Dave's Positions on the Issues:
of the statements below are lengthy in order to be complete. However, if you just read the first 10 or 15 lines, you
will have read the main points.
Thanks for your interest, Dave
1. The Constitution
Dave’s Core principle
3. Debt, Taxes, and Spending
4. 911 and the War on Terror
How Oil, War, 911, and the Dollar are Tied
Independence and Sovereignty
7. Restitution and Compensation
8. Health Care
9. Employee Unions
States’ Rights (Federalism)
13. Privacy and Personal Liberty
14. Separation of Church and State
and Border Security
Private property and Eminent Domain
19. Gun Ownership
Social Programs; Welfare and Culture
and Hate Laws
22. Drug war
Traits of Capitalism and Corporations
Origins of 2008 Crash and Effect of Bailouts
Occupational and Business Licenses
Limits on Terms and Benefits for Congress
'Earmark' Pork Funding
29. Nullification of Federal Laws by States
30. Secession by States from the USA
Constitutional Amendments: a. Referendum,
b. Balanced Budget
of Life Choices
For information on other issues,
please contact me at RedickD@aol.com. I appreciate your interest.
A. Recommended Authors, Books,
B. Older Books that Gave Warning
C. Authors and 'Info and Articles' Websites
information on other issues, please contact Dave@Forward-USA.org. We appreciate your interest.
1. The Constitution:
We have observed many examples of people (including some
in government who should know better) treating the Constitution as a set of laws and rules that control citizens. Wrong! The
purpose of the Constitution is to decree what the government must, may, and may not do, by making it a short list of
'enumerated powers'. Congress (the Legislature) makes the laws! That's one of the reasons the 18th amendment
(alcohol prohibition) was wrong, it put restrictions on the people. The same applies to a proposed amendment for abortion.
Such issues should be passed as laws at the state level, or not at all (if unconstitutional, or none of the government’s
business, as is true of most things). It is the job of us citizens, and our elected 'leaders', to maintain those limits
and keep the government (at ALL levels) on a short leash. The intent was, 'if it is not on the list, the government can't
do it!' Many Founders, led by George Mason, balked even at this restraint. They didn't trust the government (and
its power-seeking elected members) to stay within the limits, so they wouldn't support ratification until a 'Bill
of Rights' (the first ten amendments) to protect the rights of the people and States was included. They were right!
The Constitution has been abused to gain power for Federal politicians and their friends. Today, more than half of laws and
spending are unconstitutional. Abuse of the 'implied powers', 'general welfare', and 'interstate commerce'
provisions account for most deviations. A further misunderstanding is that we are a Democracy. Wrong. In a Democracy the
citizens vote directly to make laws, and tyranny of the majority soon rules. We
are a Constitutional Republic, where we vote for Representatives who in turn are restricted by the Constitution. A 'short leash' is required on government power at all
levels (city, county, state, federal) because we grant them 'police powers' (legal use of force by police and military)
which is easily abused. The current 'War on Terror' and 'Patriot Act' are good examples of abuse.
2. Dave’s Core Principle: Most
elected officials take positions based on their feelings, personal preferences, and pressure from the special interest groups
who give them campaign donations or votes. All of my positions are based on an objective principle,
which is: "The proper role of government
is to PROTECT the personal and property rights of its citizens, as INDIVIDUALS, from violation or threat, by use of force
or fraud, by OTHERS." With this approach, government ownership and control is minimized,
and human interaction is more peaceful and voluntary (it pays to get along!), and has a proven track record of producing
more liberty, peace, prosperity, morality, and justice, proportional
to the extent it is employed. If so, why do people support 'more-government' systems
known as Progressive, Liberal, or Socialist? The key is they hope to fund their projects with 'other
people's money' by 'tax the rich' schemes. While
popular (most people like to have others pay for their benefits), these systems use inherently immoral and coercive
'gang theft by vote' taxation, which results in declining peace, productivity, and justice, if you count all
the side-effects (including robbing 'the
rich' by forced payment of their so-called 'fair share'). Liberals-Progressives purposely ignore that
the top 10 percent of income earners pay about 70 percent of all
federal income taxes though they earn only 43 percent of all income. Isn’t that enough?? The bottom 50 percent pay only
2 percent of income taxes but earn 13 percent of total income. About half of tax filers paid no federal income tax at all.
Note it is ‘dollars’ that count, not ‘percentages’! A society that broadly accepts this type of immoral
funding is in decline, as shown by falling morality in all parts of US activity since the 1950s. Sad! Key points to understanding and using
my Core Principle are: a) Our
Federal and State governments were created by, and are still controlled by, 'we the people' to protect our rights
(a short list of 'natural rights' you are born with, which does not include subsidized or free health care, education,
etc.). Thus, the government is our servant,
not our owner, manager, funder, or nanny. To implement this protection (enforce the laws), we grant the
government 'police powers' (the right to use force), and thus we need to be ever on guard to avoid abuse, including
use of laws beyond their intended purpose (RICO, FISA, etc.). For individuals, the flip side of this is; "A person should
never initiate force except in self-defense", or "
Persons can do whatever they want to, short of violating the equal rights of others". In a personal
(not legal) context, I suggest that each person has a moral obligation to be a beneficial presence in the world,
and not offensive to others. This starts with being honest, kind, courteous and clean. Personal rights are freedom of religion,
speech, etc. Some of these are listed in the Constitution, but in fact all are 'natural' at birth, and not bestowed
by the government (which can only protect or abuse them; not create, except for contrived 'legislated' rights). Our
Founders debated if any should be listed (to avoid exclusion of some not listed), hence they included Amendment IX. Note that
only a human individual has personal rights. Notice
that 1. Words like ‘manage our money, social system, and economy’, ‘mother’, and ‘police the
world’ are not included in the Principle, and 2. We are not ‘created equal’ as to mind, body and circumstances,
but all citizens have equal rights under the law. Property
includes tangibles, and intellectual property owned by a person or legal organization (corporation, etc.). Except for government
restrictions (often unconstitutional), a property right is; " The right to use and dispose of your property (use,
sell, loan, lease, give, etc.) however you see fit, short of violating the equal rights of others."Property rights need to be treated as superior to personal rights in order to avoid conflicts. For example,
if you enter someone’s property without permission (trespassing) and start to give a sermon, your freedom of speech and
religion are not being violated if you are made to leave. b)
The government needs police, courts, and military for national DEFENSE to do its job, all used within the limits
of the Constitution. But note that the military must not be used to enforce or solve political or economic issues abroad,
when there is no threat to our homeland (such as the Vietnam, Iraq, Afghan and Libyan wars). c)
There are no group rights (by sex, race, age, etc.). Every citizen has the same rights. We should not create 'preferred
minorities' with special privileges, which are easily abused. There should be no subjective versions of laws,
such as a 'Hate Crimes'. Theft is theft, murder, is murder. d)
Nothing can be a right if you expect someone else to pay for even part of it (such as health, education, etc.). Insurance
is a method to share risks and expenses, but must be voluntary, or if run as a 'single payer' by the government, have
equal benefits to all, based on terms and payments, and not include a 'welfare' aspect where some members pay less
for the same coverage. For example, using property tax to pay for public schools is a rip-off of owners since there is no
connection to whether the payer has kids in school (but it is convenient politically!). e) Your body is your property. If you
hurt yourself, or put yourself at risk, it is none of the government's business. Note that the Core principle above ends
in 'by others'. f) The same principle of 'protection' applies to the
property rights of business and other legal entities. g) As with people, the government has
no authorization to be the 'owner, manager,
funder, or nanny' of the 'national economy'. Free enterprise does a great job of supplying goods
and services, while government interference (controls, subsidies, etc.) always do more harm than good, if all the side-effects
(including inflation and depressions) are counted. h) Provision of 'essential services'
conflicts with the principle of only 'protecting rights', and is a constant threat to limiting the size of government
at all levels (city, county, state, and federal). This is where the federal 'General Welfare' clause is most abused.
While most should be 'privatized', to the extent these projects (such as education, sewer, water, roads, public health,
parks, mass transit, etc.) are unfortunately approved, they should at least be;
1. Charged to users at compensatory rates (user fees, tuition, no subsidies). Again, voluntary private charity can help the
truly needy. 2. Built and operated by contractors
on a competitive-bid basis. . The main reason the Federal government has become huge, and involved in running or financing
so many unconstitutional state and city projects, is that unlike the States and cities,
it never runs out of money, thanks to the Federal Reserve piggy-bank of fake money! i)
The above Core Principle refers to 'violation
or threat by OTHERS'. The government only has a role to act when such violations or threats are
imposed on someone, and they have no choice to avoid it. For example, non-smokers can avoid privately-owned places that allow
smoking (bars, etc; just don't go there!), so it would be a violation of the owner's property rights to impose a non-smoking
ordinance, but not City Hall (there is only one, and there are times when you are required to go there; no choice), or other
government sites. However, while it is improper to use the legal system to impose your personal preferences on others (smoking,
religion, zoning, etc.), there is the viable alternative of 'voluntary negotiation.' This means you (or
a group you form) approach the bar owners, or your neighbors, and try to make a deal that serves your wants and needs. Bar
owners want customers; maybe they will create a non-smoking room. This applies to any situation. It is peaceful and proper,
and no 'tyranny of the majority' is employed. j) The government cannot do things that
are illegal or immoral if done by citizens. Sadly, unethical practices (which should be illegal) such as 'progressive'
taxation ('tax the rich' at a higher rate) are justified as 'needed' and a method of charging 'fair share',
while in fact it is simply 'gang-theft-by-vote'. Why not have the government rob banks, or give guns to the Red Cross
and United Way, for fund raising? This violation of rights is 'tyranny of the majority' and cannot be justified because
it is 'the will of the people', 'the American way', and done by the government. There are many other examples
(military draft, subsidies, legislative favors, etc.). The maze of 'social engineering'
laws that tell us how to live and work do much more harm than good when all the side effects (unintended consequences) are
considered. My approach emphasizes liberty, personal responsibility, and limited government, which is consistent
with our American heritage and Constitution, and history shows it results in maximum liberty, peace, prosperity, ethics, and
justice.Look at the
conditions in countries around the world with ‘big government’ (Progressive, Socialism, or Dictatorships) and
judge for yourself. Start with N. Korea, Cuba, and the several '.xxstans' (former Soviet Republics).
Taxes and Spending: These demons of government abuse all tie together! One needs, or feeds, the other. The citizens lose. See
my ‘Save the USA’ plan at 'Dave's Writings' in part 8 of the left margin of the Home page, for more
details. A. Debt: Domestic
and foreign debts are at record levels, for both persons and businesses. With a ‘national’ (or ‘public’)
debt of over $19 trillion at the end of FY 2016, the U.S. government is the world’s biggest debtor (and this doesn't
count the over $100 trillions of unfunded Social Security and Medicare obligations). Former Chairman Greenspan of the
Federal Reserve Bank (Fed) kept interest rates artificially low (not market-driven) from 2000 to 2006 so mortgages were cheap,
to ‘stimulate’ the economy. It is just like taking heroin, and has withdrawal pains when the economy gets ‘sick’
from mal-investment (too much money chasing deals). People and business borrowed and spent too much of this cheap money, and
then the Fed changed policy, so in 2008 we got; 1. A credit 'crunch' (banks have less money to loan), and
2. Increased interest rates that drove-up ARM (adjustable rate) mortgages. This is what caused foreclosures as home 'owners'
couldn’t meet their increased payments. Alan Greenspan (Fed Chm. from 1987 to 2006) knew he was creating this monster,
but did it to keep his job by pleasing his political bosses. I say he should be indicted for malfeasance and fraud! Instead,
he is treated like a sage by his accomplices in Congress and Think Tanks. Ben Bernanke (Fed Chm. from 2006 to present) has
used ‘Quantitative Easing’ (Fed-speak for flooding the economy with new money) called QE-1, 2, and 3-Forever as
a ‘stimulus’, but as any Austrian economist would predict, it isn’t working! The
money we send abroad to buy imports comes back to buy government debt
or U.S. assets (Treasury Notes, T-Bills, golf courses, part of Morgan-Stanley, etc.), but that can’t go on forever.
The US Dollar (USD) is at risk of collapse due to excess creation of new money by the Fed (called ‘monetary
inflation’, an increase in the money supply, like a balloon; which reduces the purchasing power of all USD). B. Taxes: Taxes divert money to the government so people and firms can’t
use it to spend or invest. History shows that the government uses it unwisely, so the economy and standard of living suffer.
We must reduce taxes and spending of all types, and abolish most taxes. I say start by cutting tax rates by 50%
or more (the Laffer Curve says revenues might drop less). I recommend ‘user fees’ (school tuition, toll
roads, some ‘public services’, etc.) whenever feasible, and a 'sales' tax (Not a ‘Value Added Tax,
VAT, which hides the layers involved) to replace the ‘Big Six’ of income (personal and corporate), property, interest,
capital gains, and inheritance taxes. All of these six taxes amount to a ‘penalty on success’ and targeted gang-theft,
plus a double-tax for inheritance. The sales tax is non-intrusive to personal affairs, less 'progressive' (zero or
less ‘penalty on success’; except that big spenders pay more), has no disincentive to work and earn, and
is easy to manage. Again, Liberals-Progressives like to tax ‘the rich’ to make them pay their ‘fair share’,
but purposely ignore that the top 10 percent of income earners pay
about 70 percent of all federal income taxes though they earn only 43 percent of all income. Isn’t that enough?? C. Spending The U.S. economy and dollar are in trouble, and while our DC 'Leaders' are
very worried about it, but won't admit it to us regular folks. They start wars to gain control of oil and other nations
instead. Federal spending is out of control.
All the elected folks in DC are on a 'feel-good', 'vote-for-me' binge of unconstitutional and excess projects
including wars, empire building, pork-barrel earmarks, and projects that should be handled by States, or eliminated. I say;
'Cut spending by at least 50%, or more.
and the War on Terror ; The facts and logic (means and
motive) related to the 911 tragedy build a strong case that it was planned by USA and Israeli leaders to create justification
for the forever ‘War on Terror’ and our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq (for starters). Never forget that; 1) by the Government report, 15 of
the 19 bombers who planned and executed (were in the planes) 911 were Saudis, and 2) A group of Saudi Royals were allowed
to fly out of the US on Sep. 12 even though there was a stop on all flights. Why
didn't we invade Saudi Arabia and do a 'regime change' on the despotic royal family? (Hint: We already had a good
oil deal with them). The Saudi Royals,
old family friends of the Bushes, are hated by their people, and have paid-off their dominant Wahhabi clerics (a militant
sect of Islam and operators of radical anti-American/Christian/Jew mosques and Madrasah schools worldwide; these are the guys
who like to lash women because they have been raped) with oil money over the years to avoid a revolution. Ignoring Saudi Arabia is your first clue that Bush and his
team had a hidden agenda for the War on Terror!
Many well informed, well educated, and sincere people have concluded that the government at least 'facilitated' the 911 attack as a 'trigger' for their plans to invade
Iraq and expand 'Empire-USA'. Israeli and DC both wanted an excuse to invade Iraq and Iran. How else does one explain
the series of events such as; 1) FBI inputs on pilot training by Arabs were ignored, 2) NORAD planes were not launched, 3) The
towers and building 7 fell straight down at free-fall speed (this can only happen by controlled demolition !), plus the towers
were a ‘tube’ design with large vertical exterior I-beams as the main structure. These beams were cut (severed!)
at each floor as the towers fell; HOW??, 4) A demolition company was at the tower site the next morning to haul away debris
to a restricted site, then ship it overseas for scrap. (this prevented analysis of how the tower exterior I-beams were
cut, and was a massive violation of the crime scene), and 5) the debris and damage at the Pentagon were more consistent
with a missile than an airliner crash. The list of suspicious events goes on and on. A further dimension is that the WTC owner,
L. Silverstein, faced a huge expense in ridding the towers of asbestos, and had put a big insurance policy on the buildings
(with an extra-cost terrorist clause) a few months before 911. For more info, see www.scholarsfor911truth.org, and Dr. Paul Craig Roberts Sep-2011 article: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=26520. The case is not closed!! The 'official'
911 report is full of errors, bias, poor research, and voids. Calling the citizen investigators 'kooks'
working on 'conspiracy theories' will not stop discovery of the truth. This contrived justification for the disastrous War on Terror must be exposed
so that the War can be stopped. If you find it hard to believe that our leaders would lie to
start a war, and allow our troops to be
killed and maimed for political and economic reasons (not for defense), then review my column 'Wars, and The Lies that Start Them' (published on Sep-2007) in Appendix 2 The Bush team of ‘neocons’ (former Liberals such
as Wolfowitz, Perle, Kristol, Abrams, and Feith who became ‘new conservatives’ to seek their personal
to Activistpost.com for sending on Nov. 9, 2014, this link by Joseph
Davis and Ryan Dawson; http://jdavismemphis.com/2012/05/31/who-really-did-911/. Another source is; http://www.bcrevolution.ca/911_photos_prove_hoax.html. Of course, don't assume I agree with every
For more information reference the article
"My Alma Mater is a Moral
Cesspool" on the Counterpunch.org website) took advantage of the atmosphere of crisis generated by 911 to create
the ‘War on Terror’ as a general-purpose, and forever, project to implement their plan to use force to gain control
of oil and politics worldwide. The result has been an immoral, illegal and counterproductive crusade. The documented information
below traces how Bush and his team got us into this mess and why it will be costly, or impossible, to correct it. All information
is verifiable from multiple sources.
purpose of Clinton’s Balkans war was; 1. To gain control of the Balkans region so we could build oil pipelines
through it, 2. Build huge Camp Bondsteel as a regional supply center and airbase, and 3. To evict China from Eastern
Europe and its oil, including the Caspian
area. Remember the ‘accidental’ bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade? Why was NATO involved when no NATO
member had been attacked? Bush’s
invasion and occupation of Afghanistan was primarily to get access to build an oil/gas pipeline from Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan to a warm water port near Karachi,
Pakistan (the same reason the Russians invaded in the 1980’s; Google 'Afghanistan, Unocal'). This project had
been delayed for many years but was suddenly approved in Dec-2001. On June 22, 2008, Eric Margolis, Mid East expert, and former Toronto Sun journalist (ericmargolis.com),
issued the article: ‘These wars are about Oil, not Democracy‘ which tied together the various
political, economic, and oil/gas issues as follows (excerpts): “PARIS -- The ugly truth behind the Iraq and
Afghanistan wars finally has emerged. Four major western oil companies, Exxon Mobil, Shell, BP and Total are about to sign
U.S.-brokered no-bid contracts to begin exploiting Iraq's oil fields. Saddam Hussein had kicked these firms out three
decades ago when he nationalized Iraq's oil industry. The U.S.-installed Baghdad regime is welcoming them back.
Iraq is getting back the same oil companies that used to exploit it when it was a British colony. As former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan recently admitted, the
Iraq war was all about oil. The invasion was about SUV's, not democracy. Afghanistan just signed a major deal to launch a long-planned, 1,680-km pipeline
project expected to cost $8 billion. If completed, the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline (TAPI) will export
gas and later oil from the Caspian basin
(Turkmenistan) to Pakistan's Arabian Sea coast where tankers will transport it to the West. The Caspian basin located under the Central Asian states of
Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakkstan, holds an estimated 300 trillion cubic feet of gas and 100-200 billion barrels of
oil. Securing the world's last remaining known energy El Dorado is a strategic priority for the western powers. But there are only two practical ways to get gas and oil out
of land-locked Central Asia to the sea: Through Iran, or through Afghanistan to Pakistan. Iran is taboo for Washington. That
leaves Pakistan, but to get there, the planned pipeline must cross western Afghanistan, including the cities of Herat and
Kandahar. PIPELINE DEAL: In 1998, the Afghan anti-Communist
movement Taliban and a western oil consortium led by the U.S. firm Unocal signed a major pipeline deal. Unocal lavished money
and attention on the Taliban, flew a senior delegation to Texas, and hired a minor Afghan official, Hamid Karzai. Enter Osama bin Laden. He advised the unworldly Taliban leaders
to reject the U.S. deal and got them to accept a better offer from an Argentine consortium. Washington was furious and, according
to some accounts, threatened the Taliban with war. In early 2001, six or seven months before 911, Washington made
the decision to invade Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban, and install a client regime that would build the energy pipelines.
But Washington still kept sending money to the Taliban until four months before 911 in an effort to keep it "on side"
for possible use in a war against China. The
911 attacks, about which the Taliban knew nothing, supplied the pretext to invade Afghanistan.
The initial U.S. operation had the legitimate objective of wiping out Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida. But
after its 300 members fled to Pakistan, the U.S. stayed on, built bases -- which just happened to be adjacent to the planned
pipeline route -- and installed former Unocal "consultant" Hamid Karzai as leader. Washington disguised its energy geopolitics by claiming the
Afghan occupation was to fight "Islamic terrorism," liberate women, build schools and promote democracy. Ironically,
the Soviets made exactly the same claims when they occupied Afghanistan from 1979-1989. The Iraq cover story was weapons of
mass destruction and democracy. Work will begin on the TAPI once Taliban forces are cleared from the pipeline route by U.S., Canadian and
NATO forces. As American analyst Kevin Phillips writes, the U.S. military and its allies have become an "energy protection
also gave us early warning with his March 2, 2003 article ‘Bush's
War is Not About Democracy’, which
said, in part: “Bush's war
is not about democracy, weapons of mass destruction, human rights, or terrorism. It has two main motivations. First, the Manifest
Destiny crowd in Washington, led by VP Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. The terrible events of 911 have
seemed to produce an almost psychotic reaction in these good, patriotic Americans, transforming them into 19th century imperialists.
is perfectly clear: 1) prevent any nation ever challenging U.S. global hegemony; 2) dominate oil. The aggression against Iraq
is not about oil per se, it is about control of oil. Before the Iraq crisis, the U.S. imported about $18 billion of crude
oil annually from the Mideast, but spent $31 billion keeping military forces there. Why? Control of Mideast oil gives the
U.S. domination over Europe and Japan, which draw most of their oil from the region. Domination of the Mideast and Caspian Sea oil will assure
the U.S. a permanent stranglehold over China and India, as well as Europe and Japan. The second driving force is Israel's far-right Likud government,
many of whose ideas have come to dominate Bush administration policy and U.S. media commentary on the Mideast. The Clinton administration was close to
Israel's moderate Labour Party; Bush's camp is totally aligned with Israel's aggressive far right and mirrors
its views and policies to a remarkable, unprecedented degree. Likud and its powerful American supporters want the U.S. to crush Iraq into pieces.
The principal beneficiary of the war against Iraq will be Israel. ADDED
BENEFIT: From Washington's viewpoint, the TAPI deal has the added benefit of scuttling another proposed pipeline project
that would have delivered Iranian gas and oil to Pakistan and India. India's
energy needs are expected to triple over the next decade. Delhi, which has its own designs on Afghanistan, is cock-a-hoop
over the new pipeline plan. Russia, by contrast, is grumpy, having hoped to monopolize Central Asian energy exports. Energy is more important than blood in our modern world. The
U.S. is a great power with massive energy needs. Domination of oil is a pillar of America's world power. Let's be
realistic. Afghanistan and Iraq are about oil, nothing else." Too
bad the US citizens and Congress didn’t pay more attention to Margolis’ prescient words. On May 13, 2009, Pepe Escobar wrote a fine piece tying together
all the pipeline activity and war-politics in the greater Mid east with his: ‘Pipeline-Istan: Everything You
Need to Know About Oil, Gas, Russia, China, Iran, Afghanistan and Obama’ (see www.alternet.org/story/139983). It shows how oil dominates all the major military and political activity there, including the USA
invasions and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This again confirms that the War on Terror is mostly a false-front to
justify invading and controlling greater Mid East countries (from the xxstans to N. Africa; Libya, Mali next?) to get their
oil. Iraq never threatened the US and Saddam
was not a cohort of Osama. As stated by former US Treasurer Paul O’Neill, Bush
and his team had been planning to invade Iraq well before 911. Bush
fired him for his lack of 'loyalty', as discussed in O’neill's book 'The Price of Loyalty'.
For further insight on Iraq, visit the ‘A War in Search of a Reason’ column by Ivan Eland. Thus, they started building a case for preemptive war by fabricating phony reasons such as WMDs
and branded Iraq as a part of 911.In
his ‘Letter to the American People’ in Nov-2002 (see guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver), Osama bin Laden stated that his reasons for opposing the USA
were; 1) US bases in Saudi Arabia, 2) extreme US support of
Israel, 3) bombing of Iraq for ten years, since 1991, and 4) support of the corrupt Saudi royal family and sale of oil at
low prices, denominated only in US dollars (Petrodollars, a deal made by FDR in 1945, and Nixon in 1973). Here is the Sept. 28, 2001 interview in which bin Laden states his was not involved
with the 911 attack; ummatpublication.com/2012/11/25/ ). As shown in the Margolis quote starting on P. 50 above, Osama was
our ‘friend’ until in 1999 he helped Argentina get the pipeline deal through Afghanistan, so became our enemy!
By early 2011 we had decided to invade Afghanistan and ‘take’ the pipeline deal. Hence our quick invasion on Oct.
7, 2001, 26 days after 911 ! Such a major military action required many months of planning! A
study done by Prof. W. Pape at the University of Chicago, and part of his book ‘Dying to Win’, shows that the primary reason driving suicide terrorists is opposition
to occupying troops in their homeland (not religion), which we had done for many years in Saudi Arabia. Yet Bush pushes the fabrication that ‘they
hate our way of life’ as a diversion from the truth. On Dec. 30, 2005 Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, Assistant Secretary of
Treasury under Reagan, wrote, "Bush claims that his war crimes are justified because they are committed in the name of
'freedom and democracy'. The entire world rejects this excuse. Sooner or later even Bush’s remaining Republican
supporters will turn away in shame from the dishonor Bush has brought to America." On Jan. 16, 2006, in his excellent
essay on how our Executive branch is becoming dictatorial (http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts139.html), Dr. Roberts wrote, " It is paradoxical that American democracy is the likely casualty of
a "war on terror" that is being justified in the name of the expansion of democracy."
The TRUE REASONS Bush invaded Iraq
Control of oil (a step to control the greater Mid East), 2) Defense of Israel (plus access to water,
oil, and more land for them), 3)
Land for permanent bases (hence they had no ‘exit strategy’; we built a huge embassy, plus four large airbases
and many smaller ones), and 4) Defense of the U.S. dollar (Saddam
had converted to selling oil in Euros; we reversed that the day after our invasion). Also, the Christian Right has a religious reason for insuring the special
treatment of Israel, since they believe Israel must exist in order to allow the second coming of Christ. Faith-based persons
of influence who favor special treatment of Israel in US policy are Bush, Tom DeLay, John Ashcroft and various church leaders
from whom Bush wants support. In Jan-2006 the sabers started rattling
to justify bombing Iran, and are getting louder today in Jan-2013. The 'official' reasons may be different, but the
Real Reasons will be the same as three of the above for IRAQ (oil, Israel and defense of the US Dollar). Iran has announced
plans to sell oil in Euros. Israel bought 100 'bunker-buster' bombs from us in Nov-2004 (just after the election),
and is ready to use them. The vast ‘War on Terror’ was created primarily
as a cover to give U.S. empire builders the authority to increase their control by meddling in the affairs of other nations
worldwide (which just creates new enemies), and restrict objections at home. The ‘USA Patriot Act’ gives
the government excess authority, which is easily abused. Under it, even US citizens tend to be viewed by authorities
as 'guilty until proven innocent', and are at risk of being secretly spied upon, or arrested, as terror suspects if
they criticize government conduct and policies. All these programs continue with no end, or net benefit, in sight. A better solution is to stop interfering in the internal affairs
of other nations so that we don’t create enemies. As noted above, the primary cause of suicide terrorist attacks
is the presence of occupying troops. We should withdraw from our immoral, illegal, and counterproductive
ventures in Afghan and Iraq, and most of our bases in over 130 countries worldwide. Bush and his team don't want
to withdraw from anywhere because they want to control these places, thus control more oil (and deny it to China), and
continue building an Empire worldwide. I
believe in strong defense, but not costly and useless wars that can be avoided with no harm to us.
5. How Oil, War, 911, and the US Dollar
are Tied There is
a cause-and-effect connection between oil, value of the US Dollar, and 911. The two huge problems, shown in
A. and B. below, were known by the Bush Team when they entered office in Jan-2001.
They had a warfare plan to control oil and politics worldwide, but 911 gave them cover to get started sooner and bigger.A. Risk of Collapse of the U.S. Dollar (USD): The value of the USD is now propped-up in part by the fact that most oil sales (to
any buyer) are denominated in the USD. The market value (purchasing power) of all fiat currencies (just paper; no gold
or silver content or redeemability) depends on the willingness of others to use
it (market demand), and hold
it as savings, or for a nation, as foreign exchange reserves (typically in the form of US government
bonds). All transactions are part of demand, but oil purchases are one of the largest and most visible. A major shift to use
of another currency, such as the Euro, would cause a drop in USD value, and could trigger a panic to get
rid of USD holdings (cash, bonds, real estate) by foreign persons and nations to avoid major loss of value
(30 to 50 percent, or more). China has already started, and S. Korea has hinted. Japan could be next. These three countries
are the biggest holders of USD denominated assets. A USD collapse would cause a major US depression, and affect others
worldwide. A shift to the Euro (or any other
non-USD currency) by other countries for; 1) Oil purchases, 2) Investments (bonds, businesses anywhere, etc.), or
3) Foreign currency reserves, would reduce support for the USD and is a nightmare scenario for the US. In Nov-2002 Saddam converted to Euros,
which we reversed just after the Mar-2003 invasion. Venezuela is threatening to convert. Iran started its own 'Bourse'
trading exchange in early 2007 to compete with existing US and British exchanges, and trades in multiple currencies, including
the USD, Euro, and Yen. The shift to Euros puts these countries on top of the list for intervention by the US. The CIA plot to unseat Venezuela's Pres.
Chavez in Apr-2002 didn't work, but he is on
The USD is vulnerable because of; 1) Excess expansion of the money supply ('Inflation', to pay government bills),
and 2) Excess spending and debt by the government. Reversal of these errors will bring strength. B. Loss of Oil and Gas Control to Russia, China and India: The oil industry agrees that within about 20 years the earth
will reach 'peak oil' production. This means the wells for cheap oil (easy to reach, pump, and refine) will start
producing less ('peak oil'). There will be lots of oil left (tar sands, shale, etc.), but it will be very expensive
to acquire and refine. The US is competing with other countries (mostly China and India; Russia has its own) for control of
the remaining cheap oil. They are traveling the world together to negotiate long term contracts (China announced one with
Saudi Arabia in Jan-2006). The U.S. is invading oil producers on false pretenses to gain control. Russia's long dispute/war
in Chechnya is mostly about control of oil, gas, and pipelines in the Caspian region where Russia seeks broad control.
India and China face oil shortages in the future so they are cooperating in deals to gain control of oil in the MidEast, Africa
and SE Asia. This threatens US availability and price of over 80% of the world's proven 'cheap' reserves. These are key reasons for the US wars in the Balkans, Afghanistan,
and Iraq, and threats to Iran. The stakes could not be higher, including risk of broad and
long wars, and economic depression, for all nations involved. Rather
than seeking military and political control of oil-producing nations (a costly and immoral method), the US should negotiate
long-term contracts for supply. Big customers have clout!
This approach will also end creating enemies by meddling in the affairs of other countries.With
the Iraq war not going well, Bush
collaborated with the former enemy Sunnis (Cheney's Jan-2006 trip around the region) on a deal to reduce the anti-US
attacks inside Iraq so the US can declare victory and get out 'with honor'. Of
course the original plan was to stay forever in order to; a) Control Iraq oil, b) Use permanent bases in Iraq
to control the Mid East, c) Defend Israel, and d) Keep Iraq oil sales in US Dollars.Bush’s failure to capture Osama bin Laden was no accident. Having him at large helped keep him (and
now Obama) as 'War Presidents' so the above issues could be pursued as part of the forever War on Terror. The same
applies to onerous checking and restrictions by the TSA on carry-on luggage for air travel, while the checked baggage is barely
inspected. This keeps 'the people' on edge about terror, so they will not object to loss of liberties. The illegal
and desperate measures (domestic spying, torture, etc.) taken by Bush showed his concern about avoiding new attacks on US soil, which are made even more likely by
his ongoing intervention for the above issues in the Mid East.FLASH - The so-called ‘Killing
of Osama’ in May-2011 by a Navy Seal raid was a staged event to boost Obama’s popularity. All insiders believe
he died from kidney disease years before. The ultra-phony picture of Hillary, Gates and others watching the raid on TV was
a bad joke. The quick dumping of the body at sea, and the convenient death of all the Seals in a later accident??, are two
of the many other well-documented reasons to show the whole event was fake. I support a strong defense, and wars entered for valid reasons approved by Congress. In their effort to solve the above problems and gain power worldwide, I say
the Bush Team operated as an Imperial Presidency, with excess use of force and secrecy, which conflicts with
stated USA and Republican principles. They are using: 1) foreign aid, intervention, and war in a plan
to control the world’s politics and oil, and 2) high spending, funded by debt, to pacify the folks at home. The first
version of the warfare plan was secretly issued in Sep-2000 by the ‘Project for a New American Century’ team (PNAC,
a DC think tank) which started in 1997. The plan called for increased military force worldwide to promote control of oil and
their special-interest politics. When Bush was elected in Nov-2000, many of the authors (including Rumsfeld, Perle, Kagan,
Feith, Abrams, and Wolfowitz: Cheney was a cofounder) joined the Bush team. For details, refer to the 25Feb03 essay, ‘The Project for the New
American Century’, by William Pitt and Scott Ritter (former UN Inspector for Iraq weapons). As shown by the demise of all previous empires in history, this approach never works.
It is a path to military, economic, and ethical failure. Perhaps due to the bad reputation they got from the failed Iraq adventure, the PNAC gang regrouped
in May-2009 as ‘The Foreign Policy Initiative’ (foreignpolicyi.org) to pursue the same war-based
6. American Independence and Sovereignty The U.S. has become entangled in a host of international agreements
and memberships that threaten our sovereignty, and could oblige us to go to war to protect other nations. The UN, NATO, and
International Criminal Court (ICC) are old ones, but more recently we have joined GATT, NAFTA, CAFTA, and WTO. A looming (and
largely secret) threat is the North American Union (NAU), which some say would essentially merge Mexico and Canada with us
(can you say oil?). It involves building a highway from Mexico to Canada, with ‘free-wheeling’ rights for Mexican
trucks and drivers to operate in the U.S. We should withdraw from any deal or orgs that infringe upon the freedom or independence
of the USA. A major threat is the anti-American "Law
of the Sea" Treaty (LOST), or UNCLOS, was deferred again in July-2012 due to lack of votes, but the supporters keep trying.
The LOST convention's
purpose is to benefit Third World countries by fining and punishing the wealth and technological advantages of the industrialized
West. The convention would subject our governmental, military and business operations to mandatory dispute resolution. Any
disputes would be decided by the U.N. International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, a 21-member body representing 155 countries
envious of American ingenuity and prosperity. The United States would have only one vote with which to protect American investment,
and the transfer of sensitive, militarily useful and proprietary private technologies, and forced compliance with the Kyoto
The LOST convention would be an open invitation to activist judges to interpret the convention's
intentionally vague provisions against our national security and economic interests. In point of fact, were our Senate to
approve the LOST convention, the odds are roughly 155 to 1 that the LOST tribunal would vote to cede U.S. claims to the North
Pole and its oil riches to the Russians.U.S.
adherence to this treaty would entail history's biggest and most unwarranted voluntary transfer of wealth AND surrender
of sovereignty. LOST, which was a product
of the Left/Soviet/non-aligned movement agenda of the 1960s and 1970s, created the International Seabed Authority (ISA). ISA
is a new supranational organization with unprecedented powers to regulate all ‘sea’ activity!
7. Restitution and Compensation: ‘The law of restitution is
the law of gains-based recovery. It is to be contrasted with the law of
compensation, which is the law of loss-based recovery. When a court orders restitution it orders the defendant to give up his gains to the claimant. When a court
orders compensation it orders the defendant to compensate the claimant for his or her loss.’ These are both litigation
situations. (en.wikipedia.org) When
the government is the claimant and collects a fine from a lawbreaker, the money is usually kept by the government (another
money grab!). I suggest that whenever feasible (the victims are living and known), the victims of the crime should receive
the money as restitution or compensation, shared in proportion to the damage they suffered.
8. Health Care:
We must end the ‘Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act’ (PPACA), often shortened to the ‘Affordable
Care Act’ (ACA) and nicknamed Obamacare,
is a United States federal statute enacted by the 111th United States Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010. Under the act, hospitals and primary physicians would transform their practices financially,
technologically, and clinically in the hope of driving better health outcomes, lower costs, and improved methods of distribution
The Affordable Care Act was designed to increase health insurance quality and affordability, lower the uninsured rate by expanding insurance coverage and reduce the costs of healthcare. It introduced mechanisms including
mandates, subsidies and insurance exchanges. The law requires insurers
to accept all applicants, cover a specific list of conditions and charge the same rates regardless of pre-existing conditions or sex.
strive for ‘free’ government-provided health care as a right. Of course, any health care program is unconstitutional
(except for the phony ‘it’s a tax’ ruling by the Supreme Court), but that means nothing to most Congresspersons
and voters. 'Universal Health Care' is another attempt to get ‘the rich’, or at least ‘someone
else’, to pay for everything they want.
I have lived in Canada and experienced
the fact that when doctor’s training, and then salaries, are paid by the government, 1. There are fewer doctors per
1,000 citizens, 2. Importation of cheaper foreign-trained doctors increases, and 3. The patient becomes ‘more work’
rather than a client they want to nurture and keep, and the level of care, caring, and courtesy declines accordingly. Most
Canadians value their English roots and view the government akin to 'Mother', thus are patient with her faults,
and proud (sometimes with vanity) of their traditions and Royal Family. Many view 'Americans' as relative ruffians,
and self-centered , dog-eat-dog predators who don't care for each other. Hence their pride in, and patience with, their
health system. Of course, government budgets are a huge
issue as to which and how much services and medicines are available, and to whom (rationing). The medical specialists and
equipment for expensive services such as organ transplants are limited, and people wait for years (and sometimes die) waiting.
It’s the same kind of rationed care you’ll
find in nations like France and the England, where waiting lists for lifesaving procedures are sometimes years-long, and the
death rates from breast and prostate cancer are twice to three times higher than in the United States. You can’t see a specialist (ear, eye, skin, etc.) without referral by a family
doctor. Old people are sometimes deemed ‘not worth it’ for expensive treatments and drugs. It has been illegal
in Canada to open a private ‘for fee’ clinic, since that is deemed unfair to those who can’t afford it,
but that is changing. Canadian health managers now admit that their system is financially 'unsustainable' (same in France
and others), and that formerly illegal 'private services' (non-government doctors who charge a fee) and private
insurance will be needed to avoid collapse. Some provinces already allow certain private services, and even pay private hospitals
to take care of 'public' patients. At the extreme (Russia, etc.), corruption sets in, and doctors and
staff demand bribes for access to services. In the face of all of the above, Liberals keep pushing for
‘universal health care’, and they have a friend in Obama. His plan will be announced soon, and is expected to
cost billions to taxpayers, with ‘the rich’ and employers targeted for most of the cost. This source of funding
is a ripoff, but upsets fewer voters. The
cost of routine care has skyrocketed since Medicare and Medicaid were started. Health-care spending has increased from 5%
to 16% of gross domestic product (GDP). Cost of these programs was the major reason, but part of the price increase is due
to; 1. Loss of US Dollar value, 2. The 1986 'Emergency
Medical Treatment and Labor Act' (EMTALA) rules
that hospitals must give the poor free 'exam and stabilization' service in their Emergency Centers (under the
extortive threat of losing their Medicare business), and these unpaid bills are added to those who do pay, 3. Excess
payments for malpractice lawsuits (reform of our tort laws is needed), and 4. Collusive price-fixing (minimum rates)
set by the state-level American Medical Association (AMA) chapters and their member doctors. Further, the AMA prohibits
members from advertising their rates (or skills, and track record of results). If a doctor violates the AMA rules, he/she
loses their license to practice, or is harassed out of business (no referrals, etc.)! The federal government would normally
attack this practice under anti-trust laws for 'collusion in restraint of trade', but the AMA has political influence,
and gets a pass, which we all pay for! Also, as technology and medicines improve, people are living longer, so there
are more years of illness and expenses, which often require high cost intensive care and thus higher expenses for each illness.
Even young and middle-aged people may incur high expenses if costly new technology and medicines are needed. Un-funded federal
mandates for free emergency service at hospitals (the Feds demand compliance or threaten to drop the hospital as an 'authorized'
Medicare provider; this is an extortionist violation of rights) is often abused by illegal immigrants, or those
that choose to not have insurance, and this causes higher per-day rates (to make up for non-payers) for those persons and
insurance firms that do pay their bills. My
Position: I suggest a twelve-part
plan aimed at getting the government OUT of patient-doctor-hospital control and funding so that positive free-market incentives
guide the patients and doctors: 1) Phase-out Medicare and Medicaid as
the lower costs of free-market care become available (as described below, and vouchers in item 12), and start with having
higher co-pays on Medicare and Medicaid to give incentive to avoid unhealthy life styles and non-essential visits to, and
treatments and tests by, the doctor, 2)
Reduce costs by greater use of Physician Assistants (PAs) so a doctor’s time is not wasted on routine work the assistant
can perform (including clinics run by PAs; see Item 9 below), 3)
Use the FDA only to determine and disclose possible side-effects and viability of drugs, but not restrict use of them (or
their potency) until there are virtually no side-effects: Let doctor judgment and CONSUMER CHOICE rule!, 4) Bring the lower price and higher quality benefits of competition, and consumer choice into health
care by busting the medical pricing cartel and allowing doctors to advertise their rates (web sites ads, etc.), training
and results records (see Items 2 and 9; the American Medical Assoc.-AMA- prevents this; same as ABA for lawyers)
and practice as members of private, non-government sanctioned groups, rather than just the monopoly AMA; OK there are
a few Osteopaths too) and state licensing boards, with all required to disclose their training and record of results, 5) Eliminate dependency on insurance provided by employers.
This is a holdover from WW2 when labor was scarce, wages were limited by law, and employers used benefits to attract
workers. There is no reason employers should be expected, much less required by law, to provide health insurance (see item
12 below), any more than they should provide food or clothing, to employees. It is just another way to avoid raising taxes
(same as free EMTALA hospital service above), 6)
Reform our tort laws to reduce excess payments for malpractice lawsuits that doctors must add to their fees. Perhaps a special
court system for torts is needed (similar to bankruptcy), 7)
Repeal laws that, a. Force (mandate) insurance companies to offer a long list of covered issues (let people choose
the combination of coverages they want), 'community rating' and 'guaranteed issue', regardless of prexisting
conditions, age, etc., and b. Limit operations to a single state. Mandating
benefits is like saying to someone in the market for a new car, "If you can't afford a Cadillac loaded with options,
you have to walk." The huge price increases
for insurance in MA and NY show the counterproductice results of mandates. 8)
Make personal payments for health insurance (but not co-pays or non-insured items) fully tax deductible, 9) Make government medical licenses optional, so we can have
a wide range of private practices and clinics, staffed by 'alternate medicine' folks, Physician Assistants, retired
or part-time MDs, etc., to see patients for minor problems, including issuing prescriptions for medicine. Prices will drop
as the AMA cartel gets some much-needed competition. This
new approach will foster more personal responsibility by citizens (less abuse of the system; less smoking and obesity,
etc.), and will give us hospitals, clinics and private practice offices offering; 'Type A' (full service, lots of
equipment and specialists), Type B (moderate skills and equipment), and Type C (low cost, run by PAs and volunteer MDs,
etc.; they refer cases to Type A and B as needed). This will allow people to check-out their prices, skills
and record and make a choice !! With price competition, and no 'mandated coverage' plans, prices will drop,
and health and access for all will improve. If
you prefer a government-licensed doctor, fine, go to one and pay more. I now hear rumors that the AMA lobby is pushing
to require that PAs have a Ph.D. in nursing in order to offer the above services. YUK!; More restriction to protect the
incumbent 'Cadillac' system and MDs. 10)
Promote creation of private plans, such as: a) Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), funded by the person/owner or employer, which
would pay for routine care and insurance for major illness. Deposits would be tax-deductible, and interest on them tax free.
Each person would own theirs so no loss if they change jobs or retire, and b) Fixed payment plans (a monthly fee, no government
subsidies) run by private clinics, under their own rules, that will take care of all 'basic' illnesses. Both
approaches; a) have positive financial incentives for all parties (stingy spending, shop for rates, healthy life style,
etc.), b) take the government and insurance companies out of 90% of the sessions with a doctor, and c) subscribers would
buy high deductible ($10,000 to $50,000) private insurance for major illnesses. (Note; This is similar to the voucher
system in Part 12 below, but privately financed), 11) Make
all State and Federal elected officials and employees (in any agency or department) subject to the same health care choices
as the citizens. No special plans for health or pensions!!, and 12)
To the extent that government stays involved in health care, it should; a) Be run and funded by each State, with zero
Federal control and funding, b) The programs should not pay doctors and control prices, but should, c) Issue quarterly
vouchers (useable only for health expenses and insurance) to 'well' citizens and permanent residents (same amount
to all), but not to illegal aliens, and let them shop for the privately provided services they need, including both direct
payment for routine care and insurance for major illnesses, and d) To help people caught in transition from the old system,
issue special vouchers to those with major 'existing conditions' that preclude their purchasing insurance, with payments
continuing until the end of their illness, or death. The value of the vouchers would be owned by each person, and could be
transferred; a) to their account in another State if they move, b) as a gift, or by a will upon death, to other
qualified people, in any State. Having the programs funded and controlled at the State level has two benefits: a) It cannot
be funded by fake money created out of thin air by the Federal Reserve, thus forcing fiscal sanity on the tax-funded program,
and b) Having control distributed over fifty states reduces the size of the administrative bureaucracy each citizen must deal
with, and makes States compete as to soundness (including sustainable funding) of their program. To the extent that employers stay involved they can fund a 'health savings account' that the employee
would own and spend (similar to a voucher). History at firms such as Whole Foods shows that employees are stingy with their account
(save for future needs) and tend to care for themselves better (more diet, exercise, etc., and less smoking, alcohol, drugs,
etc.) to avoid medical expenses. Private charity (including free services
by doctors and hospitals; like the old days!) will take care of the poor. This will work because with taxes and fees reduced
by the above reforms there will be: a. More donations to charities, and b. Fewer people (about a 90% reduction)
who can’t afford health care. In
conclusion, note that none of the above suggestions depend on government rules or control of medical fees or practices. It
is an ethical plan because all funding is voluntary and does not use mandatory fees, forced purchases of insurance, or coercive
taxing (gang-theft-by-vote). Thus it is a fair, responsible, and sustainable plan.
For more info on health
care plans, see: 1) www.pacificresearch.org. Their CEO, Sally Pipes, is from Canada and knows their problems well,
2) An essay from The Independent Institute: www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=740
3) A collection of articles
from The Cato Institute: www.healthcare.cato.org
4) ‘A Four-Step Health-Care Solution’ written
by Hans-Hermann Hoppe in 1993 (http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=279)
5) A list of essays on health at Downsize
DC, a think tank for 'less government': http://www.downsizedc.org/bySubject/health
6) An analysis of state health
7) U. S. Senator Rand Paul,
M.D., (Rep.-KY) "Obamacare Replacement Act" (S. 222) would...
*a, Provide a two-year buffer period
in which people with pre-existing conditions (PEC) could still get coverage (by Redick- This is WELFARE, not insurance).
That would allow time for the market to solve the PEC problem in other ways (as described below).
*b, Make the cost
of individual insurance tax deductible. This would give individual policies the same tax treatment as employer-provided policies.
Most likely, the number of individually owned policies would expand. With more people owning their own policy, the PEC problem
would plummet. PEC is a politician-created problem that happens when people get sick after losing their job (and therefore
Give citizens a (Annual ?) tax credit of up to $5,000 for contributions to an HSA (Health Savings Account)
Eliminate the ceiling on HSA contributions
*e, Remove the stipulation that you must have a high-deductible health care plan in order to have an HSA
*f, Allow citizens to use HSA funds
for insurance premiums
*g, Expand the number of things HSA funds could be used for, including over-the-counter drugs, vitamins and
supplements, plus nutrition and exercise programs. One of the great flaws of Obamacare is that it does nothing to lower the
burden on the medical system by preserving health and preventing disease. Healthier people don't need as much medical
Allow citizens to band together to lower the cost of buying insurance. Individual Health Pools (IHPs) would give persons the
same bargaining power that employer insurance groups currently have. The IHPs could include churches, alumni associations,
trade associations, civic groups, or entities formed strictly for establishing an IHP, as long as there is no health status
requirement for membership. This provision would dramatically reduce the PEC problem.
*I, Allow physicians to band together
to gain bargaining power with insurers, without having to concentrate into big impersonal medical firms.
*j, Allow doctors to deduct the expense
of the uncompensated care they provide, thereby making pro bono services, free clinics, and true charity hospitals more plentiful.
*k, Allow insurance providers to sell
policies nationally. This would remove the cartel control that the insurance industry currently maintains through state legislatures.
This would also restore the market for major medical plans, which is how insurance is supposed to work. The result would be
a wider variety of policy choices at much lower prices.
*l, Give states flexibility in how they design and manage their Medicaid programs. This would enable experimentation
and competition between the 50 states. It would also allow the states to innovate new ways to address the PEC problem.
*m, Repeal Obamacare at the same time
it replaces it.
9. Employee Unions: Unions
serve a needed function when they protect members from fraud or abuse (long hours, unsafe conditions, etc.) by the employer.
However, once these basic goals are met, the union managers usually try to keep or enhance their jobs (more pay and power)
by seeking more concessions in the form of ever higher pay, health and pension benefits, work rules that reduce productivity,
etc. As union membership declined in the 1980s, union organizers focused on government workers such as teachers, fire and
policemen, prison guards, staffers, etc. (see SEIU.org and AFT.org). Refer to Stephen
Greenhut’s book ‘Plunder!,
Nation’.As noted in Issue # 10 Pensions below, “In many cases,
benefits became excessive when self-serving managers ‘gave away the store’ to avoid a strike…” Thus,
there is self-serving abuse by both employer and union managers that lead to excessive costs that hurt profits and growth
of the employer, or cause bankruptcy, both of which cost jobs! The US steel and auto industries are examples. The solution is; 1) The government should not give or allow special privileges
to unions to boost their income and membership (check-off system for dues, forced union membership when hired –union
shop-, guaranteed job after strike, ‘prevailing wage’ laws, minimum wage, etc.), but 2) Should fulfill its proper
role of protecting the rights of citizens (see Issue #2, P. 41), including suits by unions due to abuse of workers by employers.
An employer has the option of offering
a pension plan to employees or not. If offered, there should be written disclosure (dated and signed hard copy) of the rules
(co-payments, benefits, age and years of service to retire, restitution of equity upon termination of employment or of the
plan, disclosure of fund investments, etc.), and whether the rules can be changed or the plan terminated. Just as with an
insurance policy, it is the personal responsibility of the prospective employee to read and understand the plan and decide
if he/she wants to work there. In recent years many plans have been changed or terminated (sometimes as part of bankruptcy)
by firms in financial trouble. The government created the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. (PBGC) to protect workers from loss
of pensions. Like most government plans it doesn’t work very well. Further, it creates the perverse incentive, or ‘moral
hazard’, of temping firms to take advantage of PBBC. The PBGC disclosed in its annual financial report that as of Sept.
30, 05 it had $56.5 billion in assets to cover $79.2 billion in pension liabilities. There has been an explosion in recent
years in the number of big, ailing companies - especially in labor-heavy industries like airlines and steel - transferring
their pension liabilities to the PBGC. With billions of dollars flying out of the agency's door, concern has been mounting
over its financial footing. In many cases, benefits became excessive when self-serving managers ‘gave away the store’
to avoid a strike that would; 1) In the private sector, cause loss of profits that would hurt their next bonus, and 2) In
government, cause loss of campaign donations and votes. Steve Greenhut tells the story in his book, ‘Plunder! How Public Employee Unions Are Raiding Treasuries, Controlling
Our Lives And Bankrupting The Nation!’ (more on P. 126 and SEIU.org) My Position:
A company need not offer a pension plan, but if it does, the rules must be published when an employee joins, and not changed
without negotiation. Anything less would be fraud, and breach of contract. The government’s only role should be to require
full disclosure of the rules noted above, and ongoing disclosure to confirm that the plan is properly funded. The absence
of these two forms of disclosure is what has led to the painful loss of pensions by many employees.
10. Employer Pensions
11. Social SecurityThis was 20% of the FY 2011 Federal budget
(started Oct-2010), thus $727 bn, and growing yearly. The present system is a welfare program for seniors, paid to them by
current workers. Seniors have no equity (ownership) of the amounts they have paid-in to FICA in their working years (and contributions
by their employers) and the government can stop paybacks (checks from the government) to seniors at any time. It is a devious
plan and must be reformed before it fails (goes broke due to more recipients than payers) and hurts many people who are planning
for it, or already dependent on it. My transition plan is to; 1) Keep the present plan in force for people age 55 or older,
make paybacks proportional to amounts paid in (now immigrants get nearly full pay, with a low history of pay-ins), extend
start date of payback to age 70, and grant equity ownership for pay-ins made, 2) Reduce payback amounts as needed (due to
reduced program income), with five years advance notice, 3) End ‘contributions’ by employers, and 4) Allow people
age 18 to 55 to join the new plan or go ‘on their own’. Either way, they will get credit/payment for their prior
pay-ins, and interest. The
current program is immoral because it depends on robbing the younger generation for ‘contributions’ (pay-ins)
sent directly to current ‘recipients’ of paybacks (there is no ‘fund’, just bonds, –IOUs-),
and is unsustainable because costs are rising while ‘contributors’ are declining in number and income.
proposed new program below, ‘Redick’s Private Pension Plan’,
is similar to the plan in Chile since the hugely successful new version started in 1981 (see; http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/pr-ja-jp.html, by José Piñera,
who as Chile's Minister of Labor privatized the state pension system, is President of the International Center for Pension
Reform and co-chairman of the Cato Institute's ‘Project on Social Security Privatization’; Cato.org). My Plan
is optional (individuals join if they wish) where citizen contributions would be invested by private investment fund
firms chosen by the citizen, and the citizen would own the account equity. Growth in value would be tax free. A government
regulatory body would set some broad investment diversification rules, to avoid high-risk or politicized investments by the
fund managers. The contribution amount (weekly or monthly; a percent of pretax pay, or other personal funds) would be chosen
by the citizen based on his choice of retirement age. This would encourage middle-class and low income people to start an
account, which they would normally view as ‘only for the rich’. This program has proven very popular in Chile
(90% of workers joined!) due to the ownership aspect, which fosters personal responsibility. There are many side benefits
such as increasing capital available for investment (by the pension fund firms) which reduces unemployment, plus better social
and economic conditions in Chile. Go to the Cato.org link above for more details. The ‘private’ and ‘personal’ aspects
of my Plan will lead to more personal responsibility in our society, including more work, saving and good relations with the
family and friends who will help care for the aged. Poverty cases can be served by private charity. The attitude of ‘the
government owes us everything’ and ‘it’s OK to take others people’s money to pay for my benefits’
will fade. Thus, my plan is both moral and sustainable.
12. States’ Rights (Federalism): The
'Articles of Confederation' were considered too weak on national defense and other matters, so a convention was called
to strengthen them. This evolved to writing an entire new Constitution, which was completed in 1787. At first the States
were sovereign and dominate and the new nation was referred to as 'These United States'. This soon evolved to 'The
United States of America' and States’ Rights kept getting weaker, especially when the federal government got control
of the monetary system in 1913 with creation of the Federal Reserve System (more below). Our constitution grants enumerated
powers (a list; if it’s not there, you can’t do it) to the Federal government (hereafter ‘DC’), and
by the 10th amendment, all other powers to the States, or people. Over the years, Congress, the President and courts have
twisted the ‘general welfare’ and ‘commerce’ clauses of the Constitution, and invented the 'implied
powers' concept, to grant enormous powers to DC, including overriding existing state laws. The Founders knew it was
good to have differences between states so citizens could ‘vote with their feet’ if laws and taxes got oppressive.
This is why U.S. Senators were to be appointed by their state legislatures, so they would better represent the interests of
the states in DC (ended by the 17 th Amendment). Part of the reason the DC involvement has grown is that they control
the monetary system (run by the Federal Reserve Bank, 'Fed') and, since leaving the gold standard in 1971, can create
money out of thin air! The size of the DC piggy bank is only limited by politics in the short run, and hyperinflation and
bankruptcy in the long term, and this why states become dependent on DC money for education, health, police, and many
other functions normally paid by the people or state. States love getting this money, and Congressmen love taking credit for
them (it’s called ‘pork’ to get votes and campaign donations), but it comes with strings attached (‘You
must do X or we will stop sending money for Y’). Thus, DC feels free to impose unfunded mandates such as free emergency
health care, and immigrants/refugees, on the states, and activate the National Guard (originally State Militia), without the
Governor’s permission. Now the Dept. of Homeland Security is sending equipment and money to local police so they can
do their dirty work. The police love the new money and power! My position: Federal power and spending must be pushed back. The Fed’s
have no business in education, overriding state laws, drugs, abortion, police, and a long list of other state and local issues
! The Federal government should not be involved
in an issue, unless empowered by the Constitution. See Issues 29, 30, and 31 below for my positions on Nullification,
Secession, and Referendum.
13. Privacy and Personal Liberty A. National ID Card: Support for a national ID card (with the same info imbedded in drivers licenses)
is growing and must be stopped. Abuse is inevitable in this type of federal system. B. Wiretapping:
Tell your representative to protect Fourth Amendment
guarantees against warrantless searches:Repeal
the Protect America Act. The PAA legalizes
warrantless wiretapping of U.S. residents, which the Bush Administration secretly began in 2001, and violates the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the Fourth Amendment. (H.R. 3773 and 3782 would repeal the PAA.)
requirement for individualized warrants for wiretapping of U.S. communications and email. U.S. Intelligence agencies cannot oversee themselves. The judicial branch has a
necessary role in preventing abuses of power. (H.R. 3782 would restore individualized warrants for any wiretap
of U.S. calls or emails, whereas H.R. 3773 would permit the wiretapping of some international calls and emails
of Americans without individual warrants.) No
immunity for telecommunications companies that broke the law by permitting the government to conduct surveillance of their
customers' phone and email records. To
grant those companies retroactive immunity condones presidents and private industry collaborating to ransack the public trust.
(Neither H.R. 3782 nor H.R. 3773 currently grants immunity, but administration allies may introduce amendments that do so.)
Let the public see the text of Congress's bills BEFORE they are passed. Fourth Amendment rights to privacy
are among our fundamental and inalienable rights. The specific text of any bill that may affect these rights must go before
the American people for comment.
14. Separation of Church and State
of faith sometimes complain that their right to engage in religious activities is unfairly restricted. They say our Founders
were Christians, so the USA is a Christian nation. Well, they were also white males; does that make us a white male nation?
Solutions are usually sought in the 'Establishment Clause' of the First Amendment, or 'Freedom of Speech'.
I say this is the wrong approach since these clauses are only about the government; 1) Not naming and supporting
a certain religion (as had been done in Europe and some states), and 2) 'The free exercise' of the religion chosen
by an individual. As shown in 'Dave's Core Principle' (item 2 above), property rights need to be superior to personal
rights (such as religion) to avoid conflicts. This applies to many subjects and situations. My position: I
recommend a property rights approach. While it is compulsory to abide by the laws of the government where you live, religion
is an optional and personal choice of each individual. Laws and rights of others must not be violated in the practice of religion.
Our constitution protects us from tyranny of the majority. Thus, religious groups should not attempt to mix government and
religion, even when in a majority (or active minority), since it imposes (by force of law for coins, pledge), or insertion
into government events and places, owned by all (schools, buildings, prayers at events) their option on others. The U.S.
has complete freedom of religion so people can engage in their religion as much as they like on their own time, events,
and property. However, just as it would be trespassing for a preacher to enter a private
home or event to conduct a service, no religious group can use or adorn property, objects, procedures, or events owned in
part by others (such as the government) without the permission of ALL owners (not just a majority), or their authorized agent.
This applies to coins, the Pledge of Allegiance, public schools, non-church meetings, displays in government buildings, prayers
at public meetings, even if attendance to such events or displays is optional. A
similar issue of trespassing would apply to Islamic mosques using loudspeakers for 'call to prayers' if they create
unwanted noise in the neighborhood. The noise should be stopped on the basis of violating the neighbor’s property
rights ('quiet enjoyment' laws and precedents). Bush-43’s 'faith based' subsidies to religious groups are an
obvious unconstitutional ploy to promote religion, and should be stopped. Further, it harms religious work by making such
groups dependent on government handouts, and subject to its rules (strings attached). Religion obviously
should not be part of our relations with other countries as to special treatment abroad, or with their lobbies in the U.S.
(can you say Israel and AIPAC?).
Today’s K-12 government
schools offer essentially only one flavor of education. In some districts parents can choose a school, but this offers minimal
variation. They all preach 'government approved' mush that promotes government as the source of 'good and nice'
things, and hide the many lies, and unconstitutional, criminal acts of the government, at all levels. Administrators have
a perverse incentive to promote poorly educated kids to keep them enrolled so the state and federal money keeps coming. Our
students test lower than students in European and Asian schools under similar circumstances. A big part of the difference
is the poor work ethic we engender in our kids due to lack of discipline, including almost no risk of expulsion
for causing trouble. My position: Education of children is the
responsibility of parents as to amount and type. The same benefits we enjoy from a free market in food, cars, etc. (as to
variety of types, and cost) would apply if schools were all private (for profit or non-). By paying tuition, parents would
instantly ‘be involved’ to be sure they were getting their money’s worth. School administrators would treat
students and parents as customers who seek a good service, and can shop around for it! Good teachers would get raises the
same way an engineer does (ask if you feel you deserve it, or quit and go to a competitor). They now risk loss of accrued
pension benefits, but this would not apply under my plan in item 10 above. Good teachers attract customers. Parents would
monitor curriculum content and teacher quality and negotiate for changes, or leave. Poor quality schools would be exposed
by independent testing services or college entrance exams. This would reduce incentive for administrators to engage in grade
inflation, because they would get caught. I
say we should, 1) Allow creation of private nonprofit schools without government license or controls (except fraud, a proper
government issue), 2) Phase-out property taxes as a source of revenue for government schools (payments have no relationship
to having kids in school), and replace with tuition, 3) Terminate the federal 'No Child Left Behind' program as too
costly, mostly counterproductive, and an unconstitutional violation of states rights, 4) Eliminate the federal
Dept. of Education, and 5) Write tax laws that encourage donors to create scholarships and endowments to provide affordable
access to these private nonprofit schools for needy students. All these changes will allow parents to choose the school that
best fits their children’s needs (including religion) instead of pouring more tax dollars into the present failing system.
'Do-gooders' will complain that the above approach does not guarantee a certain level (to 9th or 12th grade?) for
every child due to negligent or poor parents. They prefer equal mediocrity for all. However, history shows that incentive,
parents, and liberty produce much better results than government schools, while private charity helps those in need.
16. EnvironmentIt is important to not cause excess pollution,
erosion, floods, noise, odors, or other changes to the natural state that creates hazards or violate property rights, or threats
thereto. Remember, your property not only includes land, buildings, cars, etc., but also your body, thus health hazards are
included. My position: Most problems can be handled from a property rights perspective by suing
the source for restitution (not just a fine paid to the government). For example, toxic smoke, underground or surface liquid
toxics that enter your body, land or other property can be litigated as property damage. Nuisance items such as odors and
noise that come upon your property are the same. For non-owned items such as wild animals, protective legislation can be passed,
but it is important to not violate other property and personal rights (such as farmers) in the process.
Immigration, and Border Security Problems:
Having a 'Work Permit' (green card), becoming a 'permanent resident' or citizen of the US is a privilege that
should include a set of rules and obligations. You must apply, be accepted, and follow the rules, or don't come. Our country
was built by immigrants who came here to work, be free, adopt the USA as their new homeland, and become Americans (use
our language and laws), and that is still desirable. But now, in addition to jobs and freedom, free health, education
and other benefits are part of the attraction, and most immigrants (legal and illegal) have no intention of assimilating as
Americans. Many citizens, legislators, and foreign governments, want to use immigration as a 'social refuge system'
which allows the poor and displaced of other nations to come here and be taken care of (welfare, etc.), rather than work to
cure the problems in their homeland. Thus, the Federal government deposits hundreds of Somalis, Hmong, Russian Jews, etc.
in communities, without permission of the State government or community. More federal unfunded mandates, arrogance and loss
of States’ Rights! Thus the US has become a
‘salad bowl’ instead of a 'melting pot' and many immigrants become a burden on our benefits system. They
often replace citizens working in low-paying jobs, adding to welfare costs and cultural stress, especially for blacks. Many
unskilled citizens have lost their jobs to illegal immigrants. The 'illegal aliens' (a term often replaced by
'undocumented', as if they are victims or otherwise legal) are a further risk because they bypass checks on health
and criminal records. Illegal aliens take advantage of
our freedoms by getting bolder and publicly demanding 'immigrant rights' (in-state tuition to college, health/welfare
benefits, free K-12 school, etc.) even though they are trespassers in our land. The Mar-2006 mass demonstrations in many
US cities are a good example. They were timed to occur a week before Congress started debate on new laws. Minimum
wage laws are a big part of this problem. Most laws require pay of $7 per hour or more, and many jobs don't justify this
pay (i.e., employer can't make a profit), so employers look for other solutions. Cheap immigration labor is one alternative
because they will work for cash at under $7 hour (this saves FICA payment for the employer also). It is said that Americans
won't take the below minimum wage jobs, so immigrants are needed in order to get unskilled work done. WRONG!
Americans will do the work, but minimum wage laws prevent them being offered at low rates. If the competitive
market doesn't support the prices needed to cover the high minimum wage, the jobs disappear, or are secretly given to
illegals. When displaced by cheap illegal immigrant workers, our unskilled citizens may just go on welfare, leading to cultural
problems and higher government expenses. Illegal immigration is not the answer to achieving price reductions! Most politicians ignore illegal immigration because: 1) cheap
labor is sought by their campaign donors, or 2) immigrants are likely to vote for politicians who hand out the free services
(in most states it is easy to just get the ID needed to register from a trash bin). Illegal immigration is increasing because
of: 1) the ease of walking over the border, 2) the corruption and restrictions that inhibit creation of jobs in their homeland,
and 3) lax enforcement by the INS at the border and in the US. The government of Mexico lobbies against US immigration reform
because it wants the $20 billion dollars per year their people in the US send home (known as 'remittances').
After oil, this repatriated money is the second biggest source of income for Mexico. The
Mexican government also encourages illegal immigration because it relieves pressure to reform the government socialism
and corruption that reduces job creation in Mexico. Their Ambassador refuses to use the term 'illegal' in reference
to those who sneak over the border when interviewed on TV, and they published a booklet to assist illegal entry. Few
people know that Mexico has many restrictions on Americans who live there. Americans cannot own property, or get citizen-style
health and education benefits, such as they demand here. While the Mexican government not only requests, but claims special
rights for ‘their people’ in the U.S., it is a FELONY to be an illegal immigrant in Mexico, subject to fines,
imprisonment and deportation. What dishonesty and chutzpa !! What a bizarre one-way deal they are demanding!! Our proud and historic tradition as a 'melting pot'
is being abused. There are lumps and islands in the pot made of people who are here illegally, or refuse to assimilate. My
Solution: 1) Employers should be required to verify legal status of all current employees and then
all new hires, of any ethnic group (hence, there would be no charges of profiling), and have the government ship the illegal
persons home. Once the word is out that deporting is being done, many would leave on their own. 2)
Border restrictions, and temporary resident permits, should be enforced. Laws against harboring criminals and abetting
illegal acts should be enforced. This will stop the work of bleeding-heart liberals and misguided religious folks from encouraging
and performing illegal acts.3) The 14 th Amendment should be revised
or interpreted, so 'birthright citizenship' does not apply to children of illegal aliens. Since the loosened rules
in the Immigration Act of 1965 a flood of immigrants, then their relatives, have come to the US primarily for jobs, and benefits, and most
have no intention of learning English or assimilating (i.e., becoming ‘Americans’). 4)
Proficiency in English should be a requirement for citizenship. The U.S. should adopt English as an official language for
all government documents and discussions, including voting info. This will reduce costs, and encourage assimilation.
Having public documents (by both business and government) issued in multiple languages, and so-called ‘multiculturalism’,
creates a trend toward cultural disintegration in any country. The 2006 riots in France, Germany, Australia, and England are
examples of the results. 5)
Immigrants must agree to follow U.S. laws. If you want to live under Islamic 'Sharia', don't come! Religious activity,
such as Islamic calls to prayer on loudspeakers which cover a neighborhood, must be treated as a violation of the neighbor's
property rights. 6) The concept of 'hyphenated Americans' (such as 'Mexican-,
and African-American') should be discouraged (but not made illegal), since it tends to slow assimilation and create separate
sub-cultures. This hyphenation is a sign of resistance to assimilation (a desire to keep your group separate). There should
be an oath (spoken, written, witnessed, and signed) upon becoming a citizen that the person will adopt the USA as their new
homeland, and give it their first loyalty above their religion and former homeland.7)
Enforce the fact that illegal immigrants have no 'rights' except humane treatment while they are being deported! In March-2006
there were huge demonstrations in many U.S. cities by immigrants (legal and illegal) demanding there self-made 'rights'
that they claim are about the same as U.S. citizens! One
of the best solutions is to improve the legal immigration process. Excessive delays (years), and rude staff (both are typical
problems in government programs), cause many otherwise honest immigrants to sneak in.
18. Private Property and Eminent Domain Private
property rights are the foundation of a just and prosperous nation. History, and the world today, shows that justice and prosperity
are reduced by lack of such rights. ‘Partial Takings’ abound due to down-zoning of property by the government
at all levels (Federal to city). An example is when they rule that, to maintain ‘open space’, a farmer can’t
lease a patch of his ground along a road to a billboard firm. At the very least, he should be compensated for loss of income,
and land value. The examples are legion. If the ‘community’ wants open-space, let them pay for it! The same logic
applies for abuse of eminent domain, where ‘public use’ is applied to taking (owner is forced to sell at an appraised
price) someone’s home so a business that sells to the ‘public’ can use the land for a store, condos, etc.
Liberals like to take money from ‘the rich’ using ‘gang theft by vote’ to fund their projects, so
it is only a small step to use eminent domain to take land! I will fight to stop this abuse.
19. Gun Ownership: Activist groups have attempted to limit private gun ownership
by citing the threat of accidents in the home and killings (single or mass) by crazed or criminal people. They attempt to
eliminate damage by deviates and criminals by restricting everyone! The Dec-2012 Newtown, CT killings prompted Pres. Obama
and other to seek prohibition, and other restrictions, on a long list of guns.
My Position: The second amendment to the Constitution
is usually cited as the legal basis to own a gun, but this is related to state militias (why else mention it). In fact, gun
ownership is an inherent right, the same as owning a potentially lethal device such as a car, knife or ball bat, and it is
only improper use that should be subject to public concern or government regulation. Concern over gun abuse is more emotional
than real. The record shows that most gun-owners are very safety conscious. Crooks do whatever they want to, and can get a
gun easily! Since the 1930s the population has more than doubled, the number of guns in the US has quintupled, yet firearm
accidents have been cut in half. A 2002 study in Maryland shows firearms average 0.8% of unintentional deaths in over the
18-year span. As to hazards to children in the home and family life, drownings take more lives of children under 14 than firearms
by a factor of 18 over the period. Even knives, bees, and scissors take more children’s lives than firearms. More children
suffocate (e.g., choke on solid food) by a factor of 16 than die from firearms. Here are some key causes of gun abuse:1. As to killings by criminals, the government’s
war on drugs has created drug dealer turf wars that account for over 90% of deaths by guns in the U.S. These killers can get
guns no matter what restrictions are put on purchases! 2. In some cases in the last ten years, the crazed killer may have been affected by medicines that control
depression, anxiety, etc., as discussed in this link http://lewrockwell.com/rappoport/rappoport13.1.html . 3. Video games and movies often show violence
and killing as part of the fun kids have. 4. Another stimulant may be to copy the immoral and illegal ‘justified’ killings that our government
does when they invade nations for political (control) and economic (oil) reasons. Killing becomes viewed as ‘normal’
and ‘routine’. 5. There is a high correlation between culture and gun abuse. Chicago and DC have some of the toughest
gun laws, but are on top of the abuse list. A high population of black people applies to both (and Detroit, Baltimore, New
Orleans, etc.). See this link by W. Williams Ph.D. (a black man); http://lewrockwell.com/williams-w/w-williams156.html .
All the above issues and facts are ignored by the gun grabbers!
In England, Canada, and Australia where gun ownership is highly restricted, burglaries and muggings (even daylight home robberies)
have increased because criminals feel safe. The deterrent effect that your target person may have a gun is gone. In states
where concealed-carry is allowed, muggings and armed-robberies decrease because criminals are afraid their targets may be
armed. The same applies to schools where the principal or a guard may be armed. I say activists should focus on real
causes and leave responsible gun owners alone.
20. Social Programs; Welfare and Culture
Our vast social programs, preferred minorities,
and uncontrolled immigration, are destroying our culture. We are at the 'tipping point' in many areas where benefit
recipients and new (often illegal) immigrants control the vote. Government has become Mother and Boss, and people become dependent
and demand handouts and other special treatment as 'rights', rather than working for their own success. Ethics are in decline because one's reputation matters less when
a person is shielded by Mother's laws. Law breaking and misconduct thrive. I want all
levels of government to 'back off' and let people manage their own affairs and interaction. Private welfare and counseling
(such as Red Cross, Salvation Army, Goodwill, churches, private orgs, etc.) will serve the truly needy well. Further, private
groups require less than half as much money to do the job due to better efficiency, and reduced overhead, fraud and abuse.
The end of the 'entitlement' attitude and laws will cause people to manage their lives better. There will
be fewer self-made 'victims', and more 'responsible citizens'. Incentives rule !! Humans thrive in an environment where they are comfortable with the region's personal value system, laws,
religious attitudes, etc. This gives the feeling of 'home'. A common language has a lot to do with this bonding. Today, a high percentage of immigrants
(legal and illegal) have no intention of assimilating. They are only here for jobs and benefits. This will lead to strife
for all. History and logic show that my 'less government intervention' approach
not only yields more liberty, but more peace, justice, prosperity and better ethics. This approach rewards
personal responsibility and work, and
private charity cares well for the needy (and there are about 80% fewer cases due to reduced abuse, reduced perverse
incentives-i.e., 'career' welfare users-, lower costs due to use of volunteers, and no 'entitlements'). The
'more government' systems, such as pushed by Progressives,
Liberals, and Socialists, have the opposite effect,
and do more harm than good (counting side-effects) When
people become dependent on government, they care less about support from, and relationships with, friends and family. As these relationships whither, other social problems such as
crime, broken homes, and laziness grow.
21. Gay, Ethnic, and Hate Laws There
are many conflicts in the law as to what gays (homosexual persons) can do. Marriage and adoption are active now. Most churches
view gay conduct as a sin (i.e., wrong even if you are not violating or threatening another's rights; see issue 2, 'Core
Principle' above). Of course, those who consider it a sin (or on any subject; abortion, gambling, etc.) are free to peacefully
promote their views, short of violating the rights of the so-called 'sinners', by ;1) Setting an example by their conduct, and 2) Lobbying the government for passage of laws to impose
their views on others by force. I view these conflicts as examples
of why the government should 'back off' and abolish laws that control our lives by favors and restrictions (i.e.,
Marriage is a personal matter and none of the government's business. Favorable tax laws for married persons
should be abolished. A 'marriage contract' will handle inheritance, etc., and should be used by all; gay and straight.
Adoption should be controlled by the birth parents and private orgs (if parents died together, gave-up rights, etc.). Laws giving any group special rights and preferential treatment
(which creates a 'preferred minority') should be abolished also. Such laws are easily abused by ethnic persons
or groups. For example, 1. In Oct-2007, the former football coach of a major U.S. university won a $2 million judgment claiming
the school fired him because of his race (black), not his 6-27 won-loss record, and 2. A minority person now feels free
to park illegally (including at the front door!) of a shopping center, or post office, etc., since usually no one will
challenge them for fear of a lawsuit, or being attacked! ‘Hate Crime’ laws are another example. There should be
no 'special' penalties; murder is murder. All
citizens should have the same rights, with no special rights or privileges for gays, or any other group, as to race, sex,
economic or social status, religion, etc. (see 'Core Principle' in Issue # 2 above). People should be able to associate with (or avoid) whomever they want
without fear of lawsuit for violation of special 'civil rights', and the same applies to clubs, employers, etc.
as to membership, hiring, and firing (short of violating a person's legal rights). This approach leads to a just and harmonious
society, where people learn to 'get along' without government coercion. Restrictions and favors do more harm than good as to improving social, and economic success of minority
groups. Special rights and subsidies reduce incentive for self-improvement, and create the opportunity to abuse
such rights. Intrusion in people's lives is unconstitutional and none of the government's business.
22. The Drug War Our legal system for drugs is antiquated and distorted with hypocrisy
and inconsistencies. 'Drugs' such as nicotine
and caffeine (stimulants, uppers) and alcohol (a depressant, downer) are legal to use and available anywhere. They are both
damaging to health, but are legal for political reasons (voter demand, campaign contributions)), and because the government
wants the tax revenue. Other uppers and downers are illegal. Extracts of marijuana with proven medicinal uses are illegal,
while morphine (made from otherwise illegal opium) is used by doctors for pain suppression. Why is one OK and not the other?
Changes are needed. While excess use of 'sporting' drugs is a serious medical and social problem, only fools and ignorant
youths do it. However, I say criminalization of such stupid activity only makes it worse (our experience with alcohol prohibition
is a good comparison). Further, such use is none of the government's business unless the user violates or threatens someone
else's rights (see Dave's 'Core Principle' in issue # 2 above). The FDA and our 'War
on Drugs' do much more harm than good. Users can get drugs easily even after years of the Drug War (but they cost more
now), and the violent 'turf wars' of pushers and gangs, plus burglaries and muggings by users to support their
habit, are worse than ever. It also corrupts police; 1) With the easy abuse of 'asset forfeiture' laws. They
can be imposed as 'civil' arrests on just 'suspects'; no profit on illegal acts; they can confiscate –
and own – any asset that was ‘associated’ with a ‘suspected’ crime. This includes local police
taking title to, and selling (their department keeps the money!), cars, boats, planes, ranches, etc. without trial. The owner
can sue for return, but this takes time and money and may not work, and 2) By the funding and excitement from SWAT Team 'combat'
style attitudes and raiding equipment. My solution is to treat drugs like alcohol and nicotine (tax it and control
age of buyer and offer optional control on purity of product), and handle abusers as; a) A mental and medical problem,
or b) Illegal if a user threatens others, such as driving a car while high. Abuse and violence will soon subside, just as
with alcohol, after the end of prohibition. The fact that many drugs are more potent than alcohol makes it even more urgent
to get such business out of the hands of criminals.
Problem: Energy costs and consumption are going up worldwide, while oil reserves and production (barrels per day, B/D) from
exising wells are going down. The world’s daily production averaged 83 million B/D in 2004, and the USA consumed
about 25% of it (with only 4% of the world’s population). Production of ‘cheap oil’ (cheap to find, pump
and refine) is forecast to decline to 39 mill. B/D by 2030 while consumption increases to 118 ! This is the 'peak oil'
concept, where wells in liquid oil pools start to produce less per day. The difference will have to be made up by coal, natural
gas, tar-sands, shale-oil and gas (by ‘fracking’), nuclear, wind, solar, and bio-fuel, algae farms, etc., plus reduced consumption and more CONSERVATION
!! Each fuel
has its own economic, technical, and enviro issues. Oil has been cheap to get, and convenient to use, so has been the first
choice so far. As the price of oil goes up, these alternate fuels will become more attractive, especially if renewable and/or
Consumption by China and India is growing faster than any other country. They are shopping for
long-term OIL DEALS, big time! This ties-in with why Bush invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, and Obama is threatening Iran (as
I write in Jan-2013); namely to control the Greater Mid East oil producers (including Uzbekistan, other ‘xxstans’,
the Caspian area, and North Africa) before other countries make deals for it. An underlyimg reason is to prevent access by
China, thus limiting their growth. USA leaders want it ALL!
Solution: I recommend; 1. End the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, and engage in peaceful oil-supply negotiations with all producers
worldwide (we are a big customer, and they need us!), 2. Allow eco-friendly oil drilling in all parts of the USA. Note that
the Audubon Society has done this in their preserves, 3. Encourage development of alternate fuels and methods (such as electricity
from new-generation engines, solar, hydro and nuclear, but no subsidies; end the counterproductive corn ethanol program),
and 4. Allow gas and oil prices to rise to their free-market levels, without subsidies or control, but with appropriate anti-pollution
laws based on property-rights (protect your body, water, air, and land) for those people and places at present or future risk.
The past errors, distortions and fears of nuclear energy need to be updated and corrected so the new and safe methods for
generation of electricity can be employed. Safer thorium could replace uranium.
These four changes will
give incentive for conservation and production of alternate energy. The free market is very good at responding to demand.
Government bureaucrats always spend more and accomplish less than people using their own money, and their projects usually
do more harm than good. For example, consider the politically-driven scandal of subsidies for ethanol, which is toxic, expensive,
causes land misuse by excess corn production, is bad for the environment, and increases food prices, etc. BOO !
Algea farms for bio-fuel, using flooded ponds, have good potential because they; use minimal fertilizer;
can use areas with bad soil; and can use saltwater. New 'external combustion' engines are more efficient, and can
burn low grade fuels. For a comprehensive list of energy choices, see www.peswiki.com.
24. Traits of Capitalism and Corporations
Liberals, Socialists, and Progressives like to attack 'Capitalism' and label it as a 'social
system', and 'corporations' as bastions of greed and abuse. However, Capitalism is properly defined in my
1953 and 1961 dictionaries as an
'economic system' based on private ownership and free enterprise. It is also a moral system because all conduct is voluntary. Current
dictionaries have crept toward defining it as a 'social system' as Liberal editors take control; very convenient,
but false. A Corporation is just a legal structure to allow shared ownership and financing. Liberals
like to say that corps are a way to avoid personal responsibility. These definitions were invented by Liberals as straw men
to avoid their own complicity in corrupt and unconstitutional government. It is bad 'people' (as usual; same for churches
and governments), bad laws, corrupt government (including legal 'favors', subsidies, etc.), and perverse incentives that
cause the trouble. Liberals avoid
government because they want it to keep giving the legal favors and welfare, but only to their projects. What a pile of ignorance and hypocrisy! For example, the June 26, 2002 main editorial in the
Wall Street Journal, by Dr. Henry Manne (George Mason Univ., Univ. of Chicago, etc.), made a great point that the Williams
Act of 1968 (now rules 13d and 14d of the 1934 Securities Act) was the birth of the Boardroom and Officer fraud and self-dealing
we have been seeing since the '80s (it took a few years to set in). The new law required takeover groups
to announce their intent once they had 5 % of the target stock, which gave warning so officers could protect themselves. This
allowed officers of many firms to get lazy and corrupt without risk of getting booted-out. Remember, corporations become takeover
targets only because their profits, and return on assets, are low, usually due to bad management. In takeovers, the shareholders
win, but bad managers lose! Thus, at-risk bad managers whine to the government for protection (can you say 'campaign donation'?).
Many states have passed laws to ‘protect’ their local firms from ‘outsiders’, and the ’poison
pill’ was born to fend-off the takeover groups! It wasn't long (and quite predictable) that biased 'Buddy'
Directors were selected by Officers (a ‘slate’; a reverse of the proper order). The self-dealing started, and
the combined 'Chairman and CEO' position was born (an inherent conflict) ! These hot-shot CEOs plundered their firms
with huge salaries and stock options, while trying to set a glorious, resume-enhancing, growth record with short-term, unsustainable,
profit enhancements (reduce staff, announce grand plans, etc.), and excess debt, spending and risk They often got
themselves and their firms in business or legal trouble, but left with ‘golden handshakes’ or hung around
a while with ‘retention bonuses’. There are hundreds of examples! Why should a low-performing, or corrupt, CEO
get a multi-million dollar bonus when fired?? It is white-collar theft!Solution: I
say the solution is to repeal the Williams Act, and other distortions of the free market, not pass a slew of new regulations.
Let the free market do its work; Then shareholders will wake-up and vote for honest, competent Directors that select and monitor
25. Origins of 2008 Crash and Effect of Bailouts
The rush of home loan defaults and bank problems started in late 2007, and peaked in Sep-2008,
and is continuing, but less, at this writing in Jan-2013. The underlying cause was Fake Money, as described in Chapter 3.
This excess supply of money, delivered to lenders by the Fed and its pals at FreddieMac and FannieMae, was the ‘mother’s
milk’ of market distortion. A trigger was the 4.25% increase (from 1% to 5,25%) in interest set by Greenspan when he ended his
Fed term in Jan-2006. A major
facilitator was the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), a 1977 federal law that requires banks and thrifts to offer credit throughout their entire market area and prohibits them from targeting only wealthier neighborhoods
with their services, a practice known as "redlining." The purpose of the CRA is to provide (force?) credit, including home ownership opportunities,
to ‘underserved’ (unqualified?) populations and commercial loans to small businesses. OK, getting their votes
may be part of it! The CRA was passed into law by the U.S.
Congress in 1977 as a result of national grassroots pressure for affordable housing, and despite considerable
opposition from the mainstream banking community. The CRA mandates that each banking institution be evaluated to determine
if it has met the credit needs of its entire community. In 1995, as a result of interest from
President Clinton's administration, the implementing regulations for the CRA were strengthened by focusing the financial
regulators' attention on institutions' performance in helping to meet community credit needs. These changes were very
controversial and as a result, the regulators agreed to revisit the rule after it had been fully implemented for five years.
Thus in 2002, the regulators opened up the regulation for review and potential revision. The Clinton Administration's regulatory revisions with
an effective starting date of January 31, 1995 were credited with substantially increasing the
number and aggregate amount of loans to small businesses and to low- and moderate-income borrowers for home loans. Part of
the increase in home loans was due to increased efficiency and the genesis of lenders, like Countrywide (set up as an ‘off brand’ by Bank
of America), that was aggressive and did not mitigate loan risk with savings deposits (ie, borrowers must have deposits) as
did traditional banks using the new subprime authorization. This is known as the secondary market for mortgage loans (high
risk for banks). The revisions allowed the securitization (packaging, with insurance, and called AAA; FRAUD!!)
of CRA loans containing subprime mortgages. The first public securitization of CRA loans started in 1997 by Bear Stearns, and it helped break them in Sep-2008!. The number of CRA mortgage loans increased by 39 percent between
1993 and 1998, while other loans increased by only 17 percent ( a flood of money into high risk). In the 1980s, groups such as the activists at ACORN (‘Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now’,
www.acorn.org; an Obama favorite!) began pushing charges of "redlining" - claims that banks discriminated against minorities in mortgage lending. In 1989, sympathetic members of Congress
got the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act amended to force banks to collect racial data on mortgage applicants; this allowed various
studies to be ginned up that seemed to validate the original accusation. In
fact, minority mortgage applications were rejected more frequently than other applications - but the overwhelming
reason wasn't racial discrimination, but simply that minorities tend to have weaker finances. A study in 1992 proved that
bias was not the problem. Yet the harm was done and banks loosened their rules to avoid lawsuits. A good example is an article on the government’s takeover
of Chrysler as written by Peter Schiff (see P. 124) on May 5, 2009 and quoted in part here: “…A real bankruptcy is the only solution. In it, current shareholders
get wiped out, current contracts and obligations are voided, which creates the opportunity for new management, with private
capital, to scrap out-of-date business practices, and produce cars cheaply and profitably. Under the guise of ‘saving
jobs’, the Administration has disrupted this process.”
Illegally giving control of Chrysler and
GM to the UAW and the government in 2009 enshrined a culture of failure and sealed Detroit's fate. Both companies have
become government-sponsored entities, not too dissimilar from Amtrak or the Post Office, forever relying on taxpayer funds
to create products of dubious quality.” Sure enough, Detroit is now full of decay and crime. The
police have given-up on serving some neighborhoods! The
statist approach of Obama’s ‘government intervention and control’ will make the economic recovery worse
and longer. His re-election in Nov-2012 adds to the potential amount of economic and cultural damage!
26. Occupational and
Problem: Licenses are touted as
a way to protect citizens from faulty or fraudulent services, but in fact usually limit choices to the citizens and give ‘cartel
or monopoly’ status to the license holders. This applies to lawyers, doctors, plumbers, beauticians, restaurants, contractors,
etc. where the licensing is often abused by; 1. The government, and incumbent licensees, to restrict new entrants in
order to protect themselves and friends from competition, and 2. By associations (unions, medical, legal, etc.) to impose
rules such as minimum fees to clients, controlled or no advertising of rates, etc. The government has threatened cancellation
of a license to force ‘cooperation’, such as making phone companies give them private usage data, or radio and
TV treat them ‘nice’. Another category is when the citizen is subject to, or can be threatened by, the service
provider without initiating choice. An example is a truck driver or airline pilot, where one can be run into, or be in a crash,
if an unqualified person is providing the service. These should be licensed to PROTECT the citizen, a proper function of government.
I recommend that licenses be optional when the citizen can initiate choice of the service provider. This would; 1. Allow
individuals and firms to offer services, and set and advertise prices, without permission from the government or a 'professional
society' or union (let the buyer beware, and decide), 2. Allow groups to form 'professional societies' or
unions that set their own standards of quality, disclosure of member skills and performance records, and membership requirements,
and advertise them, without government control, and 3. Bring the benefits of competition (better quality, lower prices)
to the trade groups (yes, doctors and lawyers are a trade group). Buyers who prefer a government-licensed provider, could
use one; but all buyers (patients, clients, etc.) would have a CHOICE of licensed or unlicensed. Of course, it follows that
the chooser would be responsible for the results and could not sue a vendor for being incompetent if unlicensed.
Limits on Terms and Benefits for Congress
Problem: One cause of corruption in DC is that officials will do almost anything to keep their
prestigious and profitable jobs (pork to voters; favors to campaign donors, etc.). Furthermore, they vote themselves pension,
health and other benefits that far exceed what they bestow on their constituents. Examples are; a) Better pensions and health
care than Social Security and Medicare, b) Their children can include student loan debt in a bankruptcy, c) Any campaign funds
existing when they retire can be used by them for non-personal spending (but they often benefit). Can you say 'Privileged
Solution: I recommend that: 1. No U.S. Representative may serve more than four terms (8 years), two terms (12 years) for a Senator, or a combined fourteen years if they have worked in both jobs (based on a combined life
total), 2. All elected officials get the same pension (Social Security) and health (Medicare) benefits as the 'common'
citizens, and with the same rules for calculating fees, and reimbursement of claims, and 3. End any other special treatment
that is found.28.
Eliminate 'Earmark' Pork
Funding Most Congresspersons like to 'bring
home the pork' to fund state projects and win votes. These 'earmarks' are hidden, unconstitutional, add-ons to
other funding bills such as transportation, and 'Omnibus Appropriations Bills' (5 or 10 funding bills combined),
and are not discussed in the normal approval process, yet add-up to billions of dollars per year. Even worse, the omnibus
bills are usually many hundreds of pages and few Congresspersons read any part of them! Since the government is
already 'in the red', this spending is a serious add-on to our national debt problem! I will promote a
bill to make earmarks and Omnibus Appropriation Bills (and sneaky 'Minibus' bills) illegal for all Congresspersons. This
will eliminate cries by some voters of; 'We're not getting our share of pork'. Of course we will also fight
for reductions and elimination of improper grants and subsidies. Unfortunately, in May-2009, Pres. Obama blessed earmarks
by saying; ‘The local Congressperson knows best what his/her District needs.’ Another campaign pledge trashed!
29. Nullification of Federal Laws by States: In general, nullification is refusal to enforce a law deemed unconstitutional or otherwise illegal. It originates
in the concern of government becoming too strong or abusive, and ignoring the Constitution and laws. Key applications are;
1) Refusal of States to enforce Federal
laws; State sovereignty over the Federal government is the basis. Recent examples are state nullifications of all, or portions of, the REAL ID Act of 2005, medical marijuana
laws, Cap and Trade, and the Second Amendment restrictions 2) Refusal of a jury to enforce charges imposed by a law or the court; This relates to sovereignty of the citizens over all levels of government. On this basis, juries can refuse to impose
the penalties decided upon by the court. Over the years, judges and lawyers have made it illegal, confirming the original
concern; They want more power! My position is that nullification is necessary as a check on excess and immoral use of power by the
government. Tom Woods Ph.D. explains it well in his book; ‘Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century’.
30. Secession by States from the USA: The USA was created by secession of the colonies from England.
The new ‘states’ were sovereign entities that created a Federal government, limited in scope by a Constitution.
It was a voluntary association that could be ended by the members.Early examples of ‘creeping federal dominance’ that violate our freedoms and States’ Rights
were: 1) The Civil War (actually a war of aggression by the North; the South just wanted to leave, not take-over the government)
established the Federal government as superior in power to the States based on ‘might-is-right’, and 2) The Pledge
of Allegiance, written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy (a socialist Baptist minister who was fired for his socialist sermons) which
included the word ‘indivisible’. In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the catholic Knights of Columbus, added
the words, 'under God', making the Pledge both a patriotic oath and a public prayer. Both terms are improper because;
a) our allegiance should be to the nation (the land and people), not the government, and b) ‘under God’ violates
separation of church and state (inserting religion into a text, place, etc. that is used, and owned, by all).Recent Federal mandates (Obama’s
health care, ‘No Child Left Behind’, TSA, drug laws, etc., etc.) have awakened interest in secession because they
violate the Constitution, States’ Rights, and our fundamental rights of self-government, and voluntary association. Groups in many States have sent secession petitions to the
White House! Secession
is a proper reaction to abusive and illegal acts by the federal government. As a first step, secession petitions can be a
tool to alert Congress and the President to the need for changes. Opponents cite the Article 6 ‘Supremacy Clause’
in the Constitution (which can be argued only applies to laws that are Constitutional). The Swiss use their Referendum process
to change laws and terminate the jobs of politicians. We should do the same. In the absence of corrections from DC, full secession
can be employed (similar to referendum in #31 below).
a. Referendum Laws :
The Swiss have a system of 26 cantons which have comprised the federal state since 1848. The citizens have been very successful
in controlling government abuses and excesses by use of their referendum laws which allow them to; 1) Remove legislators from
office (recall), 2) Pass laws that they want but can’t get the self-serving legislators to pass, and 3) Repeal laws
that they don’t like. This keeps the legislators alert to comply with the voter’s wishes, and gives voters incentive
to be active (awake) in managing their country (rather than whining as ‘victims’). In the U.S., ‘States’
Rights’ would be strengthened by this approach (see #12 above), and
b. A Balanced Budget amendment will give us a powerful tool to limit spending. Politicians
will like it because they can claim; ‘We want to give you more, but our hands are tied!’
Problem: There will always be abortions. The legality and conditions are what vary. Roe v Wade,
and government payments in many cases, have made abortion so cheap and convenient it is often treated as a means of contraception.
Carelessness and irresponsibility are rampant. Solution: I am personally opposed to abortion except
to protect the mother's life, and say in no case should the government pay the costs. I further oppose abortion after
the first trimester (3 months is plenty of time to make up your mind), and all partial-birth abortions. However, one should
not seek laws to force others to comply with one's own value system. Again, The 'Core Principle' applies (see
Item 1b above). The question is. 'When does the fetus become a separate person with rights?' Many people take
the position that abortion is a moral or religious issue, and assert that ‘life begins upon conception’
and the fetus is an 'unborn child', just as they righteously assert their dogma about deities, angels, virgin births,
Heaven, Hell, etc. in the absence of supporting logic or fact. These are sincere positions, but do not negate the
fact that the fetus is not a separate person with
rights until born. It is a living part of the mother's body, like her arm, but not a 'person'
with rights.As to the law, a woman's body
is her property, and does not belong to the
government, her doctor, or her church. Thus, it is a woman’s right to make an informed choice on what happens to
her body. In fact, for a responsible woman
there are a series of three choices involved.
Whether to;1) Have
sex, 2) Use protection,
and if pregnant,3) Deliver a baby, or have an abortion. The Roe vs Wade ruling is invalid because
the Federal government has no constitutional authority in this area. Thus it is a State issue. In summary: 1.
Opponents of abortion should not attempt to impose their personal views or
religious beliefs on others by force of law. That would be immoral
and unconstitutional. They should peacefully
oppose abortion without using force or threat to the pregnant woman, or her doctors and staff and their facilities.2. Proponents should exercise their right without expecting others (including
via the government) to pay for it, and they should observe the three choices above. FLASH:
This Jan. 26, 2013 article (//coloradoindependent.com/126827/catholic-schooling
) tells us that Jeremy Stodghill, of Canon City, CO, is suing St. Thomas More Hospital there
for malpractice in the 2006 death of his wife and twin unborn sons. The hospital lawyers argue that his twin boys,
who were seven months in the womb, don’t qualify as people. ”, despite church directives to caregivers
to “witness the sanctity of human life from the moment of conception until death” and always to “defend
the unborn.” I call this an example of ’situational ethics’ , where you change
your principles as needed!
33. End of Life Choices: Modern technology allows terminally ill people to live longer, but usually at great
expense and suffering (a socially mandated form of torture). To avoid this harm, our laws and societal standards need to be
revised as follows. Current law gives four choices for the patient and family; 1. Increasing pain medication (for comfort),
2. Terminal sedation (keep the patient completely unconscious until death occurs),
3. Withdrawing treatments and life-support, and 4. Advance authorization to doctors and family filed by the patient
while healthy as a ‘living will’ and/or ‘power of attorney’. Self-inflicted, and patient-approved
‘assisted suicide’ are illegal (remember Dr. Kervorkian?), but this ignores that in a free society you own your
life and body (the government and church don’t). It is none of the government’s business what you do to yourself,
thus should be legal. ‘Mercy killing’ (no patient approval), is illegal due to possible misuse, but should be
made legal with adequate controls. Moral and religious issues are optional personal choices. .
A. Recommended Authors, Books, and Sources:
1. Paul Craig Roberts, Ph.D.,
Economist and author of eight books and many articles on economics and politics; all non-PC, based on fact and logic, and
seeking the truth. He holds a Ph.D. from the
University of Virginia, and was a post-graduate at the University of California, Berkeley, and Oxford University where he was a member of Merton College. He is Chairman of the Institute for Political Economy
and a Research Fellow at the Independent Institute, a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, former contributing editor for National Review,
a former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury, and John M. Olin Fellow at the Institute for Political Economy and Senior
Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. Visit www.PaulCraigRoberts.org. See his full story at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Craig_Roberts.
James Quinn, is Senior Director of Strategic Planning for a major university, and author of a series of essays on world
financial affairs. See: 'WHAT HAPPENED TO THE AMERICAN DREAM', Dec. 24, 2008'
at http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/quinn/2008/1224.html, and 'The Law of Unintended Consequences: 20th Century and Beyond' Jan. 5, 2009. For more,
go to http://seekingalpha.com/author/james-quinn , http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/quinn/2009/0218.html, and his main site; http://www.theburningplatform.com/ .
3. Donald W. Miller, Jr., M.D. is a cardiac surgeon and Professor of Surgery at
the University of Washington in Seattle. He is a member of Doctors for Disaster Preparedness and writes on politics, health and medicine. For a start, see his excellent ‘A Fourteen Point Plan for a Post-Wilsonian
America‘ at http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/miller2.html, and his archives at www.lewrockwell.com. His web site is www.donaldmiller.com, which includes his CV and bio.
4. Michael Edwards: Michael
is a Principal of ActivistPost.com which publishes articles on the Internet which are compatible with the theme of this web
site. See the archives there.
5. Peter Schiff is President of Euro
Pacific Capital and author of ‘The Little Book of Bull Moves in Bear Markets’ and ‘Crash Proof: How to Profit from the Coming Economic
Collapse’. See his http://www.europac.net/, and archives at http://www.lewrockwell.com/schiff/schiff-arch.html6. Murray Rothbard Ph.D., Libertarian economist, Professor, and prolific author. See
'What has the Government Done to our Money?' and http://www.mises.org/money.asp
7. F. A. Hayek, Nobel Laureate. See; 'Denationalisation of Money: The Argument Refined',
1976, which puts forth the case to; 1) end the government monopoly on money creation, 2) let anyone create
money, and 3) let the free market determine which type of money is used.
8. For more on money, visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply, http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=483, http://www.history.com/minisites/money/viewPage?pageId=52498.
9. Rep. Ron Paul M.D. (R-TX), 'End the Fed', Sep. 2009, a
direct assault on the unconsitutional secrecy of the Federal Reserve System, supported by Rep. Paul's HR-1207 which has
over 250 co-signers as of Oct-09, and may soon come to a vote. Similar support is building in the Senate for SR-604, and 'The
Revolution: A Manifesto', April 2008,
Republican candidate for President in 2008. Dr. Paul says we have been lied to, robbed and used by our own government;
the people we elected into office, and that we should be able to trust. He offers new approaches on foreign policy (non-intervention
abroad, but strong on defense at home), economic freedom, personal responsibility, and the proper role of government. 'Manifesto'
made the Wall Street Journal 'Best Sellers' list in its first week in print. This speaks for the importance of Dr.
10. Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), 'America: The Next Chapter: Tough Questions and Straight Answers', March-08, by a collection of practical-and nonpartisan-policy prescriptions on issues as diverse as healthcare and the Middle East.
Published by HarperCollins imprint Ecco.
11. The Cato Institute: ‘Cato Handbook on Policy’ and ‘Downsizing the Federal Government’.(www.cato.org)
12. The Ludwig von Mises Institute: 1. M. Rothbard, ‘What has the Government done to our Money?' (www.mises.org), 2. Nobel Laureate F. A. Hayek's 'Denationalization of Money: The Argument Refined', 1976, which puts forth the case to; a) end the government monopoly
on money creation, b) let anyone create money, and c) let the free market determine which type of money is used, and 3. their daily essays at www.LewRockwell.com.
13. The Independent Institute: 'Resurgence of the Warfare State.' (www.independent.org)
14. Reason Foundation:
A monthly magazine plus studies and essays on the benefits of less government, and more freedom. ( www.reason.org )
'Republican Liberty Caucus': A group of Republicans
that promote limited government and adherence to the Constitution. ( www.RLC.org )
'Empire of Debt', a 2006 book by W. Bonner and A. Wiggins.
It addresses how of excess national debt and spending can drastically reduce the value of the U.S. Dollar, and cause
a major depression.
Blowback Triology’, three books
by Chalmers Johnson (Blowback-2000, Sorrows of Empire-2004, Nemesis-2007). Johnson shows how our meddling, and expensive, foreign
policy does more harm than good.
18. 'The True Believer', by Eric Hoffer, 1951, a book which shows how people join
a group or mass movement (nationalist, social, political, religious, 'Global Warming', etc.) to bring a sense
of security, power, righteousness, or income to themselves.
19. 'The Price of Loyalty', 2004. by Paul O'Neill,
former Sec. of Treasury. This book describes the attitudes of the Bush cabal and how they discussed plans to invade
Iraq long before 9-11.
'The Fall of the House of Bush', by Craig Unger, 2007 (also 'House of Bush, House of Saud); A journalist, he describes;
1. The true story of how the Bush cabal schemed to control the world for religion and money, and 2. The rise and collusion of the neoconservative and christian-right influences
in Republican party politics.
Nation of Sheep', by William Lederer, 1961 (also 'The Ugly American'), is about how Americans accept abuse by
the government without complaint or curiosity, as long as the 'good times roll'.
22. 'A Nation of Sheep',
2007, by Andrew Napolitano, (also 'Constitutional Chaos'), is about how Americans accept abuse by the government without
complaint or curiosity, as long as the 'good times roll'.
23. ‘Index of Economic Freedom’, annual since 1994, The Heritage Foundation, charts economic success vs freedom; www.heritage.org/research/features/index/
24. 'The Israel Lobby', Mar-06, the London Review of Books, an essay by John Mearsheimer and Stephen
Walt, Professors at the University of Chicago, followed in 2007 by their book ‘Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy'. An analysis of the scandalous illegal and covert operations of Israel's U.S. lobby 'American-Israel
Public Affairs Committee' (AIPAC) and how it impacts votes in Congress and election of Congresspersons.
25. 'Broken Government', 2007, by John Dean (attorney to R. Nixon).
How the Bush administration has damaged the structure and functioning of government. (Also 'Worse Than Watergate',
2004; and 'Conservatives Without a Conscience', 2006; both also about misconduct by the Bush-43 team)
26. 'The Genius of Impeachment', 2006, by John Nichols.
He states the threat of impeachment has worked to temper presidential excesses and to reassert democratic values in times
of national drift. The book also makes clear that we sorely need such a movement today, and that both the president and vice
president (Bush-Cheney) deserve impeachment.
'U.S. vs Bush', 2006, by Elizabeth de la Vega. A former Federal Prosecuter, she has written a fictional case
for grand jury indictment of George Bush and his gang on charges of conspiracy and fraud against the USA. It shows the grounds
28. 'The Great Reckoning:
How the world will change in the depression of the 1990s', 1991, by J. Davidson and Lord R. Mogg. They warn of economic
collapse of the USA due to overspending and Empire-style foreign policy.
'Day of Reckoning: How Hubris, Ideology, and Greed Are Tearing America Apart", 2006, by Patrick Buchanan. Pat says
that America is facing a crisis from which it may not survive. He argues that the effects of mass immigration, ineffective
foreign policy, an overextended military, and the worship of "free trade" are leading the country on a path
of destruction. Also read other fine books by Pat, including 'The Unnecessary War', 'A Republic Not An Empire',
and 'The Death of the West'.
30. 'How Would a Patriot Act? Defending American Values from a President Run Amok', 2006
by Glenn Greenwald. A constitutional lawyer,
he critiques; a. The Bush administration's use, and abuse, of executive power,
and b. Bushie's rampant and arrogant expansion of power while Democrats, who control Congress, do nothing to resist
(they hope to inherit it!).
31. 'Money Meltdown',
1994, by Judy Shelton. Ms. Shelton discusses some history of money, the problems of manipulation by governments, and
the benefits of privately issued gold-backed currency and private banking, with no government monopoly, Federal Reserve System, or
legal tender laws.
B. Older Books
that Gave Warning and Good Advice.
‘The Law’, 1850, by F. Bastiat. With his perspective of the French Revolution, he explains the fallacies of Socialism
and how it must degenerate into Communism.
2. ‘War is a Racket’,
1935, by Smedley Butler, Maj. General, US Marines. He charges that war profiteers are behind our wars and they are all crimes.
3. ‘Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal’, 1967, by Ayn Rand. Discusses
both the productive and moral aspects of Capitalism. Comments by Alan Greenspan (before he joined the Fed banksters in DC)
4. ‘Truth and Untruth’, 1972, by Rep. Paul N. ‘Pete’
McCloskey Jr. (R, CA-11, 1967). Pete warned us about Nixon’s lies concerning Vietnam, and the broader scope of dishonesty
in government. Pete was my Congressman, and I helped in his first election campaign in 1967.
5. ‘A Time for Truth’, 1979, by William Simon. Bill warned us of the damage being caused by excess
spending, taxes, and the debasement of our currency.
6. ‘An American
Renaissance’, 1979, by Rep. Jack Kemp. Jack sent an upbeat message on how less government spending and lower taxes would
produce more growth, all based on his support of Austrian economics.
‘Restoring the American Dream’, 1979, by Robert Ringer. Robert warned us of a trend in the USA to expect a ‘free
lunch’, and how we can reverse the trend with more personal responsibility and less government
8. ‘Balanced Budgets, Fiscal Responsibility and the Constitution’, 1980, by R. Wagner and R. Tollison
with the Cato Institute (Monograph # 1). Discusses how government ‘stimulus’ spending does
more harm than good.
9. ‘The Supply-Side Revolution’, 1984,
by Paul Craig Roberts. This is an insider’s account of how the Reagan administration pursued tax cuts rather than increased
spending to boost the economy.
C. Authors and 'Info and Articles' Web
All the writings of (in alpha order): Pat Buchanan, Ivan Eland and Robert Higgs (Independent.org), James Grant (GrantsPub.com),
Eric Margolis (www.ericmargolis.com), Gary North (www.garynorth.com), Cong.
Ron Paul, Justin Raimondo (Antiwar.com), and Paul Craig Roberts (PaulCraigRoberts.org) and click on 'articles'.
Apologies to many other good authors not shown
2. Web Sites: See a daily flow
of essays from; ActivistPost.com, www.LewRockwell.com, www.Antiwar.com, www.FFF.org, www.Truthdig.com, www.VDare.com, www.Alternet.org, www.Salon.com, www.Truthout.org, www.reason.org, www.pacificreasearch.org, www.independent.org, pacificlegal.org, http://www.garynorth.com/public/department79.cfm, http://clicks.dailyreckoning.com//t/AQ/G1Q/HvA/DMQ/AQ/AWiI7Q/y8Rj, and ‘Information Clearing House’, join ICH list at
Thanks for visiting my site: www.Forward-USA.org
Let freedom ring !
Give non-intervention a chance !