Grande. This was the first visit by Obama to the U.S.-Mexico border despite being invited numerous times by local officials in border states to do so.

Unemployment is Up. Worse News: Economists Unaffected

There is an old saying that even a broken clock is right twice a day, well that phrase does NOT seem to apply to our mighty, central, economic planner overlords in Washington DC. We know this because they are always, shocked or surprised by the “unexpected rise” in first time unemployment benefit claims like they are today; as 474,000 souls trudged off to the unemployment line last week in defiance of Obama and company’s best laid plans.







So, I keep wondering when the economic and social engineers in Mordor on the Potomac are going to create a better economist? With all of their magical powers it would seem to me that Congress, the Commerce Department and the White House should be able to conjure up stable, predictable, job growth every week, alas, our Wizards of Work seem to be able to do only one thing consistently: spend Other People’s Money.

I am also kept wondering when will the beauty of simple economics as a fix dawn on the American shoeple? Here is a simple, 4 step plan to grow the economy:

1.Stop printing more money and start recalling what you have printed
2.Stop hiring federal workers and start firing most of those you have hired
3.Stop running health care systems and start repealing health care acts (all of them)
4.End all our wars, invasions and occupations and bring the army home to honorable discharges.
The only problem with my plan is it WILL create massive unemployment…. for economists.





A special shout out to my friend Mike Church...

No More Statism

Not surprisingly, liberals are calling for tax hikes on the rich as their way to pay for the ever-burgeoning costs of the welfare-warfare state.

Conservatives pretend to oppose tax hikes. Their preferred method of funding the welfare-warfare state is through the Federal Reserve, whose job is to provide the money and credit needed to fund excess federal spending without the need to raise income taxes.

That's what passes for philosophical debate between liberals and conservatives. The fight isn't over the legitimacy of the welfare-warfare state way of life. They both agree on that. The fight is over how to fund it (and, of course, which side gets to run it).

The controversy perfectly reflects how different we libertarians are from statists. We libertarians don't argue over whether the welfare-warfare state should be funded by income taxation or inflation. Our position is: Immediately repeal all welfare-state programs (beginning with the crown jewels of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid), repeal all interventionist and regulatory programs (beginning with the drug war), and dismantle the U.S. government's military empire, close the bases, and discharge the troops into the private sector.

Oh, and abolish the IRS and the income tax, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid taxes, and the Federal Reserve.

In other words, leave people free to accumulate unlimited amounts of wealth, leave people free to do whatever they want with their own money, leave people free to make whatever choices they want in life so long as their conduct is peaceful, and depend on a well-armed, self-trained citizen soldiery that would be ready to voluntarily come to the defense of our country in the extremely unlikely event of an invasion.

With major exceptions like slavery and tariffs and many minor exceptions, the libertarian position was the position of America’s Founding Fathers. They abhorred the statist philosophy that has now held our nation in its grip for many decades.

With the exception of President Lincoln’s unconstitutional imposition of an income tax to fund his war against the seceding states, the United States had no income taxation or IRS from the nation’s founding in 1787 to the early part of the 20th century. Americans were free to keep everything they earned.

When the federal government didn’t tax income, lots of poor people became wealthy. Even more entered the ranks of the middle class.

For most of that entire time, there was no central bank, paper money, or legal-tender laws. (Again, Lincoln’s tenure was a big exception.) Americans used gold and silver coins as their official money, which is what the Constitution required. When government was unable to debase the currency, the result was the greatest buildup of productive capital that people had ever seen.

The massive buildup of capital, in turn, made workers more productive. More productivity meant higher revenues. Higher revenues brought higher wages for the workers.

For the first time in history, masses of poor people were breaking free of the chains of poverty, which is precisely why thousands of penniless immigrants were fleeing the European and Asian lands of statism to come to a land of no welfare-warfare state. (Did I mention that America had no immigration controls during most of that period as well?)

Our American ancestors also detested militarism, standing armies, conscription, and empires. After all, they had rebelled against an empire, together with the ever-burgeoning taxes, debt, and inflation needed to fund it. Many of them had immigrated to America to escape conscription and perpetual war.

Charity was entirely voluntary for more than 100 years. By and large, Americans were a religious people. The thought of using the power of Caesar to interfere with the exercise of God’s great gift of free will was anathema to our ancestors. People had the moral right to decide what to do with their own money, they firmly believed. That’s what freedom of choice is all about. They would never have tolerated mandatory government-enforced “charity” in the form of such things as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, grants, and subsidies.

Today, the federal government is mired in ever-increasing spending, debt, taxes, and inflation. How can that surprise anyone? Americans have abandoned the founding principles of their nation in favor of the statism from which our American ancestors rebelled or fled.

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, subsidies, grants, income taxation, IRS, the drug war, the DEA, the Federal Reserve, a thousand foreign military bases, the CIA, the NSA, the TSA, occupations of foreign countries, undeclared wars of aggression, standby conscription, kidnapping, torture, Gitmo, secret prison camps, invasions of privacy, unreasonable searches and seizures, torture, and assassination.

It’s all part and parcel of the statism that now afflicts our land. That’s the root of America’s economic and social woes. There is only one way to restore freedom, peace, prosperity, and harmony to our land, and it lies not in figuring out how to fund the welfare-warfare state way of life. It lies in rejecting the welfare-warfare state way of life in favor of the libertarian principles that guided the founding of our nation — no income tax, no IRS, no Federal Reserve, no Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, or other welfare, no drug war, no militarism, no empire.

In other words, the key to our nation’s future well-being lies with no more statism.

Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.


by Jacob G. Hornberger