Feral Pigs and Such

On Tuesday, Fox News ran a story about the growing menace of feral pigs. Farmers complained about the destruction to crops. Suburbanites are upset about their lawns. The United States Department of Agriculture and state governments are concerned as well. The population of feral pigs around the country is approaching 4 million, according to expert estimates. So it's pretty obvious what ought to be done. Michigan has a new policy that allows anyone with a hunting license to shoot them at any time since they breed so quickly and in such large humbers.

Fox had to dig up the animal rights expert, though. He protested the "persecution of pigs" and suggested that someone go out and neuter them instead of hunting them. This was his best, serious suggestion.

This is animal rights at its worst. Armchair thinkers who have never been around an animal larger than a golden retriever or more dangerous than a kitten. Imagine trying to actually catch a pig in a sty to neuter it. Now imagine doing it to a feral pig in the woods. How dangerous is that? How much does it cost? The armchair left isn't interested.

What is amazing is that this very same group likely supports free range chickens as opposed to those cooped up. Wouldn't these be "free range pigs?" Wouldn't it be better to get your pork from wild hogs than those kept on a farm, from an animal rights point of view?

Just a typical statement made without thought by the animal rights movement.

GOProud At CPAC Is the Right Call

CPAC is facing strong criticism from social conservatives due to its inclusion of the group GOProud in its upcoming event.

CPAC is a conference that operates on many levels. There is an elite level where very important folks mingle, drink, eat, and celebrate conservatism. For those without several hundred to spend, there are speeches and a floor with hundreds of booths. This is probably where GOProud will be.

GOProud is a group like the Log Cabin Republicans. In other words, they are gay conservative Republicans. That may sound like a contradiction, but it isn't. Republicans and conservatives are split between those who are predominantly socially conservative and those whose interest lies more in economic liberty. The latter are more likely to be socially libertarian. Additionally, this is where most young conservative/libertarian, Republican voters are.

The Republican Party and conservative movement are moving strongly towards positions of liberty and rights. This will tend to alienate old social conservatives, but revitalize the Republican brand among the younger. Personally, I see a contradiction between the concept of less government interference while using the law to prevent legal connections between gays. Civil unions for all couples, gay or straight, would best reflect these values of limited government in people's lives.

Our combined enemy is statism that can evolve into mercantilism, fascism, or socialism. Obama's vision could send us down any of those three paths and none are good for America. We need to bind together and fight for liberty, rights, and less government. If that means that gay couples end up with civil unions or that people end up being able to grow and smoke pot on their own private property, so be it. I don't care about what people do in private on their property or in their bedrooms. I want the government less involved in all of our lives.

What About Henry Gassaway Davis, Stephen Elkins, or Harley Staggers Day?

State legislators can come up with some good ideas and some not so good ideas.

In this year's session, eleven have decided to sponsor a meausre to make Senator Robert Byrd's birthday a state holiday.

Byrd had one paramount cardinal virtue. Show up for work every day that you possibly can. His efforts to get to votes in his advanced age approached the heroic. How ironic that some want to honor that dedication with giving folks a day off.

Also, let's not forget that Senator Byrd has not been our only legislator of note on the national stage. Harley Staggers served his congressional district faithfully for decades and helped to save railroads in the late 1970s. Henry Gassaway Davis and Stephen Elkins served in the U. S. Senate and helped to build the industrial base that sustains our state today. Arthur Boreman and Francis H. Pierpont risked capture and execution as traitors against the Commonwealth of Virginia to stay loyal to the Union and help create the Mountain State.

I'd like to say that Senator Byrd would be against this, but the man did like having his name attached to stuff. Despite the possibility that he would be elated by this kind of honor, it would be better to recognize his memory at the beginning of every session by having a reading of the United States Constitution and a pledge that each member will have it be his guide. That was Senator Byrd's other sincere political love. Remember him with something productive, not inactivity paid for by the taxpayers.

Rolling the Dice: Natalie Tennant

Natalie Tennant tossed her hat into the gubernatorial ring last week, confirming long held suspicions of her ambition.

Tennant was the first female Mountaineer and is well-known as a newscaster in the Charleston-Huntington market. Her hometown is in Marion County, giving her connections with two of the largest centers of population in West Virginia. She rode that name recognition as well as a winning personality to victory in the Secretary of State race. Now she is taking a serious gamble.

Earl Ray Tomblin, current acting governor, has the advantage of semi-incumbency and a long career behind him in the State Legislature. However, his southern West Virginia base could hurt him in the eastern counties. It is also difficult for long term legislators at any level to compete for statewide office because of their lengthy voting record. It's easy for opponents to highlight votes and stances at different points out of context. Tennant's lack of experience means that she has very little to attack, outside of her lack of experience.

And that in itself is dangerous. With uncertain economic times and our state economy under attack by the federal government itself, we need a governor who will stand up to the feds and protect our jobs and interests. There is no evidence that Natalie Tennant has any track record at all in fighting for this state. Republican candidates and Earl Ray Tomblin himself understand that coal is a vital part of our state economy. What has Tennant done in her career that has shown support for state jobs?

Democratic voters need to think about experience when they head to the polls, as opposed to personality.

The Muslim Brotherhood Must Be Excluded

In recent days, Obama has been pushing Egypt to find a role in a new government for the Muslim Brotherhood. This is an international front for Islamofascism who tries to make fundamentalist Islam look acceptable, much like the Nazi moderation campaigns in the late 20s and early 30s.

Make no mistake, especially y'all on the liberal side of things. These are people who have no problem with the execution of gays and the mutilation of rape victims, especially if that rape destroyed their virginity. These are the Middle East version of the Westboro Baptist (non)Church in their basic beliefs. They should be allowed nowhere near any power structure anywhere.

Revolutions usually begin with democratic leaning moderates in control and radicals asking just for a place at the table. Over time the radicals use ruthless means to intimidate and shove their way into dictatorial control. The American Revolution was an example of the opposite. Radicals were weeded out or chose to drop out and the moderates too over. In Russia and France, radicals seized control with terrifying and bloody results.

To avoid bloodshed in the increasingly inevitable looking scenario of change in Egypt, we must push for the exclusion of the Muslim Brotherhood. They are terrorists who will kill and maim the weak and vulnerable if their sick interpretation of Islam is given any credibility or influence.

We want a moderate and secular democracy in Egypt that opens up the economic system to a more free market orientation. We do not need terrorists who have temporarily decided to look moderate.

What Is Going On in Egypt?

"May you live in interesting times."

Egypt is living out this ancient Chinese curse as thousands have taken to the streets to protest, confront government forces, and/or loot. People on the outside have a difficult time making out precisely what they stand for, although it is easy to see that they are definitely against the current president Hosni Mubarek. Counter demonstrations have zealously supported Mubrake and his administration which has generally been non hostile to Israel and the United States while strongly opposing Islamofascist terrorism. That being said, under his governance, there has been corruption and the suppression of democracy.

If this falls into a real revolution, it could follow a pattern set for hundreds of years. Moderates take control first with the desire to right the wrongs of the old regime. They are quickly shoved aside by ruthless radicals whose aim is power and control. They will shed blood and lives to get what they want. Radical Puritans in Britain in the 1600s, France in the 1700s, Russia in the 1900s are the most well-known examples. We must watch for the same pattern here.

If radicals do seize power in Cairo, we must be ready. A coalition of countries led by the United States, but including African and Asian countries must be ready to seize the Suez Canal and place it under international control. Not United Nations control, but a temporary trusteeship. India, South Africa, and other non traditional powers should be party to this, but ready to move quickly if Islamofascists gain control of Egypt.

This is dangerous and could spread quickly. Where was our president at the beginning? A star studded party. Where is our Secretary of State?

We need the experienced hand of a Condoleeza Rice right now. Or a George H. W. Bush. Obama is once again in over his head and needs to ask for experienced help to try and prevent the worst from happening.

Skinned

MTV will likely pull the plug on its import show "Skins" under pressure from viewers, advertisers, Congress, and the Department of Justice.

Executives at MTV held long discussions to determine whether or not U. S. law and the American market would accept a television program that is entirely about sex and drug use among teenage children. They apparently forgot that even simulated sex among child actors and actresses is a federal crime, punishable by prison sentences. To me, if you are having that discussion, the show is probably inappropriate.

"Skins" originated in Great Britain on the BBC. Parents should be warned that the show is on BBC America, which is available on satellite and cable. It probably will not be shown very much longer based on the adverse reaction to its showing on MTV.

The show's creators and backers sell it as a "frank" portrayal of teenage life. They claim that those who think teenagers behave otherwise are foolish and deluded. Generalizing about any lareg group leads to dangerous inaccuracy. Lots of teens indulge in sex and use drugs. Lots of teens are afraid of sex and avoid drugs. In any event, one can get the point across on a fictional show that teenagers are doing these things without breaking federal child pornography laws. At a certain point, the show's creators must admit that they are trying to stimulate other things than a frank discussion about teenage behavior.

Fortunately we have an appropriate market response to the show. Not only are advertisers abandoning the show, so are viewers. Even on the most coarse, envelope pushing network offered in America, viewers are not accepting of what has been offered. MTV will likely pull the plug on the show not long after assuring its creators that the market and the law would be permissive of this type of programming.

People my age are nostalgic for the days when you saw music on Music Television (as MTV was once known.) As far as I am concerned, Jim Morrison sang something that resonates very well here "when the music's over, turn out the lights . . ." Apparently, the Department of Justice might do the same. Personally, I think the government should back off. MTV's lawyers looked over this show with a fine toothed comb. They will either prove that they did not violate the letter of the law, or hide behind deniability, claiming they didn't know how far the show would go. I doubt that a costly investigation will reveal any technical wrongdoing by MTV. The market has spoken and rejected it. No need to go any further.

Democratic Delegates Deal Delay to Bill That Will Return Miners to Work

Delegate Stan Shaver has had an interesting week. He is sponsoring a bill to charge seniors $25 for hunting and fishing licenses (they are currently exempt) while also trying to keep West Virginia coal miners out of work.

The bill (HB 2854) to create the new class of license for the elderly (because we don't want to miss out on this lucrative source of fee income) will be first read on Monday and probably pass the House and be sent to the Senate by the end of the week, according to the Boone Examiner.

In all honesty, this is not a measure that I have too much of a problem with, so long as the money goes back into state supported outdoor recreation, or gun classes, or something else useful. If other citizens have to pay fees, people over sixty five should as well.

However it is interesting that Delegate Shaver's bill to raise these fees will probably sail through the House while he is helping to stall the Intrastate Coal and Use bill (HB 2554. See link http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Status/bills_text.cfm?billdoc=hb2554%20intr.htm&yr=2011&sesstype=RS&i=2554 ) Delegate Shaver (D-46) and Delegate Larry Barker (D-18) both represent areas that benefit from coal mining (Tucker, Preston, and Boone counties) yet have worked to keep HB 2554 off of the committee agenda. This will eventually prevent the bill from even being sent to the full House of Delegates for a vote.

The importance of HB 2554 is two fold. It would block mines that only sell to West Virginia customers from any federal oversight. Several mines whose operations have been prevented or suspended by the EPA can come back online with state permission. In the past, the EPA could be trusted to objectively make decisions solely based on environmental issues. The current administration has repeatedly stated its desire to end the coal industry and is using the EPA to further that end. When Congress refused to create limitations that will harm the coal industry, Obama's administration signalled its willingness to ignore Article 1 Sectioon 1 of the Constitution ( http://www.house.gov/house/Constitution/Constitution.html ) and write its own law.

The passage of the Intrastate Coal and Use Act would put West Virginia miners back to work and result in the collection of more tax revenues. Since our state needs to extra income gathered from elderly hunters and fishermen, it could certainly use the revenue from coal miner incomes and coal operations. Additionally, West Virginia and other states need to send a message to Obama and his federal cronies that they are violating the Constitution by overstepping legal limits on their power. States must defend their prerogatives under the Tenth Amendment.

HB 2554 has bipartisan support and will put West Virginians back to work if passed by both houses of the Legislature. If our state needs more revenue and jobs, let's push through a bill to create work and business as quickly as we push through a bill to charge seniors fees to hunt and fish. Miners and others who support jobs in this state need to ask their legislators a question. Do you support Barack Obama's War on Coal, or do you support West Virginia and its coal miners and operators?

Which side are you on?

West Virginia Needs a Primary Election

Kanawha County Republican Executive Committee Chair Melody Potter on Facebook Tuesday endorsed a primary election to determine party nominees for governor before the special election.

I agree 100%.

Two alternatives exist. One would just be a wide open election where every contender was on the ballot at once. This opens the door for false candidates to try and siphon votes from actual ones. More likely would be a party convention where each of the three parties that generally run candidates for governor would select their nominees and put them on the ballot. However, this might reinforce the perception that West Virginia politics is basically a good ol' boy show.

A primary election is good for Republicans for a few reasons.

First, it is the more democratic way to operate. Candidacies are open and the people get to vote. That is the expectation of the voters in the 21st Century. They want to choose. Second, the race between the various GOP candidates will bring media attention to these individuals that will create name recognition for the general election. Some major candidates are better known west of the mountains and in southern West Virginia, some are better known to the east. It is important that registered Republicans and other voters across the entire state get to know all of the potential Republican candidates so that they can make an informed Republican vote in the fall.

The Republican Party is advancing a very experienced and capable set of candidates this time, most notably State Senator Clark Barnes and former Secretary of State Betty Ireland. Both of these candidates are exceptional campaigners, so a primary election plays to both of their strengths.

A primary election can help our party build a case for its nominee in the general election.

Congressman McKinley Introduces Bill to Limit EPA Attacks On Coal

For Immediate Release:January 26, 2011Contact: Katie Martin, 202.525.0589 Katie.Martin@mail.house.gov

McKINLEY INTRODUCES LEGISLATION TO STOP EPA FROM VETOING EXISTING PERMITSBi-partisan bill co-sponsored by West Virginia’s Capito & Rahall, other coal-country repsPresses administration official on outrageous EPA power-grab at subcommittee hearing
Washington, D.C. – Rep. David B. McKinley, P.E. (R-WV) filed legislation (H.R. 457) Wednesday that would remove the EPA’s authority to retroactively veto an existing Section 404(c) Clean Water Act permit. The bill amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) to explicitly prevent the EPA from revoking a permit under the Act after one has been issued by the Secretary of the Army.
McKinley’s first piece of legislation is co-sponsored by Reps. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Nick Rahall (D-WV), Bill Johnson (R-OH) and Bob Gibbs (R-OH), and would be retroactive to January 1, 2011 – thereby reinstating the Spruce Mine No. 1 permit in southern West Virginia revoked two weeks ago by the EPA. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) has announced plans to file a similar piece of legislation soon.
“For years, the EPA has been bullying coal companies and the workers they employ,” said McKinley. “But this isn’t just about the Spruce Mine. If their new policy of retroactive revocation is allowed to stand, dozens of heavily-regulated industries and hundreds of thousands of American jobs hang in the balance. Businesses will not invest in new projects and create new jobs if they know that regulatory agencies can ignore existing permits and arbitrarily pull the rug right out from under them. This has to stop.”
Also Wednesday, McKinley pressed the chief White House regulatory official on the EPA’s decision on Spruce Mine. At the request of Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL), the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, McKinley asked chief White House regulatory official Cass Sunstein a series of questions at a hearing of the subcommittee. Under the congressman’s questioning, Sunstein acknowledged that the U.S. Supreme Court has generally frowned upon retroactive regulatory action and promised to follow up with more information on the EPA’s actions and the propriety thereof.
Earlier this week, McKinley sent a letter to Stearnsrequesting that the Oversight and Investigations subcommittee call the EPA in front of the panel to directly answer questions about the chilling effect its decision would have on the American economy.
McKinley concluded, “We have a long way to go in this fight. This is just the first step. But the Obama administration and the EPA are now on notice that we will not sit idly by while their arrogance kills West Virginia jobs and threatens thousands more across the country.”

###

World Health Organization to Waste Time Attacking Free Speech

The World Health Organization is calling a summit to propose a worldwide ban on junk food advertising to children, comparing it to limitations on the advertising of tobacco.

This is yet another United Nations stunt to grab headlines and reduce freedom while doing nothing effective. Couldn't the money spent to wine and dine world health officials be better used to pay more doctors to go to the Third World. I imagine that the starving young people in Sudan could not care less about fast food marketing to children. But they would probably like medicine and the attention of a doctor. Unfortunately such efforts have support int he United States from people like Mike Huckabee and Michelle Obama.

What the UN probably doesn't know is that there is no law against tobacco advertising. They pulled their ads as part of a court settlement. Laws that would ban such advertising would violate the First Amendment to the Constitution. Also, how would you differentiate between ads directed at children and those directed at adults. A gray area does exist, especially since lines blur when you consider media like adult oriented cartoons.

We need to save money. Consider kicking the UN out of our country and ending our participation.

Once Again the President Fails to Grasp Reality

We saw some interesting proposals in last night's State of the Union Address. Well, I didn't actually watch it, but read it this morning.

He wants to "out educate" the world, whatever that means. I asume that he will want to spend more money to implement more crackpot federal ideas that interfere with local direction and real teaching. Federal interference and spending has pushed schools into a downward spiral since the Department of Education was created. More of the same will create worse results.

Even the Associated Press questions the stated commitment to cap spending coming in the same speech as promises to spend more on a large number of his own initiatives.

Obama also called on Congress to unify together. Obama already had a Congress unified behind his agenda and the people got rid of it. We need a Congress unified behind the idea that federal spending and activity need to be considerably reduced. We need to expect less out of government and it needs to try and do less for special interests and feel good liberals.

He also doesn't get it on economics. The Adjunct Instructor in Chief still thinks that government must create conditions for job growth. The best thing government can do is keep taxes down, deregulate, and get out of the way. How does he think that a huge fee charged to banks is going to help free credit? Business often needs credit to expand operations. Obama clearly does not understand basic economics. His answer has always been to spend more money than the created jobs would actually pay.

Obama showed in this speech that he is a one trick pony. When you need jobs, spend. When you want to educate, spend. When you want to feel good, spend. If he were a private citizen, he'd be a shopaholic and a hoarder.

He must face the reality that we are running into serious trouble. We need massive debt reduction and he is proposing spending reduction measures that would equal an average wagerearner putting aside a quarter a month while increasing our burdens elsewhere. If nothing else, Obama has given the Tea Party new ammunition to build on its efforts in this non election year. Because he just does not get it. Therefore, he needs to be replaced with a fiscally responsible president in 2012.

Intrastate Coal and Use Act Gets Bipartisan Support

Delegate Gary Howell (R-49th) last week introduced a bill designed to limit the jurisdiction of the Environmental Protection Agency over West Virginia coal mining operations. It will enable mines that only sell to West Virginia customers to ignore the EPA and only deal with state officials. Though the number of mines affected by this bill are few in number, it represents an effort to assert state rights under the tenth amendment against the expansion of federal power. This bill is very similar to gun manufacturing laws passed last year in Ohio and Montana.

The EPA has withdrawn permits assigned to mines, putting thousands of West Virginians out of work. Both Obama and Biden spoke about ending the coal industry in the United States during the 2008 presidential campaign. Despite the antipathy of the national Democratic Party to coal, Democrats in the Mountain State have signed on to co-sponsor the bill.

Delegates Linda Sumner (R-Raleigh), Ray Canterbury (R-Greenbrier), Carol Miller (R-Cabell), Kelli Sobonya (R-Cabell), John Ellem (R-Wood), Mitch Carmichael (R-Jackson), Walter Duke (R-Berkeley), Finance Chairman H.K. White (D-Mingo), Economic Development and Small Business Chairman Steve Kominar (D-Mingo) and Rupert Phillips (D-Lincoln).

Time to Fix the Law

Speaker of the House Richard Thompson belives that the Legislature has a mess on its hands and he places the blame on one man, Earl Ray Tomblin.

Thompson argues that Tomblin should have spent most of his time as Senate President and only acted as governor when absolutely necessary, according to his interview on MetroNews Talkline. He still refuses to meet with Tomblin and work with the select group of lawmakers and Tomblin who are trying to set up the Special Gubernatorial Election.

This sounds like old fashioned politics. This situation is admittedly bizarre and the crafters of the Constitution of 1872 planned poorly for this type of situation. However, the decision has been made by the Supreme Court to mandate the election and it is time to make that happen.

The Legislature needs to put together an amendment to the state constitution that will address this problem and preserve the concept of separation of powers envisioned in 1872. It may also be time for a commission to be appointed to study the state constitution. Any other hidden contradictions and ambiguities should be addressed if they exist.

Historic Moment For United States Senate

The House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed legislation to repeal Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid's health care plan.

Will the Senate follow suit, or will Democrats keep the issue from even coming to a vote?

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky fired out on You Tube that the Democrats were working hard to prevent a vote on repeal in the Senate. He assured that there would at least be a vote. Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina will introduce the bill to the Senate this week.

Why not vote on repeal? The people spoke last November and said that they did not want Obamacare. If the Democrats are so confident that this policy will work in the long run, they should stand up and vote again to keep it. They should affirm their stand before history and the voters. They should trumpet to the nation that they believe that Big Bureaucracy will save our health care just like it did in Great Britain (where prostate cancer has a 45% higher death rate than the United States.)

If the Democrats do not allow a floor vote on the repeal of Obamacare, it betrays the fact that they do not have confidence that it will succeed. They know the voters will punish them again when it fails miserably.

*********************************************************

Congratulations to the team from Keyser High School that won a Constitution competition in Charleston yesterday. They also went to the Capitol and met their legislative representatives. National competition will come in April. We are sure Keyser will do well again.

How to Manufacture An Image of Popularity

The Associated Press last week was all a titter! They cited polls and proclaimed that Barack Obama would trounce the Republican competition were the election held today.

Sounds pretty sad until you read the story.

The polls matched him up against Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, and Mike Huckabee. Two of these people would have trouble getting Republican votes. Romney supported government health care in his state and Mike Huckabee likes nanny state policies to promote fitness. Neither one of them are going to do well in the new Republican Party.

Sarah Palin has the same issues as Newt Gingrich or Hillary Clinton. She is popular, yet polarizing. Great for fundraising, but a lot of baggage, some of which is not her fault. I like Sarah Palin, personally, but she probably does not give us our best shot in 2012.

The pollsters picked these three because they didn't dare put Obama up in a hypothetical race against Bobby Jindal, Rick Perry, or another strong and popular GOP governor. Obama might look good against a campaign has been like Romney, but probably not a rising star like Jindal.

A Declaration of the Rights of Virginia by George Mason

The main inspiration for the Declaration of Independence written shortly thereafter


A DECLARATION OF RIGHTS made by the representatives of the good people of Virginia, assembled in full and free convention which rights do pertain to them and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of government .

Section 1. That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

Section 2. That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants and at all times amenable to them.

Section 3. That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration. And that, when any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community has an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.

Section 4. That no man, or set of men, is entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community, but in consideration of public services; which, nor being descendible, neither ought the offices of magistrate, legislator, or judge to be hereditary.

Section 5. That the legislative and executive powers of the state should be separate and distinct from the judiciary; and that the members of the two first may be restrained from oppression, by feeling and participating the burdens of the people, they should, at fixed periods, be reduced to a private station, return into that body from which they were originally taken, and the vacancies be supplied by frequent, certain, and regular elections, in which all, or any part, of the former members, to be again eligible, or ineligible, as the laws shall direct.

Section 6. That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people, in assembly ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community, have the right of suffrage and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for public uses without their own consent or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assembled for the public good.

Section 7. That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by any authority, without consent of the representatives of the people, is injurious to their rights and ought not to be exercised.

Section 8. That in all capital or criminal prosecutions a man has a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, to call for evidence in his favor, and to a speedy trial by an impartial jury of twelve men of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty; nor can he be compelled to give evidence against himself; that no man be deprived of his liberty except by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers.

Section 9. That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Section 10. That general warrants, whereby an officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive and ought not to be granted.

Section 11. That in controversies respecting property, and in suits between man and man, the ancient trial by jury is preferable to any other and ought to be held sacred.

Section 12. That the freedom of the press is one of the great bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by despotic governments.

Section 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

Section 14. That the people have a right to uniform government; and, therefore, that no government separate from or independent of the government of Virginia ought to be erected or established within the limits thereof.

Section 15. That no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.

Section 16. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practise Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.

Uncivil Speech

I have to say that I have had it with the alleged efforts to encourage civil speech. It is insulting how the Left has deemed the rallies and speech of the Tea Parties and other libertarian groups as uncivil and a threat to political discourse.

It is insulting because I remember a Bush speech from not too many years ago. It was in Morgantown and quite a few folks turned up to hear the president. Those attending the speech were pretty well behaved. However, the speech was interrupted often by the chants of those bussed in from Pittsburgh and other cities to create a large anti Bush demonstration. The president paid them no mind. However, as we left, the protesters lined up along the route we took to walk out of the area. They screamed and cursed at everyone, even the children attending the event.

This is a sign of civil speech? The Left has no room to attack anyone on the Constitutional Right.

Bush bore the attacks and the insults from all quarters with dignity. Certainly it had to hurt his and his families feelings, but he accepted it as part of the job and American political discourse. Actual concerns from the Right are treated as attacks that could incite violence.

We cannot back down from these efforts. We cannot let the actions of a madman give the Left permission to define what is and is not acceptable in political discourse.

From Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedmann

Chapter I

The Relation between Economic Freedom and Political Freedom





It is widely believed that politics and economics are separate and largely unconnected; that individual freedom is a political problem and material welfare an economic problem; and that any kind of political arrangements can be combined with any kind of economic arrangements. The chief contemporary manifestation of this idea is the advocacy of "democratic socialism" by many who condemn out of hand the restrictions on individuai freedom imposed by "totalitarian socialism" in Russia, and who are persuaded that it is possible for a country to adopt the essential features of Russian economic arrangements and yet to ensure individual freedom through political arrangements. The thesis of this chapter is that such a view is a delusion, that there is an intimate connection between economics and politics, that only certain arrangements are possible and that, in particular, a society which is socialist cannot also be democratic, in the sense of guaranteeing individual freedom.

Economic arrangements play a dual role in the promotion of a free society. On the one hand, freedom in economic arrangements is itself a component of freedom broadly understood, so economic freedom is an end in itself. In the second place, economic freedom is also an indispensable means toward the achievement of political freedom.

The first of these roles of economic freedom needs special emphasis because intellectuals in particular have a strong bias against regarding this aspect of freedom as important. They tend to express contempt for what they regard as material aspects of life, and to regard their own pursuit of allegedly higher values as on a different plane of significance and as deserving of special attention. For most citizens of the country, however, if not for the intellectual, the direct importance of economic freedom is at least comparable in significance to the indirect importance of economic freedom as a means to political freedom.

The citizen of Great Britain, who after World War II was not permitted to spend his vacation in the United States because of exchange control, was being deprived of an essential freedom no less than the citizen of the United States, who was denied the opportunity to spend his vacation in Russia because of his political views. The one was ostensibly an economic limitation on freedom and the other a political limitation, yet there is no essential difference between the two.

The citizen of the United States who is compelled by law to devote something like io per cent of his income to the purchase of a particular kind of retirement contract, administered by the government, is being deprived of a corresponding part of his personal freedom. How strongly this deprivation may be felt and its closeness to the deprivation of religious freedom, which all would regard as "civil" or "political" rather than "economic", were dramatized by an episode involving a group of farmers of the Amish sect. On grounds of principle, this group regarded compulsory federal old age programs as an infringement of their personal individual freedom and refused to pay taxes or accept benefits. As a result, some of their livestock were sold by auction in order to satisfy claims for social security levies. True, the number of citizens who regard compulsory old age insurance as a deprivation of freedom may be few, but the believer in freedom has never counted noses.

A citizen of the United States who under the laws of various states is not free to follow the occupation of his own choosing unless he can get a license for it, is likewise being deprived of an essential part of his freedom. So is the man who would like to exchange some of his goods with, say, a Swiss for a watch but is prevented from doing so by a quota. So also is the Californian who was thrown into jail for selling Alka Seltzer at a price below that set by the manufacturer under so-called "fair trade" laws. So also is the farmer who cannot grow the amount of wheat he wants. And so on. Clearly, economic freedom, in and of itself, is an extremely important part of total freedom.

Viewed as a means to the end of political freedom, economic arrangements are important becuase of their effect on the concentration or dispersion of power. The kind of economic organization that provides economic freedom directly, namely, competitive capitalism, also promotes political freedom because it separates economic power from political power and in this way enables the one to offset the other.

Historical evidence speaks with a single voice on the relation between political freedom and a free market. I know of no example in time or place of a society that has been marked by a large measure of political freedom, and that has not also used something comparable to a free market to organize the bulk of economic activity.

Because we live in a largely free society, we tend to forget how limited is the span of time and the part of the globe for which there has ever been anything like political freedom: the typical state of mankind is tyranny, servitude, and misery. The nineteenth century and early twentieth century in the Western world stand out as striking exceptions to the general trend of historical development. Political freedom in this instance clearly came along with the free market and the development of capitalist institutions. So also did political freedom in the golden age of Greece and in the early days of the Roman era.

History suggests only that capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom. Clearly it is not a sufficient condition. Fascist Italy and Fascist Spain, Germany at various times in the last seventy years, Japan before World Wars I and II, tzarist Russia in the decades before World War I -- are all societies that cannot conceivably be described as politically free. Yet, in each, private enterprise was the dominant form of economic organization. It is therefore clearly possible to have economic arrangements that are fundamentally capitalist and political arrangements that are not free.

Even in those societies, the citizenry had a good deal more freedom than citizens of a modern totalitarian state like Russia or Nazi Germany, in which economic totalitarianism is combined with political totalitarianism. Even in Russia under the Tzars, it was possible for some citizens, under some circumstances, to change their jobs without getting permission from political authority because capitalism and the existence of private property provided some check to the centralized power of the state.

The relation between political and economic freedom is complex and by no means unilateral. In the early nineteenth century, Bentham and the Philosophical Radicals were inclined to regard political freedom as a means to economic freedom. They believed that the masses were being hampered by the restrictions that were being imposed upon them, and that if political reform gave the bulk of the people the vote, they would do what was good for them, which was to vote for laissez faire. In retrospect, one cannot say that they were wrong. There was a large measure of political reform that was accompanied by economic reform in the direction of a great deal of laissez faire. An enormous increase in the well-being of the masses followed this change in economic arrangements.

The triumph of Benthamite liberalism in nineteenth-century England was followed by a reaction toward increasing intervention by government in economic affairs. This tendency to collectivism was greatly accelerated, both in England and elsewhere, by the two World Wars. Welfare rather than freedom became the dominant note in democratic countries. Recognizing the implicit threat to individualism, the intellectual descendants of the Philosophical Radicals - Dicey, Mises, Hayek, and Simons, to mention only a few - feared that a continued movement toward centralized control of economic activity would prove The Road to Serfdom, as Hayek entitled his penetrating analysis of the process. Their emphasis was on economic free. dom as a means toward political freedom.

Events since the end of World War II display still a different relation between economic and political freedom. Collectivisi economic planning has indeed interfered with individual freedom. At least in some countries, however, the result has not been the suppression of freedom, but the reversal of economic policy. England again provides the most striking example. The turning point was perhaps the "control of engagements" order which, despite great misgivings, the Labour party found it necessary to impose in order to carry out its economic policy. Fully enforced and carried through, the law would have involved centralized allocation of individuals to occupations. This conflicted so sharply with personal liberty that it was enforced in a negligible number of cases, and then repealed after the law had been in effect for only a short period. Its repeal ushered in a decided shift in economic policy, marked by reduced reliance on centralized "plans" and "programs", by the dismantling of many controls, and by increased emphasis on the private market. A similar shift in policy occurred in most other democratic countries.

The proximate explanation of these shifts in policy is the limited success of central planning or its outright failure to achieve stated objectives. However, this failure is itself to be attributed, at least in some measure, to the political implications of central planning and to an unwillingness to follow out its logic when doing so requires trampling rough-shod on treasured private rights. It may well be that the shift is only a temporary interruption in the collectivist trend of this century. Even so, it illustrates the close relation between political freedom and economic arrangements.

Historical evidence by itself can never be convincing. Perhaps it was sheer coincidence that the expansion of freedom occurred at the same time as the development of capitalist and market institutions. Why should there be a connection? What are the logical links between economic and political freedom? In discussing these questions we shall consider first the market as a direct component of freedom, and then the indirect relation between market arrangements and political freedom. A by-product will be an outline of the ideal economic arrangements for a free society.

As liberals, we take freedom of the individual, or perhaps the family, as our ultimate goal in judging social arrangements. Freedom as a value in this sense has to do with the interrelations among people; it has no meaning whatsoever to a Robinson Crusoe on an isolated island (without his Man Friday). Robinson Crusoe on his island is subject to "constraint," he has limited "power," and he has only a limited number of alternatives, but there is no problem of freedom in the sense that is relevant to our discussion. Similarly, in a society freedom has nothing to say about what an individual does with his freedom; it is not an all-embracing ethic. Indeed, a major aim of the liberal is to leave the ethical problem for the individual to wrestle with. The "really" important ethical problems are those that face an individual in a free society - what he should do with his freedom. There are thus two sets of values that a liberal will emphasize -- the values that are relevant to relations among people, which is the context in which he assigns first priority to freedom; and the values that are relevant to the individual in the exercise of his freedom, which is the realm of individual ethics and philosophy.

The liberal conceives of men as imperfect beings. He regards the problem of social organization to be as much a negative problem of preventing "bad" people from doing harm as of enabling "good" people to do good; and, of course, "bad" and "good" people may be the same people, depending on who is judging them.

The basic problem of social organization is how to co-ordinate the economic activities of large numbers of people. Even in relatively backward societies, extensive division of labor and specialization of function is required to make effective use of available resources. In advanced societies, the scale on which coordination is needed, to take full advantage of the opportunities offered by modern science and technology, is enormously greater. Literally millions of people are involved in providing one another with their daily bread, let alone with their yearly automobiles. The challenge to the believer in liberty is to reconcile this widespread interdependence with individual freedom.

Fundamentally, there are only two ways of co-ordinating the economic activities of millions. One is central direction involving the use of coercion--the technique of the army and of the modern totalitarian state. The other is voluntary co-operation of individuals--the technique of the market place.

The possibility of co-ordination through voluntary co-operation rests on the elementary -- yet frequently denied -- proposition that both parties to an economic transaction benefit from it, provided the transaction is bi-laterally voluntary and informed.

Exchange can therefore bring about co-ordination without coercion. A working model of a society organized through voluntary exchange is a free private enterprise exchange economy -- what we have been calling competitive capitalism.

In its simplest form, such a society consists of a number of independent households -- a collection of Robinson Crusoes, as it were. Each household uses the resources it controls to produce goods and services that it exchanges for goods and services produced by other households, on terms mutually acceptable to the two parties to the bargain. It is thereby enabled to satisfy its wants indirectly by producing goods and services for others, rather than directly by producing goods for its own immediate use. The incentive for adopting this indirect route is, of course, the increased product made possible by division of labor and specialization of function. Since the household always has the alternative of producing directly for itself, it need not enter into any exchange unless it benefits from it. Hence, no exchange will take place unless both parties do benefit from it. Co-operation is thereby achieved without coercion.

Specialization of function and division of labor would not go far if the ultimate productive unit were the household. In a modern society, we have gone much farther. We have introduced enterprises which are intermediaries between individuals in their capacities as suppliers of service and as purchasers of goods. And similarly, specialization of function and division of labor could not go very far if we had to continue to rely on the barter of product for product. In consequence, money has been introduced as a means of facilitating exchange, and of enabling the acts of purchase and of sale to be separated into two parts.

Despite the important role of enterprises and of money in our actual economy, and despite the numerous and complex problems they raise, the central characteristic of the market technique of achieving co-ordination is fully displayed in the simple exchange economy that contains neither enterprises nor money. As in that simple model, so in the complex enterprise and money-exchange economy, co-operation is strictly individual and voluntary provided: (a) that enterprises are private, so that the ultimate contracting parties are individuals and (b) that individuals are effectively free to enter or not to enter into any particular exchange, so that every transaction is strictly voluntary.

It is far easier to state these provisos in general terms than to spell them out in detail, or to specify precisely the institutional arrangements most conducive to their maintenance. Indeed, much of technical economic literature is concerned with precisely these questions. The basic requisite is the maintenance of law and order to prevent physical coercion of one individual by another and to enforce contracts voluntarily entered into, thus giving substance to "private". Aside from this, perhaps the most difficult problems arise from monopoly - which inhibits effective freedom by denying individuals alternatives to the particular exchange -- and from "neighborhood effects" -- effects on third parties for which it is not feasible to charge or recompense them. These problems will be discussed in more detail in the following chapter.

So long as effective freedom of exchange is maintained, the central feature of the market organization of economic activity is that it prevents one person from interfering with another in respect of most of his activities. The consumer is protected from coercion by the seller because of the presence of other sellers with whom he can deal. The seller is protected from coercion by the consumer because of other consumers to whom he can sell. The employee is protected from coercion by the employer because of other employers for whom he can work, and so on. And the market does this impersonally and without centralized authority.

Indeed, a major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it does this task so well. It gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.

The existence of a free market does not of course eliminate the need for government. On the contrary, government is essential both as a forum for determining the "rules of the game" and as an umpire to interpret and enforce the rules decided on. What the market does is to reduce greatly the range of issues that must be decided through political means, and thereby to minimize the extent to which government need participate directly in the game. The characteristic feature of action through political channels is that it tends to require or enforce substantial conformity. The great advantage of the market, on the other hand, is that it permits wide diversity. It is, in political terms, a system of proportional representation. Each man can vote, as it were, for the color of tie he wants and get it; he does not have to see what color-the majority wants and then, if he is in the minority, submit.

It is this feature of the market that we refer to when we say that the market provides economic freedom. But this characteristic also has implications that go far beyond the narrowly economic. Political freedom means the absence of coercion of a man by his fellow men. The fundamental threat to freedom is power to coerce, be it in the hands of a monarch, a dictator, an oligarchy, or a momentary majority. The preservation of freedom requires the elimination of such concentration of power to the fullest possible extent and the dispersal and distribution of whatever power cannot be eliminated - a system of checks and balances. By removing the organization of economic activity from the control of political authority, the market eliminates this source of coercive power. It enables economic strength to be a check to political power rather than a reinforcement.

Economic power can be widely dispersed. There is no law of conservation which forces the growth of new centers of economic strength to be at the expense of existing centers. Political power, on the other hand, is more difficult to decentralize. There can be numerous small independent governments. But it is far more difficult to maintain numerous equipotent small centers of political power in a single large government than it is to have numerous centers of economic strength in a single large economy. There can be many millionaires in one large economy. But can there be more than one really outstanding leader, one person on whom the energies and enthusiasms of his countrymen are centered? If the central government gains power, it is likely to be at the expense of local governments. there seems to be something like a fixed total of political power to be distributed. Consequently, if economic power is joined to political power, concentration seems almost inevitable. On the other hand, if economic power is kept in separate hands from political power, it can serve as a check and a counter to political power.

The force of this abstract argument can perhaps best be demonstrated by example. Let us consider first, a hypothetical example that may help to bring out the principles involved, and then some actual examples from recent experience that illustrate the way in which the market works to preserve political freedom.

One feature of a free society is surely the freedom of individuals to advocate and propagandize openly for a radical change in the structure of the society -- so long as the advocacy is restricted to persuasion and does not include force or other forms of coercion. It is a mark of the political freedom of a capitalist society that men can openly advocate and work for socialism. Equally, political freedom in a socialist society would require that men be free to advocate the introduction of capitalism. How could the freedom to advocate capitalism be preserved and protected in a socialist society?

In order for men to advocate anything, they must in the first place be able to earn a living. This already raises a problem in a socialist society, since all jobs are under the direct control of political authorities. It would take an act of self-denial whose difficulty is underlined by experience in the United States after World War II with the problem of "security" among Federal employees, for a socialist government to permit its employees to advocate policies directly contrary to official doctrine.

But let us suppose this act of self-denial to be achieved. For advocacy of capitalism to mean anything, the proponents must be able to finance their cause - to hold public meetings, publish pamphlets, buy radio time, issue newspapers and magazines, and so on. How could they raise the funds? There might and probably would be men in the socialist society with large incomes, perhaps even large capital sums in the form of government bonds and the like, but these would of necessity be high public officials. It is possible to conceive of a minor socialist official retaining his job although openly advocating capitalism. It strains credulity to imagine the socialist top brass financing such "subversive" activities.

The only recourse for funds would be to raise small amounts from a large number of minor officials. But this is no real answer. To tap these sources, many people would already have to be persuaded, and our whole problem is how to initiate and finance a campaign to do so. Radical movements in capitalist societies have never been financed this way. They have typically been supported by a few wealthy individuals who have become persuaded - by a Frederick Vanderbilt Field, or an Anita McCormick Blaine, or a Corliss Lamont, to mention a few names recently prominent, or by a Friedrich Engels, to go farther back. This is a role of inequality of wealth in preserving political freedom that is seldom noted -- the role of the patron.

In a capitalist society, it is only necessary to convince a few wealthy people to get funds to launch any idea, however strange, and there are many such persons, many independent foci of support. And, indeed, it is not even necessary to persuade people or financial institutions with available funds of the soundness of the ideas to be propagated. It is only necessary to persuade them that the propagation can be financially successful; that the newspaper or magazine or book or other venture will be profitable. The competitive publisher, for example, cannot afford to publish only writing with which he personally agrees; his touchstone must be the likelihood that the market will be large enough to yield a satisfactory return on his investment.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hysterics

We definitely want to continue to pray for the victims of the senseless shooting in Tuscon last weekend. There is never a reason to spray a defenseless crowd with bullets.



I remember the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. My first instinct was to blame Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. It had all the hallmarks of this brand of attack. Of course the actual attack came from another direction. A former soldier named Timothy McVeigh blew up a federal building for very different reasons.



The left wing had its knee jerk reaction this Saturday when Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head and a federal judge killed. It shouted "Tea Party" and, as if there were talking points already in place, they all bemoaned the uncivil dialogue.



Interesting how they return to this theme once in power. In the 1960s, they called it "civil disobedience" even when they went well beyond Martin Luther King Jr.'s guidelines. Who was responsible for the 1968 Chicago Democratic Convention riots? Who was responsible for Weather Underground terrorism? This same political grouping now asks for a return to civility. Oh wait, did they treat Bush with civility? Civil is when tens of thousands gather in one place and peacefully sing, pray, and honor their country. That was the example of the Tea Party last summer.



Aggressive rhetoric and discourse does not cause killing. In fact, the action of letting off steam through harsh words more likely prevents a lot more outbreaks of violence. They don't want civil dialogue. They just want us to shut up.



The shooter was a strange case. He apparently loved the two halves of the extreme left coin, both Lenin and Hitler. He also talked about hating the government. We may have to just settle for the fact that this was a deranged and confused young man. He was too crazy for college, apparently. Friends describe him as left wing in his politics. However, that does not mean that we would blame all left wing dialogue. We'd blame the individual. He did it. It is his responsibility alone.



We are not a sick society. We are actually remarkably healthy, considering the recent stresses. We do have sick individuals. In a free society, the sick and the malicious can work without detection. The cost of a free society is the occasional tragedy. We accept that cost, or we sacrifice more freedom to achieve a perfect security that is impossible to achieve.



The left went into hysterics, thinking that a Tea Partier, or Sarah Palin follower, shot a congresswoman who wanted to cut the debt and protect gun ownership. I can forgive teh knee jerk reaction since I once did it myself. But now they owe us a mea culpa. Constitution supporters did not shoot this woman. A crazy guy did.