So the sky will fall, our dollar will collapse, inflation will spiral out of control while Britney
Spears becomes minister of the car police (or
whatever Barack decides to call that ridiculous
car czar), right?  Lest you think that I am all nay
saying and finger pointing, let me point out that
pessimism is not the same as fatalism.

I believe that good will come out of  the latest
fiascoes, if we recognize that change-not “is
coming”, ala Mr. Obama, but must come.
Fortunately for all of us B. Hussein Obama was
only elected to a four year term.   I suspect that
calmer heads will  prevail in 2012, when Mr.
Obama’s term is up.

America has the most productive, straight
thinking and goal oriented people on Earth.   We
have some goal to achieve:  Nothing less than
the complete top to bottom restructuring of our
government, our economy, and the means by
which we relate to the world.  That is some tall
order, and I doubt the Republicrats are suited to
the task.  If the Libertarian party doesn’t refine
its public persona away from the “legalize
drugs-taxes are bad-the media sucks” platform
that most Americans believe that party is about
(and  is the platform most quasi-libertarians have
run on), then surely some other party will pick
up the slack.  Hell, I can be an optimist when
the time calls for it.

Wall Street Journal writer  Peggy Noonan  sums up our
decidedly “optimistic” culture.  Ms. Noonan
said  of the then President-elect:  ”people are angry
but don’t have a plan, and they’ll give {Obama}
unprecedented latitude and sympathy”.  I hardly
believe that his  Lordness is the man suited to
the times we are about to experience,  but I
believe someone out there must be.  Heaven
help us if we one day fall into the kind of trap Hitler laid
out for the German Republic in the 1920s/30s.

This is where pessimism comes in.  We must not
fall for the mind numbing, “there’s a gold mine
in the sky”, “don’t stop thinking’ about
tomorrow” rhetoric that is sure to come from
the next crop of king of the hill wanabes in four
years.  That is not optimism.  It’s fantasy speak
for “trust me, I know what I’m doing-just don’t look too closely”.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Peggy Noonan On The SOTU: A Contradictory Heart (cehwiedel.com)

How much will we actually be spending, in real value? That is the question that must be grappled
with when discussing the massive debt which we will incur
under Team Obama’s spending plans.  Notice,
strangely, that every statist has always demanded
the dollar be backed by–nothing.  Richard Nixon
took us off the Gold Standard in the early seventies,
permanantly producing those pesky cyclical periods of inflation, boom and bust . Alan
Greenspan  (long before he became the head of that
particularly odious part of the problem) showed in
his brutally lucid Gold and Economic Freedom the
connection between an un-backed currency and
inflation.  Let’s, for the sake of shock value and
hyperbole, look at the actual cost–in real value-of
Obama’s current spending proposals.

The dollar’s value, as defined by the Constitution, is
1/20th of an ounce of gold.

An ounce of gold is currently (as of 3/6/09) selling for
$933.00 an ounce.

B. Hussein Obama and his comrades in Congress have spent or have
proposed spending $20,000,000,000.00 (twenty
trillion dollars) on a host of big items including money already spent on
studying why pigs smell, promoting astronomy in
Hawaii, grape production, and cricket research.

At current prices, if we had a gold-backed dollar, we
would be spending $933,000,000,000.00 (nine
hundred thirty three trillion dollars).

The statists will argue: “see, we can’t back the
dollar by gold, see how much would really be spent
on swine studies and tattoo removal?”

Ladies and gentleman, that is precisely the point Mr.
Greenspan made (before he de-legitimized himself by getting in bed with the same folks he originally condemned).  This is the Statist’s means of
appropriating (the government’s double-speak for
stealing) more of your wealth, covering up it’s actual
value, then refusing to acknowledge it’s own role in
the destruction of the very dollar and economy they claim to be
there to protect.

It’s your hard work they are stealing, make the most of it.

Much thanks (and apologies) are due to an artist friend of mine in Albany, NY, who suggested a solution to the Prop 8 dilemma in
California.;  long before Prop 8.  I had been arguing for  Federal and
State recognition of gay marriage for many years;  I now confess
that I was wrong.  Prop 8 supporters and their gay detractors take
note:  you are both wrong, too.

The problem posed by Prop 8 is that it’s not about gay marriage;
it’s about the citizens’ right to define the law, and the
government’s role in one’s private life.  Our Republic’s uniqueness
is that the framers of the Constitution understood that citizens had
the ethical right (and urgent need) to be able to amend, re-write, or
toss out their governing documents and laws.  They knew that this was the
fundamental requirement of a healthy, moral society.  The
founders also understood that government’s role was limited to
protecting citizens from force.

California’s Supreme Court made a partially correct decision in
upholding Prop 8; by deciding in favor of the voter’s of California,
they determined that it is the right of the people to amend the
state’s Constitution-however, they failed to address the more
crucial issue of whether government should be involved in the
marriage issue at all.

The Prop 8 debacle illustrates the inherent flaw in the thinking of
the statists on both sides of the debate.  Liberal gays are
convinced that marriage should be Federally recognized and
available to gays and lesbians.  Conservative Christians, Jews, and others are
convinced that what is primarily a religious contract should be
withheld from same sex partners.   Gays will ultimately win this
aspect of the culture war (and shouldn’t) because the judiciary and
statists on both sides believe that marriage is both a civil AND
religious institution which must be protected , encouraged, and
sanctioned by civil authorities.  Religious Conservatives will lose
(and should) because they have forgotten their own political
commitment to limited government and are attempting to dictate
their religious ethics via the barrel of a metaphorical gun (through
legislation).

The solution to this dilemma lies in the Objectivist principle of the
separation of State and economics (as well as the separation of
Church and State).  If two consenting adults desire to enter into a
contract which gives them financial and legal obligations, rights,
and responsibilities it is the role of government to protect that
contract-and no more. If a Religious body desires to recognize the
union of a man and a woman and wishes to bar all other unions, it
is its right which should not be interfered with (nor endorsed,
encouraged, or dissuaded by) government.

Never the twain shall meet should be the ruling ethic in regards to
marriage and State.

The solution to the issue lies in a two tiered system-a civil
contract which all couples must acquire if the couple wants  their
economic, legal, and joint interests  recognized and protected by
the state or federal government; and a separate marital union
entered into via religious institutions which the government must
not interfere with, sanction, or concern itself with.

This solution would only work in a truly rational society which has
purged all statist elements from its governing laws.  Until such a
society exists, the left will continue its push towards fascism; with
gay marriage and the purge of all religious freedoms as a result.
Unless the Republicans and Conservatives understand their own
treason against the First amendment they will lose the nation.
Unless  gays come to understand that the Left will continue to
betray their interests in the name of the “common good” , they will
once again find themselves wearing pink triangles and heading to
camps when the Religious and secular Progressives determine  that gay support is no
longer necessary.

It is time that supporters of limited government in the  gay community and Religious Conservatives
understand that we have a common enemy.  We must come to see that we are fellow soldiers in a common war.

The  crisis in the middle east is a bigger problem than whether Palestinians and
Israelis will ever live side by side in peace.  It
is a symptom of a larger issue, and an
indication of the solution.  You will never hear
any “expert” on  middle east relations saying
publicly what is surely being said in private:
this milennia old dispute is irrationalism given
the veneer of respectability.  The ever growing
violence between factions will not be stopped
until all sides are told once and for all: open
your minds, and shut your mouths.

Make no mistake about it, regardless of what
we hear from Palestinian “moderates”, the
leaders of the Palestinian people will never
allow a two state solution.  The Palestinian
Authority, Hamas, Hezbollah, and every
dominant Islamist group in the region will
accept nothing less than the eradication of
Israel and her people and the implementation
of an Islamic empire in the region, and
eventually the rest of the world.  Make no
mistake about it, the Israeli government will
never allow the “right of return” for
Palestinians, or an Islamic Empire to surround
their country.

These are irreconcilable differences in an area
which is dominated by ir rationalism.  Israelis
will not allow Israel to become a secular
state, and Islamists will never accept secularism,
on any terms.

This dilemma is proof positive that no solution
can be found in the pursuit of the irrational.
Please observe that this situation is only
happening because both parties have
convinced themselves that God is on their
side.  The Middle East crisis is not a war of
equals, it is not a competition for land or oil, and it is not
a battle of ideologies; it is a holy war.  The
dark ages have never left us.  They have been
there, perpetually in our midst for millennia.  The period known as the
dark ages were dominated by two overall
principles, the supremacy of faith over reason
and the rule of brute force.

To my Christian friends on the right who have
convinced themselves that this is proof of the
“end times” malarkey that they have been
peddling off as wisdom, I wish to tell you: yes,
these are the end times, but not in the manner
you wish to present it.  This holy war will
either end with mysticism buried for all time
(as it should be), or the full reverse of freedom, progress, and prosperity forall of us-for many more centuries. There
is no middle ground between reason and
religion.  Reason and religious ideology are
ethical and practical antagonists, there can be
no compromise.  To those clamoring on about
“prophecy”, and predestination:  be warned,
your insistence on the justness of your cause
could very well be a self fulfilling prophecy.

At the birthplace of the three dominant
religions of the past several thousand years
we are witnessing before our eyes, in real
time, the collapse of mysticism.  This is NOT
an accident, and it is not “divine will”; it is
tribalism, barbarism, and meaningless
slaughter waged by witchdoctors in the name of ghosts in the sky  This is
the nature of mysticism, unchanged in its
essence, since primitive man attempted to
explain his origins by muttering to rocks and fire.  Force has always been a corollary of
religion, regardless of the prattling on by
some that theirs is a religion of peace.  Unless
men deal with other with their minds, no other
means are left open to them but guns, rocks,
missiles,and bombs.

This is a dilemma which will remain unsolved
until rational adults say “enough is enough”
and call the parties out.  No solution is
possible until men of reason say to those who
would demand that others deny the evidence
of their senses and simply take them at their
word, your word be damned.  The evidence is lacking.`

Now is the time for us to consider radical solutions.  Certainly the current Administration’s “solutions” are
radical-dramatically reshaping, distorting, and damaging our
economic and political system.  Radicalism was the
foundation of the American Revolution, and its time that
Americans take the founder’s example to heart.

According to Article I, section three of our Republic’s founding document, the Senate reserves the
power to try all impeachments;  there may be a solution that
Congress has not foreseen: the removal of Congress en masse
by “the people”.

The ninth and tenth amendments of the U.S. Constitution
(articles 11 & 12) grant all powers not delegated to the federal
government to the people. Removal of members of Congress is a power NOT granted to the body as a whole(except as a penalty after conviction for “high Crimes and Misdemeanors”  -nor to the other branches of government  Ladies and gentleman, WE are the
people.  hadenough.us is proposing a radical solution for the crimes and treasonous acts of the House AND Senate-a
grassroots movement to invoke the Constitutional powers
granted to the People and, rather than impeach specific members of
Congress via the Senate, to institute a complete removal of the current Congress and implement a replacement by direct popular vote.

This may be naive and ultimately fail in terms of actual
removal from office, but it may achieve the political effect of
mobilizing  public sentiment against apathy, frustration, and fatalism and put Congress, the Administration,
and the Judiciary on notice that they work for
us, not the other way around.
Radical? perhaps.