“Large And In Charge” Michelle Obama Is Demanding To Weigh Your Toddlers In Daycare


Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.



Who the hell died and put Moochelle in charge of our kid’s snack time?

Well, as the saying goes, she’s Large And In Charge. And if your kid is too fat, she wants to know.

Bureaucrats from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) will weigh and measure children in daycare as part of a study mandated by First Lady Michelle Obama’s Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act.

The agency published a notice in the Federal Register on Friday proposing data collection on what meals are served in professional and home daycare facilities and how much physical activity children perform.

“Children will be asked to cooperate with study staff who will weigh and measure them for the Standing Height and Weight Form,” the notice said.

The study is required by section 223 of Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act, which was championed by Mrs. Obama and passed in 2010. The main aspect of the law implemented new standards for school lunches.

A lesser-known requirement of the law is the “Study on Nutrition and Wellness Quality in Childcare Settings (SNAQCS),” which the USDA announced Friday. The public will have 60 days to comment.

The USDA said the data collection is important since more than 30 million kids are in daycare.

Privacy? Yeah, you don’t have that.

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

Choices? You don’t have those either.

But, nagging? For sure. Because your kid will eat what Moochelle tells her to eat. And nothing else.

I don’t remember seeing this sociopathic control freak on my election ballot. How about you? The fact that she is monitoring our children, and then creating regulations governing what we feed them? Well, that’s how I spell FASCISM.

If she wants to micromanage her own kids’ meals? Not my concern.

And if people want to voluntarily submit to her tyranny? Well, there’s apparently no law against stupidity.

But I’ll be damned if I let an unelected busybody dictate what my daughter is allowed to eat.

Michelle Obama needs to go back to tending her White House vegetable garden.

Oh, excuse me, Michelle Obama needs to go back to asking Juan and Miguel and Esmerelda to tend her White House vegetable garden. And it might be nice if she forced her own little princesses to eat the crap she’s foisting on our kids.

Fat chance of that. Do as Her Majesty says, not as she does. And of course she gets to eat cake.




Two Americas


Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.


 photo BobLonsberry_zps648566a4.jpg
Lonsberry hosts a radio talk show featuring a mix of news, political commentary, callers, and day-to-day anecdotes on WHAM (AM) in Rochester, New York from 9 AM to 12 PM ET.

Want to know why citizens who work for a living dislike those who vote for a living? This guy hits the nail on the head! In early January 2014, Bob Lonsberry, a Rochester talk-radio personality on WHAM 1180 AM, said this in response to Obama’s “income inequality speech”:

Two Americas

By Bob Lonsberry

The Democrats are right, there are two Americas. The America that works, and the America that doesn’t. The America that contributes, and the America that doesn’t. It’s not the haves and the have-nots, it’s the dos and the don’ts. Some people do their duty as Americans, obey the law, support themselves, and contribute to society, while others don’t. That’s the divide in America.
It’s not about income inequality, it’s about civic irresponsibility. It’s about a political party that preaches hatred, greed and victimization in order to win elective office. It’s about a political party that loves power more than it loves its country. That’s not invective, that’s truth, and it’s about time someone said it.
The politics of envy was on proud display a couple weeks ago when President Obama pledged to spend the rest of his term to fighting “income inequality.” He noted that some people make more than other people, that some people have higher incomes than others, and he says that’s not just.
That’s the rationale of thievery! The other guy has it, you want it, and Obama will take it for you. Vote Democrat! That’s the philosophy that produced Detroit. It’s the electoral philosophy that’s destroying America. It conceals a fundamental deviation from American values and common sense because it ends up not benefiting the people who support it, but betraying them. The Democrats have not empowered their followers, they have enslaved them in a culture of dependence and entitlement, of victimhood and anger instead of ability and hope.
The president’s premise – that you reduce income inequality by debasing the successful – seeks to deny the successful the consequences of their choices and spare the unsuccessful the consequences of their choices. Income variations in society are, for the most part, a result of different choices leading to different consequences. Those who choose wisely and responsibility have a far greater likelihood of success, while those who choose foolishly and irresponsibly have a far greater likelihood of failure. Success and failure usually manifest themselves in personal and family income. If you choose to drop out of high school or skip college, you’re likely to have a different outcome than someone who gets a diploma and pushes on with purposeful education. Have children out of wedlock and your life is apt to take one course; have them within a stable marriage and life is apt to take another course.
Most often in life our destination is determined by the course we take and the choices we make. My doctor, for example, makes far more than I do. There is significant income inequality between us. Our lives have had an inequality of outcome, but, our lives have also had an inequality of effort. While my doctor went to college and then devoted his young adulthood to medical school and residency, I got a job in a restaurant. He made one choice, I made another, and our choices led us to different outcomes. His outcome pays a lot better than mine.
Does that mean he cheated and Barack Obama needs to take away his wealth? No, it means we’re both free men in a free society where free choices lead to different outcomes.
It’s not inequality Barack Obama intends to take away, it’s freedom. The freedom to succeed, and the freedom to fail.
There is no true option for success if there’s no true option for failure.
The pursuit of happiness means a whole lot less when you face the punitive hand of government if your pursuit brings you more happiness than the other guy…. even if the other guy sat on his ass and did nothing… even if the other guy made a lifetime’s worth of asinine and shortsighted decisions.
Barack Obama and the Democrats preach equality of outcome as a right, while completely ignoring inequality of effort.
The simple Law of the Harvest: “As ye sow, so shall ye reap” is sometimes applied as, “The harder you work, the more you get.” Obama would turn that upside down. Those who achieve are to be punished as enemies of society and those who fail are to be rewarded as wards of society. Entitlement will replace effort as the key to upward mobility in American society if Barack Obama gets his way. He seeks a lowest common denominator society in which the government besieges the successful and the productive to foster equality through mediocrity.
He and his party speak of “two Americas” and their grip on power is based on using the votes of one to sap the productivity of the other. America is not divided by the differences in our outcomes, it’s divided by the differences in our efforts. It’s a false philosophy to say one man’s success comes unavoidably as the result of another man’s victimization.
What Obama offers is not a solution, but a separatism. He has fomented division and strife, pitted one set of Americans against another for his own political benefit. That’s what socialists offer. Marxist class-warfare wrapped up with a bow.

Two Americas, coming closer each day to proving the truth to Lincoln’s maxim that a house divided against itself cannot stand.




The Mean Nanny (State)


 photo nannystate_zps32ebe684.jpg

The Nanny, when referring to the State, is about much more than making silly rules about the size of soda-pop you can buy or whether a church organization is allowed to give food to the hungry, because the Nanny can’t be sure the food is healthy. The Nanny State is above all else the ultimate authority figure and this nanny likes to use and abuse her authority. Would it interest you to know that, after decades of her perniciousness, the FBI has a file on one out of every three of you?

This guest post at Zero Hedge relates the findings in a Wall Street Journal article. (The WSJ link below requires a subscription to gain access.) Here is a small sample of it:

From the Wall Street Journal:

A generation ago, schoolchildren caught fighting in the corridors, sassing a teacher or skipping class might have ended up in detention. Today, there’s a good chance they will end up in police custody.

In Texas, a student got a misdemeanor ticket for wearing too much perfume. In Wisconsin, a teen was charged with theft after sharing the chicken nuggets from a classmate’s meal—the classmate was on lunch assistance and sharing it meant the teen had violated the law, authorities said. In Florida, a student conducted a science experiment before the authorization of her teacher; when it went awry she received a felony weapons charge.

Over the past 20 years, prompted by changing police tactics and a zero-tolerance attitude toward small crimes, authorities have made more than a quarter of a billion arrests, the Federal Bureau of Investigation estimates. Nearly one out of every three American adults are on file in the FBI’s master criminal database.

Think about that as you go about your life today. As you look at all the people you pass in the streets or see at the mall or at the office, try to guess which of them may have a FBI file. Consider that the FBI may have a file on you and on many of your friends and members of your family.

Have a nice day, you all!

Well, that’s what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?




Obama Administration Allowing Mexican Gang Members into US


ms13-gang 002

Evidently, only the President and his advisers are unaware that illegal aliens have the United States pegged as a Nanny State.

Border Patrol officials are swamped by the number of minors crossing illegally into the United States and frustrated that they can’t turn away known Mexican gang members.

Chris Cabrera, vice president of the National Border Patrol Council Local 3307 in the Rio Grande Valley, said that confirmed gang members in Mexico — including those from Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) — are coming into the country to be reunited with their families, National Review reported Friday.

“If he’s a confirmed gang member in his own country, why are we letting him in here? … I’ve heard people come in and say, ‘You’re going to let me go, just like you let my mother go, just like you let my sister go. You’re going to let me go as well, and the government’s going to take care of us,’” Mr. Cabrera told the magazine.

He said that the only way to solve the problem was to implement harsher restrictions on who can be allowed to cross.

“Until we start mandatory detentions, mandatory removals, I don’t think anything is going to change. As a matter of fact, I think it’s going to get worse,” he said, National Review reported.

And we are letting MS-13 minors into the country right along side non gang members.

ms13-gang 001Other Border Patrol officials said that officers must treat minors with gang-affiliated tattoos the same as anybody else wishing to cross the border.

“It’s upsetting that a lot of them are 16 pr 17 years old and a lot of them are not going to face deportation,” said Art Del Cueto, president of the National Border Patrol Council Local 2544 in Tucson, Ariz, National Review reported.

Mr. Cabrera told the news agency that the Rio Grande Valley location has nine stations. The largest facility is in McAllen, Texas, with a capacity of 275 people. Its agents sees between 700 and 1,500 people daily.


Read the full story here.


Destroying the False Racial Narrative and Creating True Equality


This is a post that I originally wrote from October to December of 2010.  It took time to do the research properly, and I run it again every New Years Day.  It is my hope that one day, all of our citizens are treated as Americans, not as hyphenated groups to be divided by the political elites.  -Matt

I can’t tell you how many times that I’ve read blogs, from both ends of the spectrum, that talk about African-Americans as if they are a monolithic voting bloc that will ALWAYS vote Democrat. We’ve all seen the videos of African Americans thinking that Obama will pay their mortgages, or that they are going to get “Obama Money,” from his “stash.” Since these are well-publicized cases, they are influencing our perceptions about an entire group of people. So, the question is, is that all true?

And, if is it really that way, will it change? You see, I question both of those assumptions. While the voting issue is true, what is the basis for it? History tells us that that after the civil war, most African-Americans were Republicans, and the first African American Congressmen from the south belonged to the GOP. We also know that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican. It is also true that Democrats were responsible for the Jim Crow laws, and that the southern Democrats resisted the civil rights era legislation vehemently. So, that leaves us with something that bears examining; why did African Americans switch to voting over 90% Democrat in every election?

To answer this, I think we again need to go back into history, and see what happened in the 60’s. Let’s start with some quotes attributed to LBJ.

“These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again.”

LBJ, Democratic President of the United States.

“I’ll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.”

Lyndon B. Johnson to two governors on Air Force One according Ronald Kessler’s Book, “Inside The White House”

Those two quotes from LBJ are rather telling. For me, they point to a deception of action, as well as a deception of intent. Clearly, LBJ was suggesting that he could win the African American vote by making some promises, and delivering little…”just enough.”.

Obviously, these two quotes have been floating around for a long time, and many are going to suggest that they were never said at all. But, let’s take a look at what has happened, and see if what LBJ said has come to pass. After all, people can say many things, but it’s their actions that show their true intent.

Let’s take a look at some examples…

Welfare and the breakdown of the family:

The various welfare programs of the 1960’s had a tremendous impact on the African American family. Not long after the creation of these programs, the rates of fatherless families began to rise. They have continued to rise for decades, and now, over 70% of African American children grow up without a father living in the home. That was not the case prior to welfare, and the programs have been identified as the cause for this. As well all know, children raised in fatherless homes are many times more likely to have lower educational achievement, use drugs, and engage in other criminal activities. However, what has been done to correct it? Has the intervention of the government really made it better…or worse?

We also should remember how Democrats always resist efforts to reform Welfare to correct abuses and the negative societal impacts of the programs  Even Clinton vetoed welfare reform before the Congress strong-armed him into signing it.  And, when Obama got into office, and the Democrats owned the Congress, most of those reforms were stripped out.

Or, was it, “…we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.”


It is also well know that the educational system has failed our children. We also know that minority children suffer even more.

As for graduation rates…

The national graduation rate for the class of 1998 was 71%. For white students the rate was 78%, while it was 56% for African-American students and 54% for Latino students.

And for illiteracy…

September 2008

Graduation, Dropouts, and Preparedness

  • African American high school students are notably falling behind their white counterparts in graduation rates, dropout rates, literacy rates, and college preparedness rates.

  • In 2005, only 55 percent of all black students graduated from high school on time with a regular diploma, compared to 78 percent of whites.

  • In 2005, the on-time graduation rate for black males was 48 percent nationally; for white males it was 74 percent.

  • Nearly half of the nation’s African American students, but only 11 percent of white students, attend high schools in which graduation is not the norm.

  • In 2002, 23 percent of all black students who started public high school left it prepared for college, compared to 40 percent of whites.

  • On average, African American and Hispanic twelfth-grade students read at approximately the same level as white eighth graders.

  • About half of poor, urban ninth graders read at only a fifth- or sixth-grade level.

  • The National Assessment of Educational Progress reports that 88 percent of African American eighth graders read below grade level, compared to 62 percent of white eighth graders.

Now, we’ve seen successful alternatives, but “progressives” in the unions attack these, and when President Obama was elected, he shut down the DC waiver program, which greatly benefited mostly poor, African American kids.  In fact, all efforts designed to allow minority children to escape the public schools that constantly fail them are met with massive resistance from the democrats and their supporters.


Instead, the government makes many promises, and insists on spending more money on the same failed system. Essentially, they end up purchasing more failure.

Or, is it, “…we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.”


The U.S. Labor Department reported on Friday that unemployment for African Americans increased to 16.3% in August 2010 from 15.6% in July 2010.  The percentage point increase was greater than it was for Whites and Hispanics.  Overall unemployment climbed to 9.6% for the month of August from the July unemployment rate of 9.5%.

So, the unemployment rate is higher for African Americans as well. Of course, President Obama has promised to focus on this, but he has delivered nothing.  Or, as I like to put it, President Obama stated he would focus on black unemployment like a laser beam.  He just didn’t tell them it was a death ray!

Or, is it, “…we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.”

As you look at this, it is easy to conclude that not only has government action/programs made the situation worse, but they also seem intent on keeping it the same. I would hypothesize that there is a reason for this: If government can keep any group dependent, they can then extract support from that group. They create a circumstance in which a large segment of the population is keep poor and undereducated, effectively preventing that group from escaping poverty. Then, every election cycle, the Democrats come foreword and tell that group that the other party wants to kill them, jail them, and take away all of their benefits. By combining dependency, poverty, illiteracy, and hate, they can convince a group to vote for them every time.

In essence, I believe that the Democrats have intentionally acted in a way to “Cloward-Piven” a large segment of the African American community, by making them dependent on government assistance, and placing roadblocks for individuals in that community to be successful. After all, a person may want to succeed, but if they can’t get an education that provided even the most basic of skills, and they are penalized for any positive effort by a prohibitive loss of benefits, will that person eventually give up and not even try? And, what happens to that population of people after generations of the same? I think we can project the answer to that. As I suggested in the post, “Why Hope can Kill the Progressive Agenda,” people trapped in hopelessness for generations forget that there is any hope at all. In fact, we see the results of these policies on a tragically regular basis.

This is racist. Not the bed sheet wearing, ignorant redneck variety, but the soft racism of the nanny state and elites. Through all of this, I think the Democratic Party is just a racist as they always were. They simple present it differently (remember “calling it something else?”). They don’t believe that the African American can succeed, so they are content to “manage” him. Why provide good education if they can’t do well anyway? Why present opportunity and freedom when they don’t believe that the African American can use those to their own advantage? Just build housing, send in food stamps, and have horrifically inadequate schools, and leave them to poverty. Through the decades, it’s what they have done.

You know, “…we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.”

So, I think the phrase “government plantation” is a completely accurate representation of the current relationship between our elitist government and the African American community. When you look at the totality of the problem, their actions show their true beliefs. In fact, the evidence becomes over whelming.

It seems like an insurmountable challenge, but I believe that there is incredible untapped human potential in the African American community. I say this because when good educational choices are available, African American children excel, just like any other group. Their scores rise to rival anyone’s, and all the negative outcomes start to decrease. So, it is safe to say that real education reform (ending government intrusion, union domination, and instituting real local control) would be the final nail in the coffin for the soft racist policies of the elitist left.

However, it wouldn’t end there. There are millions of people of all races that are caught in the poor education-poverty-crime-hopeless trap. To help them, or in some cases, encourage them, to escape, we’d also have to do a phase-down on the nanny state. Benefits would have to be restructured, yet again, to encourage success, and not penalize it. Caps and limits would need to be imposed to put an end to system-induced inter-generational dependency. That would be a difficult sell, but so worth it in the end.

The total effort would take nearly a generation to see tangible results, as it would take that long to begin reform, and educate a full generation of children. Once accomplished, however, the US would see a economic and cultural renaissance. As African-Americans, Hispanics, and other groups take their rightful place in our society, the US would be transformed. This would not be the “fundamental” government-forced change, but an organic one; based on ideas, innovations, merit, and creativity. Everyone would truly be able to advance to the limits of their own talents, skills, and persistence. We would cease to be a “hyphenated” society, as we would all be peers-truly equal in our opportunity, and respectful of the accomplishments of our fellow Americans.


Some Thoughts on the Long March Through the Institutions


And no, these thoughts on the Long March Through the Institution aren’t even mine, but they are correct.  Take a look at what R.S. McCain has to say on the subject…

And to all of the new Tea Party folks, let me pass on a warning: the two ears, one mouth rule applies. There is much to learn about the sordid realities of our government, as it’s deviated well off course. Relax. Focus the passion on sober, positive deeds that advance the Constitutional ball. Screaming about Barack Obama’s Martian birth certificate and obvious status as a High Priest of Cthulhu is ONLY ABETTING HIM.

I know it seems counter-intuitive, but spend some time studying. The history of How Things Got So Jacked Up is important if you want to help in ways that are actually constructive.

It’s easy to get pissed off, disgusted, drop some F-bombs, and leave. But half the recovery battle is showing up; the other half is staying engaged. Your foe has massive endurance. Our task is to execute Gramsci’s Long March through the Institutions in reverse. Stand by for a multi-decade struggle. Homeschool your children. Teach them right from wrong. Teach them history. Teach them to reject the corrosive Postmodern piffle passing for thought these days.

But don’t expect instant gratification.

We are in this for the long haul.  This is what I said a few years ago (with some slight updates, given that it was originally written in 2009).

Remember this quote from Michelle Obama?

“Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zone . . . Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual – uninvolved, uninformed.”

She was far more prophetic than she will ever know.

Since Obama’s election, millions of Americans have become more informed, and more involved.  The Tea Party movement has galvanized millions in calling for smaller, more responsible government.  We are reading more and more, and in many cases, writing extensively and otherwise exchanging information.  We are in the process of returning the GOP to its roots.  We are engaging in nothing less than a peaceful ideological revolt against the left-and we’re meeting with some success.

These are all encouraging signs.  However, we must realize one thing:  enlisting in this “army” is a lifetime commitment.  This isn’t like WWI, or WWII.  There will be no definitive capitulation.  There will be no surrender ceremony, after which we get go home to the old status quo.  Our adversaries will never give up.  They may be defeated, or delayed, but they will go to ground; hiding within the bureaucracies, universities, and other institutions.  They will continue to indoctrinate youth.  They will continue to spin lies and propaganda.  They will continue to divide and exploit by race, economics, gender, or religion.  They will take their failed policies, and come up with clever knew names for the same failed ideas.  And, when they see the opportunity, they will strike out at freedom via regulation, legislation, and legal decisions.  Failing that, they will resort to thuggery and violence.

We might win again in 2014 and even 2016.  Even if we are more successful than our wildest dreams, we will still be needed.  The candidates that we support will need our help, and our guidance, should they stray.  We will need to take to the streets when needed.  We will need to counter the left’s propaganda, as well as discuss the news and ideas that the MSM refuses to cover.

The lies of the left wither in the daylight of the truth.  Let’s shine that light.

I was sorely tempted to quit blogging after the election.  I had to remind myself of what I had written.  Barak Obama is the result of DECADES of effort from everyone from pointy headed academics to dirty, unwashed hippies.  They kept their eye on the prize, now we must as well.  It does help that we have reality on our side, but with so many people now being educated to ignore reality, we have our work cut out for us.  Yes, they had their  Long March Through the Institutions, but I don’t know that we can do it in reverse.  That is where I depart from Mr. McCain.  I think the key to victory is presenting so much truth to the American people that we replicate the fall of the USSR.  The USSR had all sorts of mechanisms by which to punish dissent, but when the people ceased taking the state seriously, it fell apart.  Think of it as this…

What if the government had a tyranny party, and no one showed up? 

What if the schools taught nonsense, and the children just laughed it off?  What if the unions send goons, and a mob to them to F**K OFF!?   What happens to the nanny state when the people stop believing in it?  What happens when it is common knowledge that live babies are routinely killed in abortion clinics, and that Planned Parenthood IS carrying out Sanger’s directive to “exterminate the black race?”    What happens when more and more whistle blowers decided that the truth is worth the risk, and start telling us about even more government abuses?   I don’t know if we need to reverse the Long March, but I do know that we can cause people to know that the leftist/statist system is the joke that it is.

And that might just be enough.


It’s Baaaaack! Useful Idiot of the Month Nomination Thread March 2013



It’s been a while, but I thought that bringing back the CH 2.0’s one claim to fame (or infamy) might be in order.  So, the Useful Idiot of the Month Poll has returned.  First off, we need to define the term, useful idiot.  It was a term, coined by the former Soviet Union (either Lenin or Stalin), to describe leftists in Western countries that supported, knowingly or not, communism.  Then, if the communists really did come to power, most of the useful idiots would be imprisoned, killed, exiled, and the like.

So, this is the nomination thread for the Useful Idiot of the Month.  We nominate people that will appear in the poll, then, maybe on Friday, I’ll take the candidates, and put them in a poll.  Readers vote, and we have a winner.  I do set up the poll for one person, one vote.  After all, we’re not the organizations formerly known as ACORN!

I’ll begin by nominating Mayor Bloomberg of NYC, for not only pretending to be a RINO (believe it or not he’s somehow WORSE than a RINO), but being worse than many democrats.  His nanny state abuses, and anti-gun nonsense takes him to the top, in my humble opinion.

You guys do the rest, get the comment section, enter your nomination and why they are deserving, do some math, and hit the enter button.  Enjoy!

STICKIED to the top of the page. 


What Recovery? Part II: Systemic High Unemployment?


Here is a post from Jim at Asylum Watch discussing High Unemployment-Matt

In Part I of this series, we examined money velocity (the number of times the money supply circulates in the economy over a year), which is directly related to economic growth, GDP, and found that it has been declining since 1999. The velocity of money is currently slower than it was in the Great Depression. We noted that the stock market has recovered nicely and corporate and banking profits are up and Wall Street investors are doing well. This suggest that the money supply is circulating at a higher rate for big corporations, big banks, and big Wall Street investors and less so for the folks on Main Street.

While writing Part I, I came across an article by Charles Hugh Smith, Why Employment Is Dead in the Water, where he said:

Employment is dead in the water because opportunities for organic expansion are few and the cost basis of doing business in the U.S. keeps rising.

The question was raised in Part I about what happened to all that Quantitive Easing (QE) stimulus the Federal Reserve has been doing for the last four years. Mr. Smith may have confirmed suspicions of Asylum Watch.

Academic economists and political progressives would have us believe that the only thing restraining employers from hiring millions more people is lack of access to cheap credit.

The explicit assumption here is that cheap credit is all employers need to expand their workforce. This is so out of touch with reality that it beggars description.Progressives and academic economists generally claim the Federal Reserve’s zero-interest policy (ZIRP) and its other policies of flooding the economy with liquidity “are working,” i.e. boosting the economy.
Here is what the Fed’s policies are boosting: financial sector profits Please compare this chart with the chart above of full-time employment, and then decide where the Fed’s free money/easy credit is flowing.

So, Mr. Bernanke’s three trillion in QE stimulus has helped the economy of the financial sector, but not much else. It has not helped reduce unemployment as he said it would. Was he really just looking out for the banking industry? I am cynical enough to believe that is exactly what he had planned.

Charles Hugh Smith does an excellent job in this article. I highly recommend it to you. I am going to use some of his graphs along with others to try to build a picture of what is going on in the US economy. Mr. Smith closes his article with this paragraph:

Employment is dead in the water because opportunities for organic expansion are few and the cost basis of doing business in the U.S. keep rising. That vise forces businesses large and small to reduce labor costs while boosting productivity. There is no other way to stay solvent in a post-bubble, over-capacity, over-indebted consumerist economy awash in too much of everything but energy, common sense and fiscal prudence.

Clearly the US is having its problems competing in this global economy. Our businesses pay the highest taxes in the world. There is little semblance to a free market economy in a country with thousands of laws and hundreds of thousands of regulations. But, with all due respect for Charles Hugh Smith, there seems to be more at play than he has noted. Our problems did not start with Barack Obama; although he is doing his utmost to make things worse.

To be sure America’s high costs hurt our competitiveness and that causes companies to take their production to countries with lower taxes, lower wages, and less regulatory controls. That is logical. What else could be happening? Maybe some graphs can help us understand. Let’s start with a graph of our GDP over time:

We see that except for the effects of the 2008 recession that  the GDP has grown steadily. Now lets compare that to what has happened to the velocity of money (taken from Part I) and to workforce participation rates. Please pay special attention to the trend of these curves from 1999-2000 to the present.

Graph of Velocity of MZM Money Stock

So, between 1999 and the present, GDP has continued to grow except for the 2007/2008 recession. But, both the velocity of money and workforce participation have been in steady decline over that time period.  So, what do all these graphs mean? The Financial Profits graph means the Feds money printing Quantitative Easing has only helped the banking industry. The GDP graph means that the overall economy is growing; all be it slowly. The Workforce Participation graph tells us that, in spite of a growing economy, job creation is slower than the growth of the potential workforce, which means high unemployment. The velocity of money graph coupled with the growing GDP means that upper income people are benefiting more from this economy than everyone else.

Confused? Let’s see if I can explain the structural changes that have occurred in the US and that are affecting job creation.

What Is Affecting Economic Competition and US Employment?

  • Globalization: The United Sates emerged from World War II as the only  industrialized nation left standing. As a result, the US would become the richest of nations and Americans would enjoy the highest standards of living. But, it also fell to the United States to become the world’s peacekeeper or policeman. That alone meant our government would have to grow, which would eventually affect our competitiveness. The US rebuilt Europe and Japan, and they would become serious economic competitors. As tax policies and regulatory policies and wages in Europe and Japan approached that of the US, the playing field was leveled somewhat and a new Asian Tiger appeared: Korea. This pattern would repeat itself and the competitive edge would shift to different Asian Tigers. In more recent years, new Tigers have emerged: China, India, and Brazil, for example.
  • Big Nanny Government: As government grows in size and, therefore in spending, it is competing with the private sector in the economy. Governments are never as efficient as the private sector. But, when government becomes the nanny of its citizens. things get worse, because the government is taking money from the productive sector and giving it to the non-productive sector. To make matters worse, the Nanny Government in the US has not asked its citizens to pay for all the social programs that are redistributing the wealth. This was purely for political reasons. Therefore, they have buried the nation under a mountain of debt; soon to reach $17 trillion.
  • Reaction By The US Business Community: It is only natural and rational than when companies find they can not compete with the products and services coming from emerging nations that many will move some or all of their production to countries where their costs will be much less. We consumers all benefit from that. The price is that some people lose their jobs and others don’t get hired. Please understand, my friends, this would have happened on some scale even if the nanny state had never occurred. The added cost burden of the nanny state has accelerated and accentuated the process and more people lost their jobs than would otherwise have happened. The beginning of the downward trends in the velocity of money and workforce participation rates seems to have coincided with the end of the Dot.Com bubble. Maybe we can call that the point in time when the world moved into the Information Age. It became much easier for emerging nations to copy, buy, or steal the technology that otherwise would have given the developed nations a competetive edge. What about the companies that are still producing and doing well in the US? Well, as their profit margins were being squeezed, that have made use of technology to make their workforce more productive; and, as a result they are not growing their workforce as rapidly as we have seen after other recessions.

What About the Demographics of Aging Population and Birth Rates?

  • Aging Population: The United States is not alone in this problem. The same is true in Europe, Japan, and even China. In the US, the aging population has a double whammy effect on the economy and on the employment numbers. As the Baby Boomers retire, there are not enough younger worker to pay the cost of the Boomer’s demands on Social Security and Medicare. These programs currently account for the lion’s share of the federal budget. Borrowing to pay these programs is a drain on the economy. Sooner or later, the liberal Democrats will have to come to terms with Social Security and Medicare. They will either have to tax Americans like  Sweden does (70%) or reform the programs and reduce costs. The other problem is that many Boomers are retiring later in life and, therefore, are not making room for new younger workers.
  • Declining Birth Rates: Again, Europe, Japan, and China are also experiencing declining birth rate. In China it is by government edict and in the other countries it do to cultural changes.  Many Americans are concerned about what the long-term effects of a declining birth rate will be on our economy and on our culture. One of my favorite new conservative bloggersdid a compelling argument against this trend in her article the other day. She noted that Americas birth rate is currently 1.9. Not enough to maintain our population. She noted that it is only that high because birth rate among Hispanic Americans is 2.35, however, the birth rate of Hispanic Americans has fallen 2.3% in recent years and will probably continue to fall. Besides the impact on traditional American culture, she fears that it will be impossible maintain economic growth because there won’t be enough workers to fill the jobs. My opinion, on the other hand, is that for the next 30, 40, or 50 years, there may not be enough jobs for all those who want and need jobs.

To be sure, your humble observer at Asylum Watch, has painted a gloomy picture of the  future in this series on “What Recovery?” Tomorrow, in Part III, We will review an article by one of my favorite libertarian writers. Gary North. He thinks people like me are being too negative. He believes that freedom and innovation will save the day. At the end of Part III, I will summarize what I think I have learned in this investigation of What Recovery. Then you, dear readers, can decide for yourselves if high unemployment is going to be a systemic problem for America or not.

Well, now you know what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?


Dependency Alert: Per Household, Welfare now Exceeds Median Income


The nanny state has apparently tightened it’s stranglehold on the American soul.  Welfare expenditures now surpass the median American income.  Doug Ross (no relation) has more…

Rampant fraud and increased poverty:

‘Welfare Spending Equates to $168 Per Day for Every Household in Poverty’

The amount of money spent on welfare programs equals, when converted to cash payments, about “$168 per day for every household in poverty”…

…welfare spending per day per household in poverty is $168, which is higher than the $137 median income per day. When broken down per hour, welfare spending per hour per household in poverty is $30.60, which is higher than the $25.03 median income per hour.

I don’t think much more explanation is needed.  We are now on the slippery slope, and Obama is greasing the skids.

Elections have consequences, and remember to never call dependency on government dependency-it’s bad!


Pravda Knows Where We Are Going, Why Don’t We?


I find it a cruel , yet hilarious irony that Pravda, the former propaganda media outlet in the also former Soviet Union, finds it tragic that we are going down the road traveled by the Bolsheviks.  Steve, from Motor City Times, has more…

Via Pravda (yes, that Pravda):

Reading Putin’s speech without knowing the author, one would think it was written by Reagan or another conservative in America. The speech promotes smaller government and less taxes. It comes as no surprise to those who know Putin as a conservative. Vladimir Putin went on to say:

“…we are reducing taxes on production, investing money in the economy. We are optimizing state expenses.

The second possible mistake would be excessive interference into the economic life of the country and the absolute faith into the all-mightiness of the state.

There are no grounds to suggest that by putting the responsibility over to the state, one can achieve better results.

Unreasonable expansion of the budget deficit, accumulation of the national debt – are as destructive as an adventurous stock market game.

During the time of the Soviet Union the role of the state in economy was made absolute, which eventually lead to the total non-competitiveness of the economy. That lesson cost us very dearly. I am sure no one would want history to repeat itself.”

And, here’s a little more…

The Pravda author adds a little food for thought.

Russia lost its’ civil war with the Reds and millions suffered torture and death for almost 75 years under the tyranny of the United Soviet Socialist Republic. Russians survived with a new and stronger faith in God and ever growing Christian Church. The question is how long will the once “Land of the Free” remain the United Socialist States of America?  Their suffering has only begun.

I think he might be on to something.

On to something indeed.  I do agree with Steve (in his post) in that Putin is hardly a good guy, and that he is likely using appealing words to hide statist policies, kinda like the establishment GOP.  However, the irony is just as tragic.  The former Soviet Union is moving towards at least  a RINO nanny state, and we are headed for the cradle to grave oppression of the socialist state.

Elections have consequences.


Does the “The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010” Leave Kids Hungry?


Apparently,  The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 is rather ironically named, as following said legislation leaves kids…well…hungry!   Bob Belvedere over at TCOTS has the video…

Apparently, the legislation in question  limits the caloric intake of kiddos, who frankly, because they are GROWING and stuff, need more than the legislation allows.  However, since the legislation is typical government/nanny state one size fits all, the kiddos are hungry, and not very happy about it.

Bob has more about Obama’s educational policy, and why it will be a disaster.  Get over there and read the rest.



Mitt Points out Truth About Obama Supporters: Left Thinks There’s Something Wrong With it


Mitt Romney pointed out some inconvenient truths about Obama supporters.  The left got upset about it.  But to that, I must reply…

Why get upset about truth?

Yeah it’s often times inconvenient (unless you’re the Goracle), and it tends to hurt, as they saying goes, but it is the truth.  Take a look at the video, via Gate Way Pundit…

Um, Mitt is just pointing out what the rest of us already know, so where’s the controversy?  The Democrats have grown the dependent classes TO be perpetual voters.  Just think of it.  They ruined the schools, and resist all efforts to fix them.  They created the nanny state to keep people dependent on the government.  And then, every election cycle, they go out and tell these dependent classes that they better vote for them, or they will most surely die.  Their own rhetoric proves candidate Romney correct.


Examining the Unfair “Unfair” Campaign


Nearly a decade ago, I was at a training program, when the agenda went off task, and the topic of “white privilege” was discussed.  Needless to say, I chose to not play along.  Being grounded in reality, I used evidence, both anecdotal and statistical, to argue my point.  Of course, that was explained away and denied, but it was a learning experience.

Being a leftist concept, it has continued to grow, in spite of reality.  Here is a campaign run at the University of Minnesota at Duluth, via Campus Reform

The liberal failure is pretty obvious here, but a response has been crafted, via The Blaze..

So then, why the “white privilege” argument?  I think the answers are pretty simple.  It tells people that hard work and individualism are meaningless.  If society is set up for a certain “people,” their only recourse is government dependency.  After all, if individual effort cannot overcome the “institutional bias” against them (despite evidence to the contrary), we must have a government powerful enough to steal from the privileged people, and give to the others.  And, once the groups are dependent, they will no longer have the will to care for themselves. After all, why try when it doesn’t matter anyway?  Just stay on the government plantation.  Oh, and by the way, vote democrat!

But there’s even more.  The purveyors of this nonsense need to inflict guilt on the “privileged classes” in order  for their system to work.  They need useful idiots to go along with the nonsense, as well as promote it.  Guilt allows the useful idiots to accept the “punishment” for their “privilege.”

However, reality does show that freedom isn’t for white people, it works for all people.  But, freedom is antithetical to our leftist friends, so that must be discarded.  A free people do not make good sheeple, so freedom must be undermined at every turn.

Of course pointing out that freedom is for all races is probably racist, or something like that.


Economics 101: The Effects of Dependency


We’ve often pointed out that it seems that the left wants people dependent on Government for their daily needs.  After all, if you get everything you have from the government, you’ll probably vote for the politicians that will keep it coming.  The following video from The Center for Freedom and Prosperity explains the personal dangers of government dependency…

Depend on yourself?  How novel!

H/T:  I’m 41


Death is yours … if you want it


I am an expatriate t in reverse. I left America to find America. When I returned, I found America a writhing, swollen, tumor infested beast, wriggling in the throes of death.

That was nearly 20 years ago. It takes a long time for a bloated bureaucracy to die.

Now I sit on my front porch and monitor the decay from an iPhone, like some detached scientist, keeping data, talking notes, bookmarking doom, plotting charts that prove my hypothesis: We’re all going to die.

I am a prognosticator, a Nostradamus, ready to flip to the last page of the Mayan calendar. A false profit.

Of course we’re all going to die; humans weren’t meant to be immortal. Thank God for that. The problem is we are all dying of loss, a loss of self, a loss of responsibility, a loss of personal dignity. Premature rigor mortis. We still live and breathe and pump cholesterol clogged blood through our veins. But outside we die a nanosecond at a time as the world passes by, microscopic oblivion ex utero.

When nearly 50 percent of the taxpayers pay no tax at all and demand that the 10% of the highest earners who already suffer 70% of the tax burden pay more, when we give up basic freedoms for the “comfort” and “security” of government “protection,” when we eschew freedom for “safety,” only death is inevitable. The death of individuality. The death of rational thought. The death of a way of life we couldn’t possibly have had anywhere else. The death of a country.

So I sit here on my porch, watching it all, trapping the images in these words, photographing in hi definition the end.

It’s a God-damned comedy of horrors.


The news is filled with cannibalism. A man takes synthetic bath salts and chews off the face of another man in broad daylight on a Miami causeway. Both are naked. No one knows why. A gay porn star mails pieces of human flesh to political offices. He sends videos to fans. He blames Hollywood.

The paranoid fear the zombie apocalypse is nigh. It’s been here for decades, if not a century. We just never noticed.

Zombie politicians began devouring our lives, our freedoms, our human-ness long before the images of freaked out psychopaths scrolled across our 50-inch TV screens, the very ones on which we watched Jeopardy and American Idol and Jersey Shore, while zombie cannibals in our local municipalities and state capitols and the District of Criminals gutted us from within. And it wasn’t even surreptitious. The gutting occurred before our very eyes. We were just too blind to see. Now we live on life support: HDTV, Xbox, takeout Chinese. We get fat from Big Gulps and digital over-stimulation, as we bleed our insides out into government coffers, knowingly.

We are not sheep: we are slaves.


When I lived in Germany in the early 90s, a soldier “fighting for my country” in a guard shack, I’d walk around the villages and cities of my adopted country and meet people who were in denial. When you start two world wars and eviscerate the population of a continent, you no longer have a sense of self. Socialism was rampant. Kids graduated from high school expecting the government to cradle them. Government assistance checks were a badge of honor. If you were a young woman and uncomfortable with your bra size, a government boob job magically transformed your confidence. A good day was drinking your way through breakfast and lunch and dinner and collapsing on a bench at a bus stop. Four years in the pit of a cradle to grave society taught me there was no better place on earth than America.

But what I came back to wasn’t what I had left. I’ve seen federal government agents kill American citizens for no reason at all. I’ve seen young people no longer embrace the values my parents taught me: work hard, be your own man, expect nothing but what you earn by the sweat of your own brow. It’s as if I came back only to find I was still living in the apathetic society I’d left behind in Germany. I returned to participation trophies for being born and people spending $100,000 to earn sociology degrees so they can never earn more than $50,000 a year.

I came back to madness.

It’s accelerated beyond belief these past four years. My iPhone wants to replace “people” with “proletariat” as i type. Free has now replaced freedom as the fundamental purpose of life in America. Satire is now reality; we’re living a Ray Bradbury novel, an Ayn Rand prophecy, a George Orwell realization.


Aphorisms for our times race through my head. Weird scenes inside the dumb mind. Something wicked has already come. What rough beast slouches toward Washington to make you bow down.

We’ve been living in strange times for as long as I can remember. I was born during Vietnam; I now write during Americanam. The yoke of government is so locked around our necks I fear we may never break free.

The days ahead are dangerous. When a sitting president who has accomplished nothing but corruption and anguish and doled out more than your fair share of abuse has a chance to win re-election, we may already be over the cliff.

In these spend times we are nearing end times. The center cannot hold. It’s already beyond being off axis.

In the coming 5 months we have a decision to make. Do we let our country die? Do we let our way of life die? Do we let ourselves die?

Choosing Mitt Romney over Barack Obama is infinitely more palatable than continuing on this path of destruction we follow. We have great sacrifices to make. We will have to retire later than we planned. We will have to expect less government entitlements than we were “promised” when we were forced to give the government our money to fund them. Then more money. And still more money. (Hell, every year we vote to tax ourselves locally for infrastructure projects many of us never see come to life, because often that money is diverted to other expenditures, just like the entitlement taxes we pay.) We will have to make the biggest gut check of our lives. We will have to hold the limbs of the people we elect to take over this monstrosity to more than just a fire; we will have to tie them to a rack and torture them, if necessary, to right this sinking ship.

I don’t know if we have the stomach for it. I don’t know if we are brave enough. I don’t know if we can disconnect from the shroud of unreality we create for ourselves to get through every second and minute and hour of every day.

But we must. If we don’t, it’s all over. And the death throes our country has been experiencing for longer than I’ve been alive will accelerate.

And it will entirely be our own fault.

We’ll have to live with that, until we don’t. Live, that is.

Original Post:  Feed Your ADHD


BFFs DOA in Some UK Schools


In some schools, the following is forbidden…

Yes, best friends have been banned in some British schools.  For the details, kindly consider the following, from the SUN…

TEACHERS are banning schoolkids from having best pals — so they don’t get upset by fall-outs.

Instead, the primary pupils are being encouraged to play in large groups.

Educational psychologist Gaynor Sbuttoni said the policy has been used at schools in Kingston, South West London, and Surrey.

She added: “I have noticed that teachers tell children they shouldn’t have a best friend and that everyone should play together.

“They are doing it because they want to save the child the pain of splitting up from their best friend. But it is natural for some children to want a best friend. If they break up, they have to feel the pain because they’re learning to deal with it.”

Why not ban them from loving their parents, just in case they die one day?  Or, don’t let them have a pet-it might get hit by a truck! Part of living is dealing with relationship changes, and loss.   It’s part of life.   Kids need to do it, or they’ll never learn to cope with more important relationships, or the losses that sometimes come with them.

I guess they’ll always have the nanny state though.  It’ll never go away-even when you want it to.



The Most Racist Racist Video About Racists of the Year


Overkill on the title?  Perhaps, but you’ll understand when you see evidence.  You see, I’ve uncovered the most racist video about racism that you will see all this year.  So pervasive is the racism, that the racists that made it won an imaginary award for being the most racist racists in all the land.  Just be warned of the racism within the video…

Can’t you see?  It’s incredible racism to encourage anyone to abandon the loving arms of the Democratic party Government Plantation.

If you want more information on the racism, and the racists that promote it, take a look at their HQ.


Why We Fight: Unalienable Rights; Does Government Exist to Protect Rights, or to Grant Them?


Note from Matt:  Given the current political climate, I thought it might be a good idea to review some differences between the right and the left.  So, here is an article from November 2009.  Since we are about ideas, I think this is similar to the “Why we Fight” films from WW II.

“A free people claims their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as a gift from their chief magistrate.”

Thomas Jefferson

We are engaged in an ideological struggle.  The lines are drawn cleanly between the opponents.  One is the side of individual freedom and liberty, born of the American Revolution. The other is the soft (for now) totalitarianism of the nanny state, seeking to grow the government’s level of control over all aspects of human life.    While the words “freedom” and “liberty” tend to evoke reactions to some degree from all Americans, looking at the general ideas behind those words helps us to understand the true nature of the current struggle.  These ideas look to the very view of human nature between the sides, and are important.  The implications of these ideas will largely determine our fate as a people.

Perhaps the most important of these underlying ideas is the concept of unalienable rights, or rights that cannot be taken away or otherwise abridged.  Obviously, the idea rights that cannot be violated or reduced by government fiat is a significant factor in any debate about government intervention, or the very nature of man.  The nature of man, either as a free individual, or intelligent mammal to be managed, will have implications for any view of humanity and it’s relationship to government.  Without the underpinnings, the resulting arguments are loose and meaningless.

One cannot view the American idea of individual freedom without considering the works of John Locke, a 17th Century political figure who is considered by many to be the intellectual father of our nation.  Here are some quotes regarding Locke.

The political philosophy of Locke’s mature years stemmed from the commonly-accepted Natural Law, under which man had Natural Rights, not given to him by any ruler. Under Natural Rights the right of property is paramount. Men came together in an organized community under a Social Contract between every member in order to gain advantages they could not have individually in a state of nature.

This Contract of Society was the foundation of the Contract of Government, under which all political power is a trust for the benefit of the people, and the people themselves are at once the creators and beneficiaries of that trust. The State is based on a contract between ruler and subjects, who give him power only so that their own welfare is increased and their property protected in a way not possible in the State of Nature, where it may be taken away by unprincipled forces. They, if he keeps the contract, owe him their loyalty.

It was Thomas Jefferson’s passionate belief in these ideals that made him base the powers of government on “unalienable rights.” Most of his Declaration of Independence is a bill of particulars in an indictment of King George III for his failure to keep the contract with his American subjects. He had broken it, and it was therefore void. The signers agreed with him. Contract, therefore, is fundamental to our system of government.

The state, Locke maintained, was concerned only with public order. It extended solely to those aspects of behavior, which had to be regulated for the protection of the public.

I think that one of the most important aspect of Locke’s idea is his use of Natural Law; that individuals have rights that preexist government, and they are not granted or created by government.  The idea that rights are intrinsic, and cannot be discarded, disregarded, or superseded by the government have obvious and far-reaching repercussions on the relationship between the individual and the state, as the idea does intentionally limit the role of government.   For example, as we debate free speech, and Mark Lloyd’s thoughts on the press, we see that his philosophy is one of censorship and control, which would naturally be opposed by Locke’s ideas.  When we look at the health care debate, we see the government seeking to control the Doctor-patient relationship, to ration care, and to limit access.   Also, when we also look at the writings of Ezekiel Emanuel, White House Special Adviser on Health Care, we see the government seeking to control decisions of life and death itself.  When Cass Sunstein talks about animals being able to sue their owners in court, and advocates for gun control, other aspects of rights come into play.  When Universities limit the free speech of professors and students, and punishes those who dissent, they show a different view of rights than the rest of us.  When the President is caught on tape talking about income-redistribution, important issues are raised regarding our freedom. We can see more proposed government regulations that would control or otherwise limit what we can drive, where we can live, what we can eat, what we can say, and what our children can or cannot be taught.  But can government take rights from others that it never granted, and therefore over which has no claim?

Both the left and the right invoke the concept of the social contract.  However, it seems that the left quotes the words, but not the substance.  As Locke states, the people are the creators and beneficiaries of the contract.  While the people created our government, they did not create the thousands of bureaucracies that dictate so many different aspects of public life, nor are the bureaucrats that staff these monstrosities answerable to the people.  Were Kevin Jennings, Mark Lloyd, or Van Jones even confirmed by the Senate, which does answer to the people?   Also, when these bureaucracies and regulators regularly usurp the rights of the people, has the government violated the contract?  The left would say no, but as we will discuss, the left views the contract as a license to steal, control, and dominate.  If unalienable rights cannot be transferred or abridged, can the people elect a government that will transfer or abridge them?

Also, it is vital to note that Locke stressed that the role of government was to protect the rights of the people, not to limit them, regulate them, or render them irrelevant.  Government is to be limited to protect the public in ways that they cannot protect themselves, i.e., defense, setting up courts, and so on.  Locke contends that, “The State is based on a contract between ruler and subjects, who give him power only so that their own welfare is increased and their property protected in a way not possible in the State of Nature, where it may be taken away by unprincipled forces.”  If government actions reduce the welfare and property rights of the people, as they admit that they will, are they betraying their obligations under the contract?  If government does not protect the welfare, and instead decreases it; and does not protect property, but instead takes it, has government then not become the “unprincipled force” of which we should be wary?

If we are “endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights,” what gives the government the right to reduce or otherwise take them?  Government does not grant rights, rights are built into humanity by its very nature.  Leftists and others would simply take this point and use it to attack Christianity.  However, I would submit that any view of a creator would suffice in this argument.    This idea even applies to an atheistic worldview.  For example, what if nature, via evolution, created a sentient race.   Is not a sentient being free by it’s very nature?  Are not  individuals possessing  free will, as humans demonstrably are, born in a state of freedom?  Even in that scenario, humans are free, and government serves to protect freedoms, not to take them.  After all, government cannot take away what is has not granted, can it?  To me, freedom is a concept that applies to every human, regardless of their belief in a particular creator, or even lack of one.

“The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of divinity itself, and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.”

Alexander Hamilton

Another important aspect of Locke’s work seems to be his views on property.  However, property does not necessarily extend to simply a piece of land.

He was concerned with principles and rights, and property rights are uppermost. He wrote in “The Second Treatise of Government,” . . . every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his . . . ” He said that whatever is removed out of the state that nature provided and is mixed with someone’s labor, becomes that person’s property. James Madison later explained that “property” means “that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual . . . it embraces everything to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.”

This is a view of property that is at once practical, expansive and libertarian. It is the essence of political freedom. Who can argue that a man does not have a property in his own person? No government could take the fruits of one’s labor and intellect without a compelling public need and without compensation, and then only through due process of law. A person was free to contract away his property, or any of his several rights in it, for gain. The contract with government was only to protect private contracts, and the government was not entitled to any of the gains therefrom.

The human right in property was meant by Locke and understood by the Framers of the Constitution to be the fundamental liberty. Obviously, it was not necessary to organize government to protect free speech from government or to protect freedom of assembly against government. It was only necessary to organize it to protect property and life (one’s life was his property), and once organized other freedoms had to be protected against government’s power. He wrote in the Second Treatise that men unite in a society “for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties, and estates, which I call by the general name ‘property’.” He said that the supreme power (the legislative) “cannot take from any man any part of his property without his own consent. For the preservation of property being the end of government and that for which men enter into society . . . ” He noted that for the protection of government everyone should pay his share (a small, flat tax), but only with the consent of the majority.

Do you own you own body?   Apparently not, according to the left, as they take the stance that people can be “nudged (Cass Sunstein)” into doing as the state wishes.  Also, is it not Mr. Sunstein that suggests that organs might be removed from living people?  Do you control your body when the government wishes to determine what you can or cannot eat, or otherwise consume, or what type, amount, or frequency of health care you can receive?  Again, the left seems to act as if  YOU belong to them, and that all that you do is subject to government intervention and supervision.  Hate crimes laws take into consideration what an individual may or may have been thinking when they committed a crime, are we then to assume that the government means to legislate our thought processes?

Beyond the basic control over one’s body, the basic property that all of us have is our labor.  We contract with an employer, or a customer, in order to exchange currency, goods , and services.  We own our labor, and Locke and the founders suggest that this too, is an unalienable right.  However, do we own our own labor when the government takes ever increasing amounts  of it?  Do we own our own labor when, depending on where one works, a labor union can take from you and use it against your own best interests?  For that matter, can one be forced to join a union against their will?  Also, why does government turn a blind eye to the violence committed by labor unions?  Do we own our own labor when the government advocates forcing you to “volunteer” that labor (The GIVE act)?  For that matter, do we own our own labor when, this year, the average American worked into August to pay off their tax bills?

A common deception of the left is to not ban something that they want to “go away.”  Rather, they use increasing levels of taxation or regulation to make it either impossible to exercise a right, or create so many administrative hoops that one can only exercise a right within a narrow window of government regulation.   Can we use our property as we see fit, or do we have to leap through many hoops to do what we want?  Can we control the heat and power consumption of our home, or will the “smart grid” do that for us?  Can government take our property and hand it over to private developers?  It’s happening all over.  Are sustainable development regulations being translated into zoning and building codes all over the US?  Yes, they determine where you can build, what you can build, and how big it can be, and a myriad of other requirements that have to be met.  Is the government “nudging” us into living in certain areas, all in the name of eliminating “suburban sprawl?”   In the end, are we really free to own and use property, or does the government create an environment in which we can (at least for now) own property, but can only do with it as they allow?

“This freedom from absolute, arbitrary power is so necessary to, and closely joined with, a man’s preservation, that he cannot part with it but by what forfeits his preservation and life altogether. For a man not having the power of his own life cannot by compact, or his own consent, enslave himself to any one, nor put himself under the absolute arbitrary power of another to take away his life when he pleases. Nobody can give more power than he has himself; and he that cannot take away his own life, cannot give another power over it.” (Locke, op. cit.)

As usual, this is a topic that can be expanded into a book.  There are a myriad of directions, examples, and solutions that this post could take.  For the sake of brevity, I will sum it up this way:

Either we are free, and government must guard those freedoms, or we are not.  In which case, government is free to do to us what it wills.  The answer to that question will determine our future.  We must therefore must choose our leaders wisely, or our political differences will pale in comparison to what is to come.

Source: http://www.alainsnewsletter.com/read/464/free-speach/unalienable-rights/