Representation: Non-Existent

Representation of the people has ceased to exist in Washington as we know it. Nowadays in Congress, the so called representatives of the people represent more of a party agenda than their constituents in their home districts. What we now have in Washington are men and women who represent one party or the other and don't really listen at all to what the people who elected them really have to say or want out of their congressman/woman. Today, it is all about party advancement and power. It is as simple as that. Look at how many of the representatives have been there for more than a decade. It is seemingly obscene, because some of these men and women haven't done anything to deserve the tenure that they have retained.

When the Founding Fathers envisioned representation of the people, the one thing that they could agree on is that these men needed to represent the people, and not a particular party or creed. They were being elected to represent their constituents and to do what was right for the country, keeping in mind that it was in the best interests of the people back home. They were to hold to particular standards and their power was to be limited to the constraints of the Constitution and would be checked by the other branches of government. They were to be virtuous and not be power hungry. The original intent was not for those elected to be finding a career. Though there were not limits placed on how many terms a congressman or senator could serve, it was not supposed to necessarily be a lifetime career. However, nowadays, we see men who have held onto power and who are long past their prime, who don't even get up and take the floor. Their messages are delivered by aides and read to the members in attendance. They do not understand that being a congressman or senator is being called to a position in which they are there for the good of the people, not the good of themselves.

And these men and women who now hold office represent party politics more than they represent the people. The Founders had hoped that a republican form of government would help to stem the rise of factions, but unfortunately, they counted on virtue to stem that tide, and virtue is not a trait that many humans are able to hold to for long. Man is corrupt. As Shakespeare said in Hamlet, "What a piece of work is a man…" Man will hold onto power when they get it in their hands, and when they have it, they will not let go. And over the years, Congress has been granted more and more power, making the position ever more enticing, and ever harder to let go of. And therein lays the problem.

Congress has strict and enumerated powers that were laid out for them in the Constitution of the United States. These powers are quite simply stated. Congress was given the power to create and collect taxes, which is the revenue which the country uses to run itself. They were given the capacity to declare war, raise an army and navy, to draw up the rules for both, and to call into service the militia (National Guard) in times of need. They were given the power to regulate international commerce and to coin money and regulate the value of it and its relation to foreign currency. It was to establish post-offices and the means of getting mail to its destination. These are the basics, as outlined in the Constitution, Article 1, Section 8. At the end of Section 8, Congress is given the power to "make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." However, if one goes further into the Constitution, to the Bill of Rights, you will see Amendment 10, which states thusly: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution or prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." In Federalist No. 45, James Madison said it quite simply. He said that the "powers delegated…to the federal government are few and defined." These enumerated powers are to be "exercised principally on external objects as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce…"

However, the necessary and proper clause has been construed to mean that Congress has the power to do whatever is, in their opinion, necessary and proper, for whatever purpose. This clearly violates Amendment 10, which says that what is not delegated to Congress is to be reserved to the states or to the people of the nation. The so called necessary and proper clause only pertains to the enumerated powers outlined in Section 8. Remember that little phrase that follows necessary and proper: "for carrying into execution the foregoing powers." They are allowed to do what is necessary and proper within the limits of the enumerated powers. To go outside of those lines is, well, unconstitutional.

So, why are we not crying out in shear anger about the misrepresentation in Congress? My friends, we should be crying out in outrage about what we are seeing in our government today. Look at the so called American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that has now been passed into law. How is this within Congress's powers? This so called stimulus package is basically a pork filled appropriations bill so that the Socialist Democrats who hold the majority can carry out their pet projects. How is $30 million in funds dedicated to preserving the habitat of the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse supposed to stimulate the economy and pull America out of this recession? The congresswomen who proposed this, none other than the Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi of California, has said that helping to preserve this rodent and its habitat will somehow stimulate the economy of her home district of San Francisco. Or how about Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada appropriating $8 billion in order to create a high speed rail link between Los Angeles and Las Vegas, when Amtrak, which used to run trains between the two cities, shut the line down because of low ridership? Is this the proper way for Congress to be spending our taxpayer dollars, the money we give the government in order for it to have some benefit for us, not for some small rat that lives in California?

It is time to stand up my friends. It is time to stand as one united front and say no more will we stand for this misrepresentation that is becoming more and more prevalent in Washington DC. We are now in a new American crisis, and this one is even worse in some ways than the ones before. We are reverting to a European model of living, and that is something that would make Washington, Jefferson and Madison roll in their graves, for they fought to make this country far different from Europe, and now our politicians are trying to make us more like what we fought to separate from. Well no more!! We must say no more! Stand up to the rise of socialism in America and stand firm for the principles of hard work and virtue that our Founding Fathers tried to instill in us. They are reaching out through the years and attempting to tell us to stand tall. Will you?

Government Control Not the Dream

Control of the people's lives was not what the Patriot generation had in mind when they decided to fight the War for Independence and separate from Great Britain. In fact, they were separating for the very fact that they wanted to have control over their lives and money, and not the government. And now the new administration is beginning to go back to the English model, so to speak, of taxing in order to pay for their policies and programs which have not direct benefit to the people of this country whatsoever.

Let's compare these two periods of history. In the 1760's, the government of Great Britain was in some financial trouble. They needed money; badly. So, they began to pass a series of acts that increased taxes on everyday goods in order to raise this capital. They placed a tax on sugar, which the colonists used to make molasses, which in turn was used to make rum (a major commodity in those days). A stamp tax was initiated, and any letter or public paper, even a deck of cards, had to have this stamp on it, or it was illegal. The colonists fought these acts and had them repealed. Then came the Townshend duties. These were duties on everyday things like tea, glass, and other items that the colonists used daily. These taxes were being passed and foisted upon our forefathers and they were seeing no direct benefit from them at all. They were being told it was to help pay for the war that enabled them to still be speaking English and not French, but they weren't seeing anything from the taxes they were paying. And the rest, as we all know, became history when they threw the tea overboard, banded together and fought the English until they gained their independence.

Are we Americans going to begin to see the same things happen in our country two hundred years later? Are we going to begin to be taxed on items we use in our everyday lives because it is in the long run going to "benefit" us, but in essence we will never see any clear betterment of our lives? Congress and the President have not signed into law a so called "stimulus" package that has a running tab of $787 billion and will only go higher if something is not done, and soon. And the cost of this massive spending bill is going to be paid off by our children, our grandchildren, and their children. This is something that we cannot let happen. We must make it stop, and we are the only ones that can do this!

The Socialist government is going to begin reaching into our pockets and telling us that by taking our money, we are helping this country. We are providing for our future, and for our children's future. Aren't these the same propagandistic lies that the Soviets were spouting out to the people of Russia when they took over? The only thing that we will be providing is the enlargement of the national debt and steeper slide toward depression or socialism, and neither of those is a slope that we want to head down. In order to pay for this bill, the income tax on American's today is going to go up. Sure, the socialists in Congress and the White House will say they won't, and they will be giving American's tax cuts across the board (except for the evil rich of course) but we all know that will not happen. Income tax will go up, fairly imperceptibly, and we will see an increase in other taxes, like property tax and sales taxes. State taxes will go up because they will need to pay off their part of the burden, which, of course, will be placed on the citizens of that state. And for what will we be paying for, might one ask?

If one takes a look at the stimulus package, and what it entails, you will find that there isn't much stimulation going on at all. For example, $32 billion is going to transportation projects and another $10 billion to railway and mass transit projects. Now, I can see how this might help things get to people and places faster and more efficiently, but is that really a necessity for an economic stimulus package? And how about $6 billion dollars for projects that bring high-speed internet access to rural and undeserved areas? Okay, so people can buy things online faster and with more ease, but if they don't have the money, how does that help them? Approximately $153 billion alone is going to healthcare projects that will do wonders for promoting nationalized healthcare, but do nothing for the economy. One could go on and on, but the crux of the matter is that Congress has now appropriated 787 billion taxpayer dollars, money that most Americans work very hard to earn, and spending it on things that will have no direct benefit to them whatsoever. The spending of their money will do them no good.

By doing all this, the government is doing exactly what Parliament and King George III did in the 1760's and 70's. They are telling us that we are their piggy bank, and now that they need the money, they are going to break us open and take as much money from us as they need too. And then, with the money that they leave us, they are going to tell us how to spend it. Have you been saving up for that brand new Mustang that you have always wanted? Sorry, that car is not fuel efficient enough. Go out and buy one of those new, environmentally sound cars, like a Prius. And you shouldn't be eating out at McDonalds or Burger King, because their food isn't healthy for you, and if you get fat, well, we just may have to tax you more. Do you see what I am getting at? The government is more and more beginning to intrude upon our private lives and telling us what we can and cannot do. Is that freedom? Does that sound like the words of the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution to you? It seems as if the right to life, liberty and property has now been boiled down to life as we want you to live it, the liberty we are willing to give to you, and the property that we the government don't need from you (but we will need most of it. It's for your future!)

Stand up Americans! Don't let the Socialists in Congress and the White House just take your money without any real benefit to you coming out of it. Say enough is enough. It is our money, we worked hard for it, and we deserve to keep what it rightfully ours. This does not mean we should not pay our rightful taxes. Sure, they aren't fun, but a benefit does come out of them. But, when we begin to be excessively taxed for things that give us no benefit whatsoever, and do not improve conditions at all, that is unjust, and we cannot stand for it. These are the same things that Jefferson spoke against in his Declaration, and it is time that we once more take his words to heart and say no to this vastly egregious spending bill that will damage America for years to come.

Why Democrats are not Liberals

I know, shocking isn't it? For years, we have been calling Democrats liberals, when they are really not liberals at all. What they are is socialists who have appropriated the term liberal for the sake of making themselves look better. They are the proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing.

America was founded under the political philosophy of liberalism. What word looks very similar to this? If you are thinking 'liberty', well then you are quite correct. The whole basis of liberalism is that man is free to do as he pleases with the life that he is given, save that he respect the law, as long as it does not infringe upon his freedom. F.A. Hayek, an economist whose work has become a basis for libertarian thinking, says it best. He says that the fundamental principle, the root of liberalism, is that "in the ordering of our affairs we should make as much use as possible of the spontaneous forces of society, and resort as little as possible to coercion..." In other words, in our lives, we do what works best, and see where it takes us, and if it doesn't work, we try something else. This is freedom. When we are forced by the powers that be to do what they think is best, then there ceases to be any freedom whatsoever, and the government must resort to coercion in order to get their plan into action. Freedom is not in the Democrats plans at all. They want everybody to do things their way, and they will go about doing this by whatever means possible. But in reality, the only way that they can do that is to destroy the Constitution, bring about one party rule and eventually move to authoritarianism, which will eventually lead to totalitarianism (Hitler's Germany is an example of a totalitarian regime).

Democrats want their plan, and only their plan. They are unwilling to compromise on anything. This all comes from a set of misguided ideals that come straight from the pages of all the socialist writings of the past. Lets look at an example; health care. In the United States today, we have many health care providers, such as Aetna, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Cigna, Kaiser Peramanente, etc, etc. These are all private companies that through their service, make profit. Now, most people will get health care provided for them through their place of employment at a reduced cost that is deducted out of their pay check. Others have to get it by purchasing it themselves, which is more expensive, but still better than having none at all. The Democrats do not like this, and have said as much. They would rather have a national, socialized health care system where people don't have to pay for it, but it is a right that they have. There is no competition, and no incentive to good health care. And it is all placed under one head, so there will be more bureaucracy for people to have to go through just so they can see the doctor or have a procedure done. If the plan isn't adequate, one can't just drop one provider and get another, because the government will have done away with all other providers, and its one or none. And this doesn't even begin to describe the problems that will develop. Just look at Great Britain and other countries with nationalized health care, and you will begin to see the problems that America would face if they instituted it.

Democrats do not want freedom of enterprise, which is one of the basic tenets of true liberalism. This is something that the Founding Fathers fought for; our Founders who were true liberals. England wanted them to trade with England and only England, even if one could have gotten a better deal on say, tobacco, if they shipped it to France. England controlled the market and no freedom was allowed when it came to trade. The colonists got fed up with this and they revolted and created a system that allowed them to trade with whomever they wanted (though it did take awhile for that to come to fruition, it did happen). Democrats have a plan for everything, and what they say is apparently for the good of all. Or so they say.

What we must realize is that what is good for one person is not good for everyone. A basic truth of true liberalism is that we are free to make our own path for our lives, and nobody but us can tell us that we can or can't do it, unless of course, it goes against the law or is in some way harmful to others or restricts their freedom. Democrats do not want this. They are increasingly telling us more and more that we can't do this, or we can't do that. We can't smoke in public anymore, and there are some are trying to pass laws that say you can't smoke in your home either. They are telling us what kind of cars we must drive, and that we are killing our environment when we drive cars that run on gas. There are a plethora of things they are telling us we can and cannot do, and that is not what liberalism is about. That is socialism, my friends, and if we allow the Democrats to take us down that road, it is a slippery slope that we will not be able to easily climb back up.

To close this rather lengthy passage, we must resist. We must know what we must truly stand for, and, as crazy as that sounds, it is liberalism. It is the one and only true liberalism that this country was founded upon, and not the so called liberalism of the socialist left. I will recommend one thing to you. If you have the time, go and pick up three books. First, read John Locke's Second Treatise on Government. Then go and pick up John Stuart Mill's On Liberty. And finally, pick up F.A. Hayek's The Road to Serfdom. These three books will show you what true liberalism is, what government is supposed to do for society and how it is to go about it, and finally the dangers of socialism. I know they get dry, but they are important, and you will be glad you did, because then you can refute any socialist Democrat who tries to tell you you are wrong. Good luck, and good reading!

My Purpose

The purpose of this blog is to educate and to inform those readers who are or who may be curious about the tenets of classical liberal thought and how they are applicable today. It is also here to point out why we need to get back to the roots of true liberalism, the political thought of this nations Founding Fathers, and to show the dangers of the socialist ideology that has begun to permeate the American political tradition. Through it I will advance a case for why true liberalism is the only way to keep America the country that it is and how the socialist left, with its policies will destroy the country of Washington, Jefferson and Madison. Please enjoy, and good reading.

-Publius