Archive for the ‘Favorite Posts’ Category

Today in America terms like Communist or Socialist get thrown around regularly to describe the Federal Government under the Obama administration. There are some aspects of both Communism and Socialism that are apparent and undeniable in todays government, but neither term is wholly accurate. It is more accurate to use the term Fascist. The tendency of America toward Fascism did not start under Obama but has without a doubt blossomed. The progression toward fascism under Bush has been documented enough for 10 lifetimes by a multitude of other people, I am not excusing his administration from guilt just choosing to not drone on unnecessarily about a topic that has been covered ad nauseam.

8 Reasons Why Fascism Is The New American Way.

1. Mixed Economy – The transition of the economy of America from a Free Market economy to a mixed economy has accelerated under Obama. In a mixed economy private enterprise continues to produce the majority of goods and services but operate under such a heavy regulatory burden from the national government that production is essentially controlled by the national government. In a mixed economy the national government utilizes manipulation of monetary and fiscal policy in order to steer production and pricing, control competition, and intervene in the business cycle.

2. From the Wikipedia definition of Fascism “a totalitarian state that seeks the mass mobilization of the national community through discipline, indoctrination, physical training, and eugenics.”

Under the Obama administration calls for “bi-partisanship” are at an all time high. We are being led to believe by the national media that the ills of our nation are rooted in disagreement and gridlock. (Reminiscent of “third position” politics which claim to be syncretic or beyond the left right paradigm). When in fact the opposite is true. The Federal Government was designed to be slow and prohibit rash decisions by lawmakers, it was designed to prevent the tyranny of the majority as well. Despite this, the call to unite under one set of ideals continues to be drummed into the heads of the public. Eerily the Obama administration has chosen to focus on all of the categories outlined above. Indoctrination of the general public and students through media and education, physical training by the First Lady and her various programs aimed at American physical health, and eugenics through the continued support of abortion and pro abortion groups.

3. “The Ready Reserve Corps”- Fascist movements have historically used paramilitary forces to overthrow governments. I have documented and explained how it came into existence and why the Ready Reserve Corps is a paramilitary force. (Here)

4. Obama has expanded on the fascist tendencies of the Federal Government by implementing protectionist economic policies which restrict the free trade of goods and services. As a matter of fact a national Obama campaign ad brags about protectionist policies toward China. (Here) Obama has continued the interventionist economic policies of his predecessors as well by allowing monetary manipulation by the Federal Reserve.

5. Historically, Fascist governments have been known for publicly supporting the economic lower class (proletariat) while denouncing the economic upper class (bourgeois). Obama’s hostility toward the rich and the emergence of the OWS movement are not coincidentally in American politics at the same time. The OWS movement is clearly a wing of Obama’s domestic economic policy agenda. OWS was designed to galvanize the poor against the rich to facilitate Federal Government wealth redistribution (equality). In the past, Fascist have created this conflict between classes then used the hostilities to advocate their policies to “resolve” the conflict to “preserve the nation”.

6. Fascism is hostile toward capitalism. Capitalism is considered too competitive and results in enterprise that are indifferent to the success of the nation. In the eyes of Fascists, Capitalists have no goals other than the maximization of profit. They view the desire to maximize profits as individualistic and inconsiderate of the nation as well as the nations population.

The Obama administration has been unabashedly anti-captialist since taking office. There has been more anti-captialist rhetoric in his Presidency than during any other part of our nations history. The demonization of capitalism and private businesses has become such a crucial part of Obama’s  agenda that he now openly speaks negatively about American businesses in his speeches. He frequently references greed and profits at the expense of the poor as his major issues with American business. Both are qualifying accusations for being a Fascist.

7. Improved Social Welfare is another highly promised aspect of Fascism. Italian Fascism under Benito Mussolini promised a “social revolution”. This social revolution was mostly made up of a doubling of the number of workers who worked for the government and and an increase of welfare spending from 7% to 20% of the Italian budget. In Nazi Germany the Fascist government created the Volkswagen automobile with the aim to make an automobile cheap enough that every German citizen could own one.

Under Obama we are seeing our own social revolution. The size of the Federal Government workforce increased by 13% between 2007-2011 according to this article in USA today (which also references a very minor decline in Federal employment for 7 or 8 months between late 2011 and mid 2012). The size of Federal Government employment had declined steadily from 6,639,000 in 1968 to 4,127,000 in 2007 according to the US Office Of Personnel Management (here).

Welfare spending in America has increased by 41% in Obama’s tenure in office according to this study done by the CATO institute (here).

America even has its own form of Volkswagen now! It’s called the Chevrolet! Also, dont forget about “cash for clunkers”! In true Fascist nature the Obama administration sought to put a newer more reliable vehicle in as many driveways across America as they could.

8. Corporatism was a key part of Italian style Fascism and it has been promoted by other groups of Fascists as well. This quote taken from Wikipedia by Oswald Mosley of the British Union of Fascists described Fascist corporatism this way, ” it means a nation organized as the human body, with each organ performing its individual function but working in harmony with the whole”. Italian fascists fostered the creation of a large number of state owned businesses by promising to protect the lower class and small businesses from the greed and profit mongering of big business.

Mussolini blamed “super capitalism” and excessive consumption for an economic peril in which bloated business will inevitably fail and seek the assistance of the government in which it had chided away from previously. At which point he was of the opinion that the state was obligated to the “bureaucratization of the economic activities of the nation”.

Our nation has seen historical increases in partnerships with private enterprise. Farming out work to private businesses is not an undesirable activity but once a business becomes married to the income it receives from Government and ceases to operate outside of government contracts, is it still an independent business or is it just another entity of the government? This is a question that is not easily answered but Fascist Corporatism is at the center of a transfer from Capitalism to Fascism and should be monitored closely. The government takeover of GM was a very large stride toward Fascist Corporatism in America outside of military hardware production.

The case can also be made that Fascist Corporatism is being carried out in stealth. With the bailouts, tarp funds, and QE I,II,III being performed under Obama one can easily say that the Federal Government is attempting to gain control of the funding mechanism for most businesses in America by purchasing the major lending institutions. Recently an audit of the Federal Reserve showed that $16 trillion ($16,000,000,000,000.00) of “stimulus” was handed out instead of the reported $800 billion. That is 20 times more than reported. A vast majority of these funds were dumped into lending institutions. (Data here)


I started writing this several months ago when gas prices started rising again and everyone was complaining about the oil companies and their huge profits. The topic was spotlighted again when President Obama made his recent remarks that apparently credited the mere existence of roads for all successful businesses in this country. His comments added a new angle to the favorite trump card argument of every Big Government type, “what about the roads?”. Enjoy.

Most people that I talk to aren’t aware that there is a Federal excise tax imposed on every gallon of clear diesel or gasoline purchased by consumers in this country, there are also variable state, county, and municipal fuel excise taxes. This excise tax is not a sales tax. It is also quite sizable…..

“The United States federal excise tax on gasoline is 18.4 cents per gallon (cpg) and 24.4 cents per gallon (cpg) for diesel fuel. On average, as of April 2012, state and local taxes add 31.1 cents to gasoline and 30.2 cents to diesel for a total US average fuel tax of 49.5 cents (cpg) per gallon for gas and 54.6 cents per gallon (cpg) for diesel.” – courtesy of Gas Price (emphasis added)

These excise taxes supposedly exist for the purpose of building and maintaining roads. They are essentially usage taxes that are intended to fund the roads and infrastructure that your vehicle needs to operate on.

If you have ever argued with a big government type about the elimination of income and property taxes they immediately whip out their go to argument, “what about the roads?!”. Clearly, they are not educated in the way that the taxes they advocate are intended to be allocated.*

I assume that if you read this blog regularly and were not previously aware of this fuel excise tax, you are most likely not shocked to hear of its existence. (After all, isn’t everything taxed?)

Now that you know the Federal, State and local Governments in America make money off of every gallon of gas sold you have to question why Big Government types argue for federally mandated higher MPG standards for cars when higher MPG’s mean less fuel used. Logically if less fuel is bought then less fuel tax is collected.

Isn’t this a direct contradiction?

I have to ask these people, “What about the roads?!”.

They obviously don’t see that supporting Federally mandated higher MPG standards will reduce the government excise tax revenue thus depleting funds available for road work and repair. Unfortunately in this scenario there are likely just as many cars on the road as before, but there is less money coming in to maintain the roads. This inevitably leads to the unchecked degradation of infrastructure.

This same consequence can of course occur naturally in a free market as well. Let’s assume MPG standards are not artificially set by the Federal Government. We can also safely assume that the price of fuel will fluctuate as a result of supply and demand and other market factors.

When fuel prices trend upward the demand for inefficient vehicles goes down. As more fuel efficient vehicles take to the streets the consumption of gasoline goes down. (additionally due to higher prices people will car pool, drive less often, etc., further reducing consumption) As the consumption of gasoline goes down the tax revenue from fuel excise taxes goes down as well.

In this scenario, the reduced tax revenue for road maintenance is offset by the fact that less cars are on the road traveling less miles. As a result, less maintenance and construction is required due to less wear and tear.

The major difference between the government regulated MPG scenario and the free market MPG scenario is that:

The reduction of consumption is artificial when Federally mandated MPG standards are imposed – The market did not influence auto makers and buyers to have higher MPG’s, government regulation did. This can negatively effect the price of vehicles as well as artificially diminish tax revenue for road construction and maintenance.

Vehicle Prices:

With MPG mandates imposed on auto manufacturers the price to produce a vehicle goes up artificially. The automaker is required to invest more dollars into each unit it produces in order to meet the new mandates. To recoup these additional costs, the manufacturer must raise the selling price of each unit. In some cases the new high MPG vehicle may be a flop because the market does not demand it, in which case the automaker suffers a huge loss from manufacturing a vehicle that nobody will buy. (See the Chevrolet Volt)

Without MPG mandates if the market demands vehicles with higher MPG’s then the producers are capable of selling vehicles at a higher price that the market is willing to bare because they are supplying a demand for higher MPG’s. Higher demand with lower supply means that each unit is worth more (scarcity). This increased price per unit justifies the additional expense of each unit on behalf of the producer. (See the Toyota Prius several years ago as an example)

Excise Tax Revenue: The MPG mandates cause excise tax revenue to decline as described earlier in the post.

To combat the diminishing tax revenue resulting from lower consumption and better MPG’s the government in all of its wisdom is mulling creating a mileage tax. That’s right not only will you be taxed for buying your car, owning your car, and buying your fuel; you will get the pleasure of being taxed for driving your car! Eventually the mileage tax will lead to a limit on miles that can be driven. Because once the government tracks how much of something you are doing, they ultimately want to be able to tell you to do it less or face the consequences.

What is the point of all this?

My point here is that when you advocate less tax there are “intellectuals” who quickly attempt to paint you as a hypocrite over issues such as the funding of public roads. The goal is to claim that you take advantage of what you rail against, as a result your argument is invalid in their eyes. It is the typical strategy of discrediting the messenger and avoiding the message.

Typically, the people who rush to call me a hypocrite because I want less tax but drive my vehicle on the road are the same people seeking to limit the funding of roads through unnecessary and harmful Federal mandates such as higher mpg standards, mileage taxes, etc.

Aren’t they the hypocrites?

Yes they are.

What’s more troubling about the Federal Excise Tax on fuel in particular is the blatant disregard for making prudent spending decisions and complete lack of financial oversight. (Surprised?)

As usual government takes your money for one purpose then just uses it for whatever the hell they want, mostly funding the bureaucracy. According to Wikipedia, in 2007 Transportation Secretary Mary Peters stated that 60% of federal excise tax collected went toward the funding of road projects. The remaining 40% went toward earmarks. (I could not find statistics from the current administration)  The following are a couple of earmarked projects from the 2005 Highway Funding Bill.

– $8,000,000 to build a parking garage at a hospital in Harlem, New York

– $223,000,000 for the “bridge to nowhere” in Alaska.

The above examples are just a drop in the bucket of Government waste and fraud. I believe it has become clear that Government will not keep itself in check. Without the vigilance of the public to keep them honest and responsible the Federal Leviathan will undoubtedly continue on its path to totalitarianism….but at least we will have roads.

For a stunningly comprehensive analysis of the downfalls of Federally controlled road projects click here.

* I do not believe that government agencies are either the best or cheapest method of building and maintaining roads. When private firms compete for the work the taxpayer benefits drastically.

LIKE” Less Than Unique On Facebook!

Thank God for the “Affordable Care Act”!

We now have the Federal Government ensuring that as Americans we all have……….

……..A militarized civilian police force?

The text in bold is the text as taken from the Affordable Care Act. The standard text are my questions and analysis of this section of the law.

See the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act, page 1312:

SEC. 5210. ESTABLISHING A READY RESERVE CORPS. Section 203 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 204) is amended to read as follows:


(1) IN GENERAL.–here shall be in the Service a commissioned Regular Corps and a Ready Reserve Corps for service in time of national emergency. (What constitutes a “national emergency”? This vague term does not identify what conditions must be met for an event to be considered a national emergency.)

(2) REQUIREMENT.–All commissioned officers shall be citizens of the United States and shall be appointed without regard to the civil-service laws and compensated without regard to the Classification Act 2 of 1923, as amended. (Notice that this specifies commissioned officers must be legal citizens, it does not state that enlisted individuals must fulfill a citizenship requirement. The Classification Act 2 and civil service laws apply to civilian government employees. The only government employees that are not subject to the civil service laws are the military. The ready reserve corps will operate without regard to these laws, one can easily infer then that this corps is more of a military branch than it is a branch of the civil service.)

(3) APPOINTMENT.– Commissioned officers of the Ready Reserve Corps shall be appointed by the President and commissioned officers of the Regular Corps shall be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. (Note that officers of the corps are appointed by the Executive branch without any Senate oversight)

(4) ACTIVE DUTY.–Commissioned officers of the Ready Reserve Corps shall at all times be subject to call to active duty by the Surgeon General, including active duty for the purpose of training. (This is a standing force that is on the ready at all times.)

(5) WARRANT OFFICERS.–Warrant officers may be appointed to the Service for the purpose of providing support to the health and delivery systems maintained by the Service and any warrant officer appointed to the Service shall be considered for purposes of this Act and title 37, United States Code, to be a commissioned officer within the Commissioned Corps of the Service.

(b) ASSIMILATING RESERVE CORP OFFICERS INTO THE REGULAR CORPS.—Effective on the date of enactment of the Affordable Health Choices Act, all individuals classified as officers in the Reserve Corps under this section (as such section existed on the day before the date of enactment of such Act) and serving on active duty shall be deemed to be commissioned officers of the Regular Corps. (Effectively any Presidentially appointed reserve corps officer will be automatically assimilated into the regular corps without any oversight or requirements. )

(1) PURPOSE.–The purpose of the Ready Reserve Corps is to fulfill the need to have additional Commissioned Corps personnel available on short notice (similar to the uniformed service’s reserve program) to assist regular Commissioned Corps personnel to meet both routine public health and emergency response missions. (At this point the “ready reserve” and “commissioned corps” are being compared to the “uniformed service’s”. This wording infers similarities in organizational structure with the military.)

(2) USES.–The Ready Reserve Corps shall–
(A) participate in routine training to meet the general and specific needs of the Commissioned Corps; (nothing real special here)

(B) be available and ready for involuntary calls to active duty during national emergencies and public health crises, similar to the uniformed service reserve personnel; (Did you notice the word “involuntary” in that sentence? And again a reference to similarities with the “uniformed services”)

(C) be available for backfilling critical positions left vacant during deployment of active duty Commissioned Corps members, as well as for deployment to respond to public health emergencies, both foreign and domestic; and (DID YOU READ THAT!? BOTH FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC! So we are discussing a military style “civilian” corps that can be involuntarily deployed to a foreign land as deemed necessary by the President for an undefined “national emergency” or “public health emergency”. Currently the military is the only place that this type of stuff exists. So again, more similarities with the uniformed services.)

(D) be available for service assignment in isolated, hardship, and medically underserved communities (as defined in section 399SS) to improve access to health services. (I can’t help but think of the scenes in movies like Shindler’s List where the poor and destitute Jews were stood in line and watched over by the military police. Most of which were under the impression they were in those lines for their own good.)

(d) FUNDING.—For the purpose of carrying out the duties and responsibilities of the Commissioned Corps under this section, there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to the Office of the Surgeon General for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2014. Funds appropriated under this subsection shall be used for recruitment and training of Commissioned Corps Officers. (WHAT!? A vague definition of how money will be appropriated and allocated…, not from our government!)

The hardcore Obama supporters out there will excuse this obvious power grab as nothing more than our dear leader and his minions filling the gaps in our nations emergency response preparedness. There are rebuttals out there stating that this is simply the creation of a reserve corps for the Public Health Service. The PHS does not have a uniformed reserve and has had past difficulties in fielding adequate numbers of their people to emergencies, such as after Hurricane Katrina.

What they will and have failed to address are the questions I raised above.

They will fail to address why essentially another branch of the military has been created.

They will fail to address why this new force answers directly to the President and requires no formal declaration of any type by Congress in order to be deployed domestically and abroad.

They will fail to address why this was snuck in with the “healthcare law” to begin with.

They will fail to address what a standing civilian army operating under its own set of rules implies for the future of our country.

They will fail to address the dangers of having solely executive appointed leadership operating a militarized force.

They will fail to admit that these are Obama’s “brown shirts”.

The term “brown shirt’s” was a nickname for the Nazi paramilitary police force the Sturmabteilung, or SA. The SA were a force created by the Nazi party that existed outside of the military but mirrored military ranking and operational procedures. The SA carried out the bidding of the Nazi party and was assigned to special duties by the party. They were an intrical part of the rise of the Nazi party and Adolf Hitler into power. Eventually the SA was dissolved and replaced by the more famous SS…..but that would NEVER happen in America.

The main argument supporting that this will not be a militarized force is that this is intended to be a corps of doctors, nurses, medical professionals, etc. But where is this specified? I did not read any requirements for members of the corps. If the requirements still need to be written then the legislation should not have passed. Half cocked legislation is dangerous and leaves an open door for the abuse of legislative power.

Maybe it wont be President Obama who misuses this new “corps”. Maybe we wont see misuse in our lifetimes, maybe we will. But the first question that needs to be answered is why is this even necessary? What void exists in the current plethora of military and police forces that exist at the Federal, State, and municipal levels?

Am I missing something?

The stated use for this corps is for national emergencies….which happen frequently enough that a new paramilitary force should be created and kept on standby at all times, right?

What is a national emergency anyway? We often hear declarations of a “state of emergency” for cities, counties, or nearly entire states due to flooding, wildfires, tornados, hurricanes, etc. In these circumstances we have municipal city and fire departments with back up from surrounding communities or county offices. Then there are the National Guard and FEMA as well. Not to mention the thousands of volunteers, hundreds of non profit organizations and many church organizations that pour into any disaster area in the nation to help with relief.

To have a national emergency we must have to have such a massive natural disaster that it throws our entire nation into chaos, or we are invaded by a foreign military, or we have a pandemic, or we are invaded by aliens. In those circumstances I would say that a national emergency could be declared. In those instances what good will the brown shirts serve?

It seems to me that the dangers that exist with a standing paramilitary force are far greater than the rewards. After all, if this is such a great thing that is highly necessary….why did it get snuck through in the healthcare reform law?

Concerns such as mine are being dismissed as “conspiracy theory”. This is a convenient scape goat term that is used as a blanket to cover any descending point of view. It is the fastest and easiest way to discredit and devalue analysis that does not coincide with the “official story”. Once something is labeled a conspiracy theory a whole new set of requirements is put on the idea that even the original story did not meet. I do not find this issue to be a conspiracy or a theory about a conspiracy at all! This has happened. The law exists, the text is there, interpret it how you may. I am attempting to point out some things that seem off to me.

I can’t pinpoint the reason behind all of this, but I can tell you that it appears to me this was created with intentions beyond the stated official story. I don’t think it bodes well for the future of America to have such things in existence. I think that the creation of a paramilitary force acting under direct authority of the executive branch is a sign of what is coming. I don’t like it. I think that it is the end of America as we knew it.

What do you think?

The psuedo intellectual left is applauding President Obama’s recent remarks toward people that own businesses. The quote although much longer than what I have here can be summed up in one sentence, “If you’ve got a business you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”


Clearly this man has zero business experience or common sense if he is making statements like this in public.

The point of his remarks seemed to be that nobody goes it alone, somewhere along the line everyone receives a helping hand from someone else, even in the business world. Sure they do. But Im afraid this fact doesn’t prove what he is trying to make it prove. The real driving force behind Obama’s remarks is to put a damper on the individual liberty movement. The President is reminding us all that we are a collective which is interdependent on one another. Which to an extent is true, but again the President has an approach that is completely wrong.

See, as a proponent of individual Liberty I believe that each person has the right to life, liberty, and property without the infringement of those rights by another individual. In that basic explanation you can see the respect that is placed toward the collective. As an individual you respect the collective by not forcing your beliefs, values, or desires onto another individuals life, liberty, or property. In fact individualism greatly benefits the collective. The encouragement of things such as the specialization of labor and self determination foster a strong foundation for our society.

When an individual can stand on their own they are more likely to lend a hand and voluntarily help another stand too. But when our legs are all bound together like we are in a giant gunny sack race it is more likely that we will all fall when a few lose their balance.

Back to the President’s comments.

Can you imagine the news coverage if someone like Mitt Romney came out and said, “If you’ve got a diploma, you didn’t earn that. Somebody else made that happen.”

The psuedo intellectual left would be up in arms! “How dare you degrade our education! How dare you imply that all of my hours studying, taking notes, listening to lectures, researching, writing, and reading were not how I earned my diploma! How dare you imply that the guidance of my professors and text books are responsible for my success! How dare you imply that the scholarships I received are responsible for my success and not me!”

Can you draw the parallel yet?

Go back to the previous paragraph and replace, “studying, taking notes, listening to lectures, researching, writing, and reading were not how I earned my diploma” with “working overtime, doing the work of 3 people, accounting, marketing, networking, and finding suppliers were not how I built my business”.

Go back and replace, “guidance of my professors and text books” with ” guidance of my business partner and lawyer”.

Go back and replace, “scholarships” with “small business loans”.

Am I being clear now?

There is a hatred toward businesses and business men from the left and it is out of total ignorance of what it takes and how it is done. As a small business owner and having grown up with 2 generations of business owners before me I have lived the life I am discussing, I have seen it first hand.

With that said, I am not a paleontologist and have basically zero knowledge of how they do their job….but that doesn’t mean that I should tell everyone I see that Paleontologists are greedy bone hoarding jerks that carelessly move dirt and sand to get what they want and have no regard for the surrounding ecosystem. 

This is basically what Obama and the intellectuals on the left are doing. They are out marching around with their 99% signs blaming business for all that is wrong in America. They are attempting to “prove” that individuals can’t be successful in business without government aid. Their comments go without scrutiny from the Big Media Presstitutes and all logical arguments are ignored. The hostility of the left toward businesses is blatant and unapologetic.

So I ask: Mr. President, don’t try to take away someones hard work and achievement because it wasn’t hard work and achievement in your preferred manner. Respect the sacrifice and determination that many people have put into their work. Most of all, don’t forget who butters your bread. Business is a part of everything, even the school system. Government would not exist without businesses footing the bill.

From time to time I hear someone say that the institutionalized segregation of Black and White Americans ended as a result of the passage of the “Civil Rights Act”. To me a statement like this is similar to celebrating the government for ending prohibition……they created it in the first place!

I will concede that there were most likely some businesses that did feel compelled to desegregate as a result of the legislation rather than face penalty. I can’t argue that sometimes a law, no matter how overdue it is, can have the results it is intended to have, at least to some extent.  I do however argue that crediting the government with ending institutionalized segregation is wholly inaccurate and deeply disrespectful, I will elaborate later in the post on these statements.

I also believe that all individuals in this nation are equal, thus, they should be treated equally. The law cannot treat one group more favorably than another. It is this fact that determines the responsibility of the law to protect any individual from being discriminated against for being different.

With these statements made, I am going to offer my opinion on the Federal Government’s participation in segregation and desegregation in the USA.

To say that the United States Federal Government is responsible for desegregation is inaccurate and disrespectful. Millions of Black Americans risked their lives, risked their families lives, and peacefully fought to end institutionalized segregation in this nation. To credit government legislation for ending segregation is to discredit the efforts and struggle of those Black Americans.

What was accomplished by the Black Civil Rights Movement was monumental and unparalleled in American history. Similar to the American Revolution, this group of people was fighting for their right to exist as equals and not be subservient to any other group. Unlike the American Revolution the Civil Rights Movement was mostly peaceful. Sure, violence and bloodshed occurred, but the vigilance and determination of figures such as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. guided an overwhelmingly peaceful revolution. The successful desegregation of America was not done by government, America was desegregated by a motivated, organized, and intelligent movement of oppressed individuals who wanted to change things to embetter their lives.

I firmly believe that desegregation would have occurred sooner if it hadn’t been for the Federal Government. Terms such as “seperate but equal” were created at the hands of government. Laws and regulations perpetuated the problem and gave those practicing inequality a legal leg to stand on. The system was set up to allow for the oppression of Black Americans.  The apathy and racist tendencies of the majority allowed for the legal plunder of the minority, the exact problem that a Republican form of Government is intended to prevent. “The tyranny of the majority” is a side effect of democracy and was a key reason for the United States founding fathers adoption of a Representative Republic over a Democracy.

Bureaucrats capitalize on the struggles and successes of the oppressed to further their own agendas. They ride the coat tails of the real heroes and loudly credit themselves for the achievements of others. While they frequently fail to admit that they themselves or their uncontested counterparts were the origination of the oppression being fought.

Please, credit the revolutionaries, not the bureaucracy. People make the changes not government. Angry people who can’t suffer through government sanctioned intolerance any longer. Oppressed people who refuse to continue to be held down. Awakened people who defy the lies and propaganda they had been lulled to sleep with.

Many people tout the “successes of government” and express how much they believe the Federal Government has improved our lives. These people act as though we would all be living in dark caves and forced to hunt and gather if it wasn’t for our helpful big brother.

There is a particular fascination with crediting the office of the President with these “successes of government”. I contend that such idolization of leadership is dangerous to Liberty. America was founded on specific rules and guidelines that were intended to prevent the rise of a single powerful leader. Yet as a nation we allow the perception and practice of the office of President to gain power. To me, it seems that the more powerful the Presidency becomes, the more that these people consider the Federal Government to be successful.

So what has government really been so successful at doing?

There will be arguments from all directions about all of the great things that governments have done for societies throughout history.

But there is one particular task that governments have been the most successful at, and that task is killing people.

I’m not talking about deaths as the result of war at this point. I am only talking about institutionalized murder of the citizens of a nation by their government and deaths of citizens directly related to government policies. Here is a brief rundown of some of the biggest killers in recent history.

– Nazi Germany (Adolf Hitler) 11,000,000
+ 6 Million Jews
+ 5 Million Homosexuals, Minorities, Political Opponenets, Vagrants, Gypsies, Accused Criminals, etc.

– Peoples Republic of China (Mao Zedong) 40,000,000-70,000,000
+ Massive Starvation, Mass Suicide, Political Persecution

– Ottoman Empire (Young Turk Government) 1,000,000-1,500,000
+ Armenians, Assyrians, and Greek civilians because of their heritage

– Russia (Stalin) estimates range from 15,000,000-60,000,000
+ Executions, Famine, Gulag
+ Civilians, emigrants, political opposition

– Cambodia (Khmer Rogue, Pol Pot) 3,300,000-4,000,000
+ The population of Cambodia was just over 7 million before the genocide that killed about half of the nations population.

The total of the above government caused deaths ranges from 70,300,000 to 146,500,000 and I merely scratched the surface of the institutional killing that has went on for thousands of years by government’s throughout history. These societies were/are at various stages of wealth, education, and technology when the atrocities were carried out against their people.

When deaths caused by war are factored into this discussion, the numbers are astonishing. It is estimated that over 260,000,000 people (nearly equal to the current population of the USA) have been killed as a result of government policies and wars in only the last 100 years. Civilian and military deaths totaled 62,000,000-78,000,000 from WW2 alone. The country of Poland lost nearly 17% of its population to World War 2.

Would such a massive and destructive war have ever been able to take place without the cult of personality surrounding the leadership of the era? Would so many people have been massacred had governments not used military coercion to accomplish it?

Some may want to believe that America is somehow impervious to the type of monstrous behavior by government that I have highlighted. I hope that they are right. But history says it is only a matter of time before they are proven wrong.

Putting your trust and faith into government and what it tells you it is doing in your best interest is a dangerous position to place yourself in. Simply ignoring history and assuming that the people in charge will always be on your side is irresponsible.

*Statistics from this post were referenced from multiple sources. Since so much conflicting information exists on casualty figures I simply used ranges to encompass the various estimates. Most sources claim that a lack of records could mean that exact figures will never be known.

You can’t regulate appetite.

We continue to hear that greed is the cause of our nations problems. Am I wrong when I say that greed is a basic human instinct?

We are individuals that want and desire things to improve our lives, entertain us, or satisfy any appetite that we may have be it nutritional, sexual, vanity based, etc.

This yearning to satisfy our appetites does not only hold true on the individual level, it applies to our family units, workplaces, sports teams, etc.

Consider, we feel bad if the family down the street loses their house but every person thinks, better them than me. Our businesses compete to get the most and best customers at the expense of our competition. We cheer for our sports teams to win at the expense of all of the fans of the other team who will lose.

We are greedy, we want what is best for us as individuals and as groups of like minded individuals.

Sure there are caveats to each of those situations, we may raise money to help the family down the street or let them stay in our extra room for awhile, but we don’t trade them places. We may not intrude on another businesses turf simply out of respect for the man operating it, but if their customer comes to us we take them. We’ve all been preached to about good sportsmanship. But still we seek what benefits us and satisfies our appetite whatever it may be.

I suppose it is obvious that there is a form of greed that is bad and negatively effects the lives of unwilling participants. I would call this merciless greed. People engaging in merciless greed are actively pursuing what they want and desire with the knowledge that they are infringing on the life, liberty, or property of others in doing so. They are criminals of natural law, and violate said law for the embitterment of their own lives.

With all of that said, why does our government pass laws and regulations attempting to engineer behavior and regulate appetite.

Drug laws have not stopped drug usage.

Illegalizing prostitution has not stopped prostitution.

Taxing cigarettes has not eliminated smoking.

Banning smoking in private establishments has not stopped smoking.

Illegalizing the sale of alcohol on Sundays didn’t ever stop people from drinking on Sundays, it just made them plan ahead a day.

Not allowing homosexuals to get married has not kept homosexuality from existing, it is an infringement on the liberty of that group.

People who want to do harmful things to themselves will always find a way to satisfy that appetite.

This is true regardless of government imposed rules and regulations, why are our prisons full of repeat drug offenders? If the system of drug law and imprisonment worked, they would never come back a 2nd, 3rd, 4th time…..

The law is intended to protect an individual or groups life, liberty, or property from being negatively effected by the actions of another individual or group.

Any infringement of their life, liberty, or property is punishable by the enforcement of law. Where does this cover self destructive behavior? Or, immoral or religiously unsatisfactory behavior between consenting adults?

The reason for the existence of law is not to tell people what they can and can’t do to themselves.

People as an individual or as a group should be able to freely practice whatever they want as long as it does not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of another individual or group of unwilling participants.

You can’t legislate behavior.

Our nation has begun to legislate based on principle and morality and begun to shy away from the basic rights of natural law. Principle and morality are virtues that an individual or group instills in its children or members. In my opininon, these virtues should be carried through life and applied to daily activities right alongside natural law. But, it is not up to government to enforce morality or principle on citizens, as some may not share the same morals or principles. This enforcement of virtues is a perversion of the law that is not effective for government and is counterproductive for fostering morality and principle in the population.

This is not a fact based post, this post is my assessment of current conditions. If you disagree with me please help me understand a different viewpoint. I encourage respectful and courteous discussion.