Immigration or invasion?

I wrote this many years ago now.  Immigration isn’t the issue du jour at present, but just wait…we haven’t fixed anything yet…

Laws are words; let’s get them straight. “Immigration” is when somebody lawfully moves from one place to another. “Illegal aliens” are those who cross borders in violation of laws. Tens of millions of illegal aliens are, what; is “invasion” too strong a word?  Whatever it’s called; when it goes on for decades while we wait for federal action, it’s called stupid.

This July 4, let us remember that a truly federal government is allowed only a few powers. Each state is otherwise just as sovereign as other states around the world such as France or China. Article 4, Section 16 of the Indiana Constitution reserves for the Indiana legislature all necessary powers of “a free and independent state.” Article 5, Section 12 says, “The Governor shall be commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and may call out such forces, to execute the laws, or to suppress insurrection, or to repel invasion.” Most people have no idea that states legally have so much might.

The U.S. Constitution’s Article I, Section 8 grants the U.S. Congress power, “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” The 14th Amendment to that contract says, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside,” because through the War Between the States it was assumed that each state had the right to determine who had rights of citizenship and who didn’t. Of course, the proviso, “ . . . and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means that some are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; but the U.S. Constitution says nothing else about aliens, other than they can’t hold federal office.

Article I, Section 10 details the powers prohibited from the states, yet nothing limits any state’s authority over illegal aliens within its borders. In fact, this section’s prohibition against states declaring war is restrained by, “ . . . unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”

Arizona’s S.B. 1070 has made news, but in fact Article II, Section 35 of the Arizona Constitution already specifically denies illegal aliens citizen rights. Article XVIII, Section 10 actually denies illegal aliens any employment rights.

So, by the existing laws (paying special attention to the federal 10th Amendment), states already have both the authority and power to maintain constitutional rights and order within their borders. No new laws, no new powers are needed.

That said, our illegal alien problems aren’t about illegal aliens, their crimes or even the Reconquista nationalism of many.* Our problems are more fundamentally with socialism.

Even without its inevitable corruption and political oppression, socialism makes each citizen pay for others’ lifestyles, accidents, schooling and healthcare. The collectivist hooks we stick into each other, even with the best of intentions, will tend to make us want our fellows to stay out of our wallets, cough up money from theirs, and die quickly, before retirement.

The hooks make us care about what others eat, drink or smoke. Hooks make us care about who others date, how others live and what others can and cannot own. Socialism is inherently, demonstrably, antisocial.

The whole point of our constitutions is to prohibit this cold, jealous existence, thank God.

But what most people gripe most about illegal aliens is that we have to pay for them!  That’s not their fault, that’s ours.

And the overwhelming majority of the people pouring across our borders are doing so to find a better life.  They’re escaping war-torn, corrupt, drug-war-disrupted nations in hopes of raising their kids in peace and prosperity.  Wouldn’t you do the same?

And…isn’t that how this country started?

Unfortunately, we get exactly what we want…

Update:  Here’s a much more civilized version of what’s written below: http://www.news-sentinel.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100407/EDITORIAL/4070332 

Well, I got all agitated over a very bad idea from some very good folks, and sent a response to several people.  So I might as well air it out here.  In case you don’t know, Indiana HB 1065 acknowledges anti-constitutional “federal” and state firearms restrictions as law as it attempts to legalize what’s already legal by the clear wording of both state and federal constitutions.  It also, not incidentally, pushes aside property owners’ rights. 

It’s of course intended to be a positive step toward individual gun rights, but it’s yet another “incremental,” and “pragmatic” step backwards.  It is, in other words, why the good guys are losing, and why we’re quickly reverting to our ancient, crude and ruthless authoritarian default state.  Anyway, here’s pretty-much what I wrote a few days ago:

Indiana’s HB 1065 is a good example of everything bad…with us.

If we would only insist upon the constitutions, as written, then why in the world would we allow such a thing as HB 1065 to weaken the constitutional mandate? Have a look at Article I, Section 32 of our state constitution (https://wedeclare.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/indiana-constitution-book.pdf).

It is crystal clear:

The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.”

Why water that down? Why not insist upon it?
We vote for friendly demisocialists like Mitch Daniels because we’re idiots (today’s note: I have nothing against Mitch; it’s the people who voted for him that bother me). We rally around anti-constitutional bills as though they’re our friends because we’re idiots. We cast aside those who’ve been right for those who’ve always been wrong, and we throw away the best laws ever written for blithering nonsense that’s never worked.
Do we really think that new laws are better because they’re new? Why do we think future politicians will pay any more attention to them than to the foundational law that is the very basis of the lawmaking process…and to which they already swore an oath of support?
There are no shortcuts. Either we return to the constitutions as written (even if we have to write new ones), or we’re done…as a nation and as a free people.
Words must mean what they say. We must mean what we say.

We must know what we want, and say what that is…
People who promise to obey a flag and then step on the constitutions are not just stupid idolaters; they’re marauding oppressors.
I’ve personally seen an angry mob fire a mayor and city council.  I’ve seen angry letter/email/phone call-wielding people pass bills, defeat bills, and even overturn laws.  Having twice had 2.5 million people tell me to buzz off and take my constitutions with me, I know where the real power lies.

I’ve met the enemy, and it’s us.   …Not our ideological foes…us.

We who claim to love liberty need no other enemies as long as we oppose what’s already been done on our behalf.
We can fix our problems anytime we want to. But we apparently don’t want to.
We rally around half-@$$ self-destructive nonsense and refuse to unite over what we really want.
Sigh… I tried.

But it’s not up to me.
I can only watch as otherwise intelligent people do the same dumb things over and over and say that it’s the only way to go. As we plunge headlong into failure and oppression, the rallying cry is “that’s just the way it is!
Sigh…

The law is already written that would make you free.  If you compromise, you can only lose.

A Short History of Health Care: Let Doctors Be Doctors

I just ran across this on another website.  It’s a column I wrote for Indiana Policy Review a couple of years ago that seems more appropriate than ever now.

A Short History of Health Care: Let Doctors Be Doctors
By Andrew Horning

Healthcare is an odd business in that it has always been both expensive and unpleasant. Until the 1920s, the average doctor couldn’t even help with the average ailment. While medicine then included a range of arts like phrenology, acupuncture, homeopathy and allopathy it really was a coin-toss whether you’d be saved or killed by a doctor’s work.

Then the 20’s brought insulin, sulfa, other “miracle” drugs and sterile fields that meant, for the first time, that healthcare actually worked more often than not. From there, doctors, scientists and medical engineers really took off; rapid advancements increased life expectancies and decreased suffering. And because of increasing effectiveness and supply, healthcare was even becoming cheaper in real cost-benefit terms.

However, politicians had nothing at all to do with this, and that was apparently a problem. Teddy Roosevelt proposed a German-style, cradle-to-grave “socialized” healthcare system, but it was assailed as “the Prussian Menace” in those anti-German years before WWI, and Teddy’s scheme died. Even so, politicians wanting to seem compassionate started promoting socialized healthcare. The July 1919 issue of the Insurance Monitor made this prescient assertion: “The opportunities for fraud upset all statistical calculations. . . . Health and sickness are vague terms open to endless construction. Death is clearly defined, but to say what shall constitute such loss of health as will justify insurance compensation is no easy task.”

No matter. Between The Revenue Act of 1939’s health-related tax breaks, and 1943, when the War Labor Board excluded employer-paid health insurance from its wage freeze, American politicians charged into health care on their favorite horse, income tax.

In a nutshell, here’s what happened: Tax breaks for employer-paid health insurance meant that health insurance became a part of employment, and insurance became an integral part of healthcare. This inserted middlemen, which of course made everything more expensive. But who cared? The tax-subsidized, payroll-deducted cost was invisible enough that Americans started using insurance to pay for routine visits, dental checkups, eyeglasses and even plastic surgery. Group insurance offered large corporations better plans than small companies could muster, giving large corporations even greater advantages in hiring and competition than corporate laws already gave them. This also meant that the poor, or worse, the self employed, were even further distanced from the rich and incorporated in a very serious way. Obviously this created problems, but politicians never admit error, do they?

Four days before Tax Day, 1953, President Dwight Eisenhower established the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, giving government even more direct control over some of humanity’s most precious commodities. More political money and power meant more reasons for businesses to make campaign contributions and lobby. Of course, politicians at every level of government have used healthcare policy to reward their friends and punish their enemies. That’s their stock in trade.

Now tax money and policy is sifted and sorted through political appointees, immortal bureaucracies and defense-contract-style arrangements to feed a dwindling number of profit-starved insurance companies who then deny your claim. Doctors hire legions of workers to manage the regulatory, litigative, and insurance paperwork hassles; or leave private practice to become an employee within a clerically staffed healthcare corporation. So healthcare is still both expensive and unpleasant. But now it’s only because politicians, not doctors, are practicing medicine. Our healthcare injustices and vital statistics have decayed into an embarrassment at just the time when technology should make healthcare cheap, effective and available to all.

It is hard to imagine what politicians could have done to make our healthcare situation any worse. Yet, according to a July 2006 Harris Poll, Americans rate the issue of healthcare well-behind Iraq, the economy, immigration and even gas prices. Even more strangely, most people now think we must, to some degree and by some unspecified method, “socialize” healthcare just as Europe, Canada and other nations are now scrambling back toward free market reforms. What are we thinking?

Let politicians have their way with Iraq, the Colts and toll roads. Let them run lotteries and practice voodoo. But please, let doctors do healthcare at last; they’ve earned the right.

RELATED POSTS:
https://wedeclare.wordpress.com/2013/10/15/can-politicians-even-define-health-care/
https://wedeclare.wordpress.com/2009/07/28/health-insurance%E2%80%A6or-healthcare%E2%80%A6choose-one/

Where are Samaritans when you need them?

I’ve had it with “religious leaders” spewing socialism.

If Satan has a Bible, I’m sure this is in it: that people should, with all the best intentions, delegate their own, personal role on earth, to politicians.

Where in the Bhagavad-Gita, Torah, Tipitaka, Bible or Koran could you find such evil sophistry?

Universal Healthcare isn’t charity – it is putting a gun to your neighbor to make him do what you won’t do yourself. Social Security isn’t caring for your mother – it’s the hole you personally push her, and your children, into to assuage guilt and allay fears. And you already know that “Homeland Security” has nothing to do with peace and liberty, right?

Our nation’s founders intended that citizens should defend themselves; not just against petty criminals, but against all enemies, foreign…and domestic, as citizen militias. They intended that our churches and voluntary associations, working without the armed aggression of politics, would comprise the departments of Health, Education and Welfare, so that the abstract and erratic junkyard dog we call “politics” would stay in the junkyard, restrained by the tall fence we call Rule of Law.

All of this required that individual citizens, personally, serve the needs of their neighbors; and that we remember, with cold chills, the true history and nature of politics, and people.

Imagine a man was just starting his Corvette after a sales call in northwest Houston, when he was beaten, stripped and left for dead where his car used to be. A TV preacher saw the man, and noted that he really should call 911, but this gave him a sermon idea, so he hurried on. A well-regarded politician saw the man, and said, “dang, I sure don’t want to be seen with a naked man!” And so he also scurried on. But a Mexican, fresh over the fence and scared, hauled the man into his rusty Corolla, took him to the hospital, and even gave his contact information to the ER admitting staff, just if he could be of any help at all, or could pay in any way, for the man’s care.

Who should we emulate? Are there any lessons, in any religion, that tell you otherwise?

An open letter to my fellow patriots

distressMy liberty-loving friends, we have lost.  We had our chance, and we muffed it. 

Gun rights activists fight the loss of gun rights, but not for the rest of the constitution upon which those limitations on government power depend.  Free speech activists protest their losses too, but they have no legal right to speak without the constitutions’ leash on politicians’ usual bans and prohibitions.  Tax protesters haven’t a legal leg to stand on when they dismiss our constitutions.  Without constitutions, you’ve got no rights to property, due process or even life, because without constitutions, there are no agreed-upon, legal, contractual or practical restraints upon political power.  And we haven’t even asked for Rule of Law under the Constitutions since the New Deal and it’s “Switch in Time that Saved Nine.” 

In point of irritating fact, most of us have fought for one right while opposing another for decades.  Speech activists oppose the constitutions’ religious freedom, while gun rights activists typically oppose the constitutions in moral, drug and lifestyle issues.  We demand our unconstitutional claims on other people’s incomes (Social Security, Medicare…when we’re trillions in debt we’re stealing from our grand kids now, you know), and then whine that cops are driving tanks now.

We have stubbornly refused to unite over what it is that we all really want (Rule of Law under our existing constitutions, as written), while our enemies represent no more than humanity’s ancient default state of oppression, slavery, genocide and war.  They win by our default in disunity.  We have torn ourselves apart and have nobody to blame but ourselves.  Our government is a global crime ring, and it’s by our collective free choice, dammit.

Sigh…

But let us not be bad sports.  Our side lost.  C’est ça.  Finito.  Now we must all Move On.

For years I have championed Rule of Law, but from now on, I want to be a Good Socialist.andolini

Look at the positive side.  Authoritarians have always had the best uniforms.  Most people look good in a trim little cap, a neat military outfit with red epaulets and brass buttons.  And those shiny black boots sound so fetching as you’re running down side streets on a cold, rainy night, chasing down someone who just won’t fit in.

Think of the imagery.  Who else gathers thousands of cheering idolaters under triumphant banners and bold emblems?  Who else goose-steps a half-million troops with tanks and jet formations right through the heart of the capital?  What thrills!  Authoritarians have chutzpa! 

OK, I do so hope we don’t get stuck with a bad-hair ruler like the North Koreans got.  And murderous thugs like Che too often lack any cultural polish at all.  

But I, like Hitler and Mussolini, do enjoy fine cars, art, and well-choreographed young people.  I adore the martial music and stylized posters depicting gloriously happy workers.  I am ready to raise my arm in salute to our great Obama nation!

Dear friends, we must become the Übermensch; perfection in body, mind and… well, not spirit.  Who needs spirit when you have the state!

We must reject our fetish with freedom, and replace it with devotion to global citizenship.  We must grow past and even spurn the apron strings and umbilicus of “traditional” family ties and norms, in favor of service to the state!

No sacrifice is too great for this dream.  You may be asked to give your life, but the promise is no more sickness, no more poverty, no more homelessness, no more injustice.  You may have to report your mother to the authorities, but you’ll be rewarded with at least a strong liklihood of a warm embrace from the global collective, very soon; from each according to ability, to each according to need.

Forget the tear-filled past with its tiresome clinging to “right” and “wrong.”  Forget the laws and old ways that held you back.  Forget humility and restraint.  Forget the chains and cages of individualism and family, and embrace the Power of Pride!

We are now building a human bridge over the troubled waters of humanity’s brutal past; to embark upon a wonderful voyage so buoyed by promises, that you’ll be jubilant and grateful to give your all, right up to your very last, bullet-riddled and tasered, choking gasp.

Join me, my friends.  Let us erase and even reverse the boundaries between nations and faiths and social morality, and march triumphantly toward the cliffs of a new day…

…In matching outfits!

An Iconoclastic Hoosier’s Flag Day Rumination

I wrote this in 2006.  Things have only worsened since then:

The USA flag is a powerful symbol. It’s in outer space, on T-shirts and bumper stickers. Coffins have been draped with it.  It even flies in other nations.  It’s been burned in protest and praised in song.

When we pledge our allegiance to it, we formally revere what that symbol represents to us, and what makes this nation special to us.

You can understand why we have a Flag Day.  The symbol is powerful to those who love the USA; and to even those who detest what this nation is all about.

It’s that Pledge of Allegiance I want to talk about…

Some claim that the author of our Pledge of Allegiance was a high school student named Frank E. Bellamy, born in Madison, Indiana. His pledge won a contest, got published and famous, while Frank became an injured war vet, a poor artist, and died young.

On the other hand, a fired New York minister named Francis Bellamy, unrelated to Frank, but employed at The Youth’s Companion that published the pledge in 1892, claimed credit for it, and energetically promoted it. An investigation in 1939 concluded that Francis really was the author.

This was not a happy conclusion for many, because Francis Bellamy was, unlike the other Bellamy, a zealous global socialist who angrily opposed replacing his words “to my flag” with, “to the flag of the United States of America.” This apostate Bellamy almost certainly would have opposed the addition of “under God” in 1953, had he still been alive.

Perhaps the pledge’s origin doesn’t matter. But perhaps its origin explains why we have an oath to a symbol, and not to the constitution.

Until 1892, the only nationalistic oaths in America were oaths sworn by politicians and soldiers to preserve, protect and defend the constitution. Our nation’s founders knew what had happened to the Jews and early Christians who refused to make oaths to idols, or to “Lord Caesar.” They wanted no citizen oaths to a person or abstraction like those demanded by feudal lords, churches, or the King of England. After all, no man is above the law, right?
That’s why the Oath of United States Citizenship clearly replaces oaths to people or abstractions with a dedication to the written contract that binds us as a nation:

“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic…”

What a great oath. A person could read the constitution and understand exactly, literally, what this oath entails because, despite what politicians tell us about that leash on their power, the constitution is very clear.

But how does one obey a flag? To what end and degree must we obey it? It certainly seems contrary to the spirit of 1776. And for any Christian or Muslim, can an oath of allegiance to a symbol be anything other than forbidden idolatry? Why pledge to what was officially, until 1923, only a military banner?

Let’s go back 67 years before that first Pledge.

Modern Socialism, including the coining of the word “socialism,” started a generation before Marx and Engels with the Owenites in New Harmony, Indiana. Robert Owen’s children later became very influential in Indiana government. A little later, Terre Haute, Indiana’s Eugene Debs very successfully promoted this socialism through the early 1900s.

distressMussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, et al., slightly tarnished the gleam on this Brave New World Order, but our public schools and government are still far more socialist than founding-fathers libertarian. We are, in other words, more 1984 than 1776.

Let’s be clear on this. Socialism is the ideology responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths in the last century, and it’s not done yet. Consider what you know of the words and symbols of socialism, and consider whether it bothers you that it was ardent supporters of this ideology that published and promoted our Pledge of Allegiance.

We should think hard about what we’re promising; and to whom. And the politicians we choose should keep their oaths of office.

Is it too much to ask that our words mean what they say, and that our actions fit our promises?

How about we dust off that old U.S.Constitution?

I could face the flag and pledge allegiance to that.

Important Distinction for a Pivotal Time

Here’s another old column that I think bears repeating:

As American wealth, liberty and opportunity bleed away, perhaps it’s time to consider the fact that government is an exacting science. There’s no scarcity of history, current events, verifiable facts and numbers to show simply and reproducibly what works in human governance, and what doesn’t.
For example, socialism sounds compassionate and progressive, but Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler and Stalin (among many others) demonstrate how it really works.
And maybe Free Market economy has become outré, but look for an explosion of wealth anywhere at any time, and you’ll be seeing the positive side of human self-interest.
Sadly, few of us discuss government. Instead we read, listen, ingest, pay and vote for politics. That’s why we’re in trouble now.
Elections are coming up. Please discriminate between the personal pursuit of power (politics), and the noble art and science of getting along as a civil society (government).
Politics means yard signs, polls, endorsements, “name ID” and money galore. Government involves policy, laws, and the use and restraint of dangerous force.
Do you really want to hear more poll numbers? Don’t you want to know what a candidate thinks that government should do to you, your liberties and property? Shouldn’t you hear what candidates think about rights, prohibitions and the use of armed force? Wouldn’t you rather save the billions it costs to propel sound bites through TV screens and billboards, and instead vote from objective fact?
Then please do us all a favor; ignore the stuff shoved down your throat at great expense, and demand that our media and candidates replace the game of politics with the reality of government. Your children will thank you.

NewSpeak

I wrote this column in 2002.  But I think it’s still relevant:

The word “egregious” comes from a Latin root that means “outside the flock.” Originally, and for quite some time, “egregious” meant “illustrious,” or exceptionally good. But ours being a brave new world, “egregious” now means exceptionally bad.
The word never meant “average” or “centrist;” not even briefly. It just flipped from one extreme to another with no stops in between – just like quantum physics. This phenomenon is odd, but harmless in common speech.
Quantum political speech, however, is another matter. In politics the stakes are wealth and poverty, life and death, peace and war. And in politics, words are law.
“Federal” used to mean a limited, distributed trust between sovereign states. What we call federal government now is actually its opposite; an all-powerful central force that should be called “unitary.”
“Liberal” used to describe our libertarian founders view of limited government; now the word means its exact opposite, socialism. “Conservative” meant a desire to keep status quo. But modern conservatives spend more money, and increase the size and scope of government to a degree and speed that “liberals” must surely envy.
JFK gave the rich their biggest tax cut ever. In 1932, FDR called Hoover a socialist and campaigned for fiscal restraint. The anti-communist Nixon was more socialist than Bill Clinton. Republican Teddy Roosevelt was a tree hugger. And Democratic Senator Byrd of West Virginia is called “Sheets.” …You know why.
Every label, every stereotype, every concept of party we apply to American politics has flip-flopped in the most egregious manner.
So with all the talk about “Democracy” in Iraq, I’d like us to pause, take a cleansing breath, and think before we leap into yet another brave new meaning.
Alexander Hamilton wrote of the early USA, “We are now forming a republican form of government. Real liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy.”
Benjamin Franklin was more to the point, “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”
I hope you know that we don’t live in a democracy. Democratic elections are merely the method by which we select our proxies in a Republic. And as any minority should know; real democracy, or majority rule, can mean slavery, Jim Crow, and that the angry mob gets its way.
After the democratic rise of Hitler, Mussolini, and a gaggle of tin-pot dictators around the globe, we really should ask ourselves which we’d rather have; democracy or liberty, because you can’t have both. We should ask if it’ll be democracy, or rule of law, because you can’t have both.
And as we speak the word “democracy” in reverential tones, let’s remember that less than half of our eligible citizens vote. So we may claim great wonders from our democratic process, but it’s only in ignorance of the real blessings of citizen freedom and might, and of all the wealth and opportunity made possible by a “liberal” form of government kept on a constitutional leash.
We need to restore the proper meaning of “liberty,” because even to the imperfect degree that we’d ever achieved it, liberty is what made the USA strong, prosperous, and egregious, in the best sense of that word.

Economics is to Politics, as Gasoline is to a Match

Politicians don’t make the discoveries and breakthroughs that make our lives safer, longer, and more comfortable.  Free-market, free-thinking tinkerers, inventors, scientists and entrepreneurs do that.

We know that government doesn’t build cars, nice houses and stylish shoes.  It doesn’t make espresso, or bicycle helmets, or leather sofas, or medicines.  It doesn’t make jumbo jets, computers or portable DVD players.

Private businesses are launching spacecraft and building global communications systems.  Doctors can, without political intervention, open up a failing human body, replace the heart, and allow a life to go on.

And yet, we’ve somehow convinced ourselves that without government, there’d be no roads.  Some of us apparently think that without government subsidies, there’d be no football, no art, no charity, no business, no schools.

While we don’t utter the word anymore, there is a name for this thinking.  We used to call it socialism, and Americans used to fight it body and spirit.  Now we whimper and beg for it.  So we’re getting it good and hard. 

Can we re-think this? 

It wasn’t so long ago that Democrats wanted European-like prices for gasoline.  They reasoned that if gasoline were more expensive, then more people would ride bicycles, walk, demand and use public transportation, and in general, conserve this energy resource as if it were finite.  Expensive gas would promote the development of alternative fuels and energy sources, and probably fuel a new wave of technological breakthroughs.  While we may not like the idea of expensive gas, the long-term economic reasoning is actually sound.

Curiously, Democratic politicians abandoned this reasoning when they started crying about “global warming.”  They then lifted gasoline taxes before an election (the late Governor O’Bannon in 2000), suggested that we tap into our Strategic Oil Reserves (several Democrats on state and federal levels), or (as Rep. Julia Carson had done in 2003) call for an investigation of the oil industry at the first hint of rising gasoline prices.

Of course Republicans got in on this, too.  Republicans do what Democrats only talk about.

OK, so there hasn’t been a new oil refinery built in the USA since 1976.  Americans have no objection to foreign oil drilling, but will not tolerate it at home.  So instead of doing the math of supply and demand with our own resources, we turned to global markets that have their own agenda in global politics.

This has been disastrous on several fronts.  First, we’ve become dependent upon militarism as an energy policy.  Second, our lack of energy policy foresight has raised the possibility that third-world nations may soon pass us in terms of energy efficiency and robust delivery/point of use generation …and this could mean even further erosion of USA industry and technological prowess.

Third, we’ve built our cities for cars and cheap gas; so we have seas of parking lots and miles and miles of ugly boxes we call buildings.  Such unsightly, inefficient building lowers our quality of life, steals our leisure time, and makes us a nation of red-faced road-ragers.  Oh, and of course, like most federal policies of the last forty years, this lack of clear-sighted policy has cost us tens of thousands of jobs.

What is the best policy? 

Get politicians out of our marketplaces, and let businessmen, scientists, engineers and of course, entrepreneurs, do what they do best…fill needs to our mutual satisfaction.

That is, after all, what the free market is: voluntary transactions that serve everybody’s needs and even wants.  And let’s not forget the opposite of that: power-mad poohbahs with guns who think they know best. 

We have a word for the narcissistic napoleons who destroy nations and lives; it’s “politicians.”