Liberty Inherited by John Hancock

The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions

2013-12-02T15:35:00.000-08:00

In previous articles, “Historical Arguments for Capitalism”, I offered the proposition that Socialism and the welfare state it produces eventually destroys the wealth of the society. The reason for this is that the Marxism it is based on creates a situation where citizens become dependent on the government. With each generation, that dependency grows and ever greater demands on placed on political leaders. The result is that even if the government can create the ideal mix of capitalism and Marxism the redistribution of the wealth will eventually overcome the production of that wealth. This can be clearly seen in the economic decline of Western Europe since the introduction of the welfare state 50 plus years ago, which has left most of those countries on the verge on economic collapse.

Unfortunately, we no longer need to look so far away to find further proof how even limited Marxism, in the form of the welfare state, grows uncontrollably until it threatens to destroy its host economy. In a highly informative article called “The Road to a Downgrade” (July 28,2011) the Wall Street Journal details how Marxist-inspired programs, once introduced into America’s predominantly capitalist economy, grow beyond all expectations and projections. Two examples are Medicare and Medicaid.

· When Medicare was established in 1965, it was projected that the program would cost $12 billion in 1990. The actual cost was $110 billion or almost 1000% more than projected.

· In 1966, the cost of the Medicaid program was $4 billion or just over one-half of 1% of GDP. By 1986, it had grown to $41 billion (just under 1% of GDP); last year it was $243 billion (1.67% of GDP).

As the article points out, it is more than rising medical costs that have increased the price tag of these programs. Just like in Europe, Marxism has resulted in an increasing number of Americans becoming more dependent on government. They demanded more benefits or entitlements and politicians, willing to trade taxpayer money for votes, were more than eager to oblige. Over the years, the programs were expanded way beyond their original intents. Even Social Security, initially designed to provide a safety net for those few seniors who were unable to provide for their own retirement, became a pension plan for all seniors. In 1960, the cost of the plan was approximately 2% of GDP; in 2008, it had doubled to just over 4%.

In 1965 total spending on entitlement programs made up about 35% of the federal budget. Forty years later they have grown to be about 60% of the budget. This clearly shows that if, by a miracle, politicians are able to create the perfect economy by introducing the ideal amount of Marxism into capitalism it does not stay that way for long. Marxism will grow and slowly deplete the wealth of the society. Now America, like its European counterparts, is facing an economic meltdown as Marxism takes its toll. The question is do we, as Americans, continue to go down the Marxist road to perdition or do we return to the economic system that, for 700 years, has created wealth for its societies?

A Historical Case for Capitalism Part 2

2013-11-14T15:30:00.000-08:00

In part 1, I covered the criticism that capitalism is a flawed system because it creates economic inequality within the society. But the analogy that the capitalist “tide does not raise all boats equally” actually has two parts; one expressed and the other implied. By not going beyond the initial critique of capitalism, the opponent of the system is silently implying that the alternative he is proposing will address this flaw. In this article, I will examine the past performance of the alternative systems to determine if they can produce the implied result of creating wealth for all.

To do this, we need to understand that all the alternative economic systems that are being pursued have their roots in Marxism. This in itself does not make it good or bad. It only means that we have about a 150 year track record to assess. To some it may seem unfair to make a determination on the effectiveness of these alternatives, much less compare them to a system that has had 700 years to develop, but in those 150 years, the Marxist-based philosophies of communism, fascism, Nazism, and socialism have left an indelible mark. Furthermore, that mark has been extraordinarily consistent in the results that are produced.

Last century marked the high point of the experiment with Marxism. By the early 1900s, progressives around the world were aggressively promoting their versions of the Marxist dream. Russia was their first success and after the Revolution of 1917 full-blown communism was established. This was followed by success in Italy, which established the fascist version in 1922. The depression of the 1930s offered the critics of capitalism a crisis to exploit and a chance to spread the Marxist philosophy to other countries. They successfully convinced the people of many countries that capitalism was flawed and that their system was better by being more scientific, more enlightened, more perfect. Although their greatest success was in Germany, with its own version called Nazism, many other countries of the world fell for the claims and embraced or adapted Marxist alternatives, including France which adopted the milder socialism.

These Marxist-based, big government systems initially had some extremely remarkable success. This was especially true of Nazism, which created what was hailed as the “German Miracle.” At the height of the depression, Germany had almost 11 million unemployed; by 1938, unemployment was almost nonexistent. Similar, though less dramatic, results were being achieved in Communist Russia (renamed the Soviet Union) and Fascist Italy. This brought worldwide acclaim, especially from celebrities, academics, and media elites. Many, jumping onto the Marxist bandwagon, flocked to view for themselves the new “workers’ paradise and utopias.” They eagerly claimed that man had created the ideal economic system and that the antiquated, flawed, and cold-hearted Capitalism was dead. The enthusiasm was so widespread that even the stalwarts of free-market economics, Britain and the Unites States, incorporated aspects of Marxism into their economies.

The fact is that the admirers of Mussolini, Stalin and Hitler had been thoroughly duped. These ruthless leaders understood that their admirers (or “useful idiots” as Lenin would call them) would see only what they wanted to see. This voluntary blindness meant that those praising these dictators refused to recognize that the immense economic achievements of communism, fascism, and Nazism had more to do with the tyrannical practices of the government than it did with their economic systems. In Germany, for example, women and Jews were excluded from employment and were replaced by male, non-Jewish workers. Furthermore, since they were prevented from working, women and Jews were excluded from the unemployment count. Soviet Russia’s success relied heavily on the slave labor of its Gulag system, and Stalin’s collectivization and industrialization programs resulted in the death of tens of millions of people. Although it did result in a better standard of living for those who survived the “Great Terror,” that prosperity was paid for with the blood of its victims.

Winston Churchill was one of the few who were not blinded by the charade. From the very beginning, he wailed against and warned of the dangers these systems posed to the world. He recognized what insiders, such as the architect of the Nazi economic plan, Dr. Hjalmer Schacht, knew; that the Marxist economies could not be sustained since they could not generate the required wealth. Once all the current wealth had been redistributed the society would begin to descend economically. The only way to stave off such an outcome was to find new sources of wealth. This set these three countries, plus fascist Japan, upon a course of imperialism and exploitation that makes capitalist imperialism look benign. Within a decade, Marxist-based imperialism would kill, enslave, exploit, and pillage more people than the British Empire ever did in its almost 400 year history. By the end of fascist Italy in 1944, Nazi Germany and fascist Japan in 1945, and Soviet Russia in 1989 over 100 million individuals would lose their lives to the wars, starvation, deprivation, and genocide these economic-political philosophies caused.

With such a conclusion, one would think that Marxism would be discredited and discarded forever. But its supporters were quick to point out that the problem with communism, fascism, and Nazism is that they took Marxism too far to the extreme. What was needed was capitalism mixed with the perfect amount of Marxism. This hybrid system, called socialism, would use capitalism to create wealth and Marxism to distribute it. In other words, capitalism would create the “tide” and Marxism would ensure that the tide “raised all the boats equally.” It was perfect since it incorporated the best of both systems while eliminating their flaws.

After the deprivations of the Second World War, the democracies of Western Europe were eager to restart their war-torn economies and Socialism appeared to be the ideal system. By the 1950s, every country in non-communist Europe, from Spain to Sweden and Italy to Britain was socialist to one degree or another. Once again, the new system showed promise. In quick time, the war savaged economies rebounded and had growth rates on par with the United States. The prosperity of these countries was considered proof of what could be accomplished with Socialism.

Unfortunately, once again, the system demonstrated that it was not the panacea it promised to be. The main flaw was that if the perfect combination of capitalism and Marxism could be found it could not be maintained. One of the by-products of socialism is that the people became dependent on the government. As that dependency grows the people feel more and more entitled to government services. This sense of entitlement results in people placing more demands on the government. In turn, the government feels compelled to meet the demands of its citizens, and the perfect balance between capitalism and Marxism is lost. Additionally, the dependency on government means that once the balance is lost it is almost impossible regain. (This last point is painfully evidenced by the riots and civil disturbances that have recently rocked Britain, France, Spain, Italy, Portugal, and, of course, Greece.)

Over time, this results in the decline of prosperity and societal wealth. At a recent lecture Nobel Laureate and economist Robert Lucas points out that, for the first 70 years of the 20^th century, the economies of Western Europe grew at nearly the same rate as the United States. That changed in the 1970s when the negative effects of socialism started to be felt. During that time, Socialist Europe’s GDP per person dropped 30 percent, thus resulting in a 20 to 40 percent income gap between it and the United States. This coincides with what Daniel Hannan writes in his book, The New Road to Serfdom. In the book, he notes that Western (Socialist-based) Europe’s share of the World’s GDP shrunk from 36 percent in 1969 to 26 percent in 2009 and is projected to be only 15 percent in 2020. During the same period, the United States share had remained steady at around 26 percent. Additionally, in 1970 the unemployment rate of Western Europe was just above 2 percent while in the United States it was about 5 percent. By the end of the decade the rates flipped and, for the rest of the century, Europe’s unemployment rate ranged from 2 to 3 percent higher than that of the United States. Today, several of the socialist economies of Europe are on the verge of total economic collapse. Any attempt dial back the Marxist component of their economies is met with resistance by their government-dependent populations. This opposition is often expressed with violent protests, civil disturbances and rioting that threatens to undermine the society as a whole.

History shows us that the claims of the critics of capitalism are valid. That capitalism does not benefit all members of its society equally. But there is nothing in history that indicates that their Marxist alternatives offer anything better. The 20^th century experiment with Marxism ended as a complete and catastrophic failure. The death, destruction, and deprivation it created resulted in the century being the most bloody and brutal in the history of man. Even the socialist hybrid, by slow draining of wealth, has proved itself more of a bane than a boon for the societies that embrace it. So, while the “tide” from the sea of wealth that capitalism creates does not “raise all boats equally,” it does raise all boats. Whereas, the alternatives, rather than being oceans of wealth, create landlocked seas that, once drained, leave all boats stuck in the mire and muck.

A Historical Argument for Capitalism

2013-11-13T15:20:00.000-08:00

The current economic crisis has intensified the fifty year assault on capitalism (also called free-market economics) to the point that even the average American is questioning if there is a better system. He is beginning to wonder if the critics of capitalism are correct; that the free-market economy hurts the individual because it creates economic inequality by concentrating money in the hands of a few. The common analogy that “a rising tide does not raise all boats equally” does seem to make sense. After all, we are the wealthiest country in the world with people living in poverty. It just does not seem fair! Something must be wrong! Maybe it is time to look for an alternative. But where do we look? How do we know which alternative is the best? As Americans, we would want a system that has a solid record of creating prosperity. For that, we need to turn to history. For, although past performance does not guarantee future results, it is an exceptionally reliable indicator.

Free-market economics has a track record of nearly 700 years. During that span, it has proven itself to be the best economic system that humanity has ever conceived and a blessing for the average individual. Although it is true that there are economic differences between individual members of a free-market society, history has proven that wherever it is practiced it produces a society that is as a whole much wealthier than that of any alternative system. In his book, The Origins of English Individualism, anthropologist Alan Macfarlane details how by the mid-1300s England had developed a free-market economy. He further notes that, around the same time, there was remarkably little evidence of a peasantry within England. This does not mean that there was not a poor or servant class, which there was. But that class differed from the typical peasant model found in the rest of the world. Even in class conscientious England, there was a social and economic mobility that would not be seen on continental Europe for another 500 years. In fact, traditional peasant societies, which lacked social and economic mobility, were still firmly in place up until the 19^th century in Western Europe (including France) and as late as the 20^th century in Eastern Europe.

History shows that this socioeconomic mobility benefitted the population as a whole. Even the poorest individual in the society had the potential of changing his station in life or, at least, make preparations for his children to do so. This was incentive enough for most individuals to work towards creating a better life for themselves. Those who were ambitious found that with sacrifice and hard work they could move up from the son of a servant to being the master. While such drastic leaps were not common, records of the time demonstrate that the upward mobility of individuals was the norm rather than the exception. A family could move from the lower class through middle class and into upper-class within a couple of generations.

While it is true that capitalism does create economic disparity, the less able, the less willing, and the less ambitious are not excluded from its benefits. The system creates a societal wealth that allows even its poorest members to live reasonably well when compared to those in non-capitalistic societies. Between 1300 and 1600, the wealth of English society grew to the point that the lifestyle of the poorest Englander was vastly superior to that of his continental counterpart. He ate more meat, had better dwellings, and, more importantly, had the ability (freedom) to change his lot in life. Visiting foreigners would be amazed at how well the lower classes of England lived compared to that of their homeland. This is similar to what we experience in modern day America. Americans living in “poverty” have a standard of living that is the envy of many living in non-capitalistic countries. When referring to Britain Alexis De Tocqueville rhetorically asked, “Is there any single country in Europe, in which the national wealth is greater, private property is more extensive, more secure, more varied in character, society more settled and more wealthy?” This same question could be applied to 21^st century America.

Capitalism has proven track record that spans almost seven centuries. It has demonstrated over and over again to benefit any society that embraces it. The common free-market heritage of America, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada are evidence of this. Throughout the history of the countries, there was never a peasant class and, today, all of them are considered first-world nations whose citizens enjoy extremely high standards of living. This cannot be said for any of the former colonies of France and Spain, both of which were countries that were antagonistic towards capitalism. The Dutch had no such qualms and, in 16^th century, wisely adopted free-market economics. By the 17^th century, their wealth made them the “bankers of the world.” So, while the tide may not raise all the boats equally, it does raise all boats. How high each boat rises depends on the individual in charge of it.

But is there a better alternative to capitalism? In A Historical Argument in Favor of Capitalism Part 2 I will analyze the historical record of alternative economic systems to see if they live up to the promise of creating wealth for all.

Constutiton, What Constitution?

2013-11-07T13:30:00.000-08:00

Having a name like John Hancock, I have read the Declaration of Independence hundreds of times. Yet, until I wrote Liberty Inherited: The Untold Story of America’s Exceptionalism, I never gave much thought to the line:

“He [George III] has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution ….”

But after writing the book I started to ponder:

“What constitution is Mr. Jefferson referring to?”

The Constitution of the United States was still a decade away. So he could not have been referring to it.

Mr. Jefferson used the singular “Constitution” rather than the plural “Constitutions,” which implies that it covered all the colonies and bound George III. So he could not have been referring to any constitutions that the individual colonies had since any one would not have covered all thirteen and George III would not have been bound by them.

“Maybe he was referring to the Colonial Charters?” I thought, “George III would have been bound by them.”

While that is true, each charter applied to only a few colonies so, again, the singular “constitution” would not be applicable. Furthermore, Mr. Jefferson specifically uses the term “charters” when referring to those documents.

So what Constitution is Mr. Jefferson referring to?

By looking beyond 1776, beyond the Atlantic, I now understand that the constitution Mr. Jefferson was referring to was the English Constitution that ensured the rights that “all Englishmen are naturally entitled to.”

Most Americans do not realize that there was an English constitution. This is probably because it, unlike its American off-spring, was not a written formal document. It was more like English Common Law that evolved through precedence; a living constitution that was constantly being changed by new charters, parliamentary action, and royal prerogative.

Unfortunately, in modern Britain the constitution has evolved itself into extinction but in the mid-1700s is was still a very vital and revered element of English politics. It, more than anything else, defined what an Englishman was since it distinguished the free-born Englander from his servitude-born continental neighbor. As the lyrics in Rule Britannia goes:

When Britain first, at Heaven's command

Arose from out the azure main;

This was the charter of the land,

And guardian angels sang this strain:

"Rule, Britannia! rule the waves:

"Britons never will be slaves."

The nations, not so blest as thee,

Must, in their turns, to tyrants fall;

While thou shalt flourish great and free,

The dread and envy of them all.

"Rule, Britannia! rule the waves:

"Britons never will be slaves."

The charter the first verse refers to was the constitution that created the environment of liberty that would produce the Jeffersons, the Wahsingtons, the Adamses, and, yes, the Hancocks that made the founding of this nation possible. It was the rights it guaranteed that the Patriots were fighting for from the first battles of Lexington and Concord until July 4th, 1776. It also became the basis of the principle political philosophy this nation was established on.

I am sharing this because I know that many of you are exploring and studying the founding of this great nation. For some, it is a return to a familiar but neglected subject. For others, it is the first real attempt at understanding the founding of this nation. So, whether you are increasing your knowledge or just starting out, I urge you to look beyond 1776 and beyond the Atlantic. You may find an understanding that you never realized existed.

Rediscovering Who We Are: The Origins of the 2nd Amendment

2013-11-04T13:26:00.000-08:00

“Look beyond 1776! Look beyond America! Look to political traditions this nation inherited from England!” This is advice that I give to those who wish to educate themselves about the Constitutional principles this nation was founded. The debate surrounding the original intent of the 2^nd Amendment Right to Bear Arms is a prime example why I give this advice.

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” – 2^nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America."

There are currently two opposing opinions on the 2^nd amendment.

The anti-gun control argument is that the intent of the amendment was to place, directly into the hands of the people, one of the Constitution’s “Check & Balances.” The reasoning is that an armed populace is not only an obstacle to tyranny, but maybe the last defense of freedom. As Thomas Jefferson put it, “When the government fears the people, there is freedom. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”

On the other side, those favoring gun-control point to the “well regulated militia” clause at the beginning of the amendment. They argue that this clearly shows that the right to bear arms is limited to the state regulated militias and not the public at-large. Therefore, the government has the right to limit (or control) the arms that individuals can buy and possess.

Which one is correct? If we go by what is stated in the amendment both arguments have validity. But if we look beyond 1776 - beyond America- and back to our English political heritage we discover that only one interpretation of the 2^nd Amendment is historically valid. why the Founding Fathers thought it important to include the right to bear arms in the Bill of Rights.

First, we need to understand that the drafters of the Constitution were Englishmen and that, from the initial battles of Concord and Lexington to the Declaration of Independence, they were fighting for their rights as “freeborn Englishmen.”

Second, we need to understand that those rights came from the Declaration of Rights of 1689, which came nearly 100 years before the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In my new book,”Liberty Inherited: The Untold Story of America’s Exceptionalism” I detail the English struggle against tyranny.

The American Evolution, not Revolution!

2012-08-29T15:49:00.001-07:00

Since 1776, there have a many attempts by other countries to replicate what the Americans did that fateful year. The French were the first in 1789, followed by others, including the Mexicans (1810), the Russians (1917), the Chinese (1949), and the Cubans (1959). Unfortunately, rather than providing those nations with leaders such as Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and Madison, these revolutions ended with tyrants such as Napoleon, Santa Anna, Stalin, Mao, and Castro. In more recent times, as the former authoritarian regimes are replaced with totalitarian ones, the democratically inspired revolts in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, and Syria seem destined to share the same fate as the above mentioned revolutions.

This begs the question, “Why did the American Revolution succeed where so many have failed?”

As I illustrate in my book, Liberty Inherited, the American Revolution was not really a revolution. It was actually the next step in the development of a socio-political-economic system that evolved over the previous 1200 years in England. As George Washington would write in 1783, the British Empire “was not laid in the gloomy age of ignorance and suspicion but in an epoch when the rights of mankind were better understood and more clearly defined, than at any former period.”

And he was not alone. In 1763, John Adams wrote in Novanglus No. VII:

[T]he British constitution is much more like a republic than an empire. They define a republic to be a government of laws, and not of men. If this definition be just, the British constitution is nothing more nor less than a republic, in which the king is first magistrate. This office being hereditary, and being possessed of such ample and splendid prerogatives, is no objection to the government’s being a republic, as long as it is bound by fixed laws, which the people have a voice in making, and a right to defend. An empire is a despotism, and an emperor a despot, bound by no law or limitation but his own will; it is a stretch of tyranny beyond absolute monarchy.

And, as late as March 1775, Benjamin Franklin was hopeful that British America could remain part of the Empire, even to the point of offering his entire net worth to pay for the tea spilt in the Boston Tea Party if London would only address the colonists’ grievances.

It is clear from these few examples (and there are many more) that the Founding Fathers of this nation considered the British system of government—with its limited government and respect for the rights of the individual—the best in the world. They did not consider it tyrannical, despotic, or authoritarian. Even after the defeat of the Empire by the American colonists Washington still maintained a positive opinion of the system.

Furthermore, through the colonial assemblies and the hands-off approach of London, the colonists had over 150 years of semi self-rule. Each colony had an assembly based on the English Parliament (either unicameral or bicameral) with the now familiar executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. The most common shape of a colonial government had the executive in the form of the colony’s governor appointed by London, a legislature in the form of an assembly elected by the colonists, and a judicial with locally elected judges and the Governor’s Counsel acting as a supreme court. The colonies, with few exceptions, were free to create their own laws as long as the laws did not violate English Common Law. These 150 years of experience created political traditions, customs, and culture that the colonies of the other colonial powers (mainly Spain and France) lacked.

While it is true that the Founding Fathers established a congress rather than a parliament, an elected president rather than a hereditary monarch, and a federal republic rather than a constitutional monarchy, the American Revolution is less of a revolution than it initially appears to be. The truth is that when the time came for British America to become America and establish its own government the Founding Fathers took the system they knew, respected, and envied and made it their own. They used the Glorious Revolution of 1688 to justify their own actions; kept English Common Law as the basis of their legal system; and used the Declaration of Rights of 1689 (which guaranteed in writing the ‘rights of all Englishmen’) as the model and basis for the founding documents (the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights). So, while the mechanics of government were changed, the basic political principles and values of the English system—mainly limited government, individual rights, private property, and free market economics—remained at the heart of the system. The ‘rights of freeborn Englishmen’ became the ‘rights and liberties of Americans.’

This is why the American Revolution was really more of an evolution than a revolution. It is also why the Americans were able to succeed where so many others have tragically failed, often with great bloodshed and loss of life. Real revolutions attempt to fundamentally change a society by imposing an unfamiliar political system (including values and principles) on the people. This is traumatic for the society and results in the blood-thirsty tyrannies that often come out of the chaos they create. The Founding Fathers did not try to impose a system of government that was alien or offensive to the majority of the people. In fact, the principles on which the new government was based on were quite familiar to most of the colonists because it was, in reality, an Americanized version of the British system.

This does not take away from the fact that the American form of government was not a leap forward in the idea that the common man is capable of ruling himself. But this idea did not develop out of thin air. It developed out of the British system, which—just as the American system was leap forward from the British system—was a leap forward from the absolutism that condemned the common man to a life of poverty and servitude.

This is what made it evolutionary, not revolutionary, and why the Americans succeeded where so many have failed.

No 1776 without 1688

The Greatest Myth of the American Revolution

7 reasons why Rio 2016 may suffer the same fate as Tokyo 1940

2012-08-15T18:54:00.000-07:00

The Closing Ceremonies of the Olympic Games are similar to presidential elections in that they both provide moments when one stops and considers whether things had gotten better or worse over the last four years. Likewise, they force us to examine the next four years and to determine if they will be years that promise hope or trepidation. I can say that when I watched the Closing Ceremony of the Olympic Games in Beijing I felt hope. But this year, as I watched the Olympic flag pass from London to Rio de Janeiro, I did so with trepidation. I wondered if Rio 2016 will realize its dream of being the first South American city to host the games or will it share the same fate as Tokyo did in 1940.

The following is a list of seven very possible events or phenomenon that may turn Rio’s Olympic dream into nothing more than a wishful fantasy.

1) Collapse of the Euro

Over the last few years the governments and central banks of Europe have attempted to prevent the collapse of the Euro. With Greece no better off than before the bail out and the crisis spreading to Italy, Spain, and Portugal it appears that these attempts have done nothing but postpone the inevitable. If a collapse should occur, its effects would be felt throughout the global economy, thus destabilizing an already unstable world.

2) Disintegration of the European Union and the rise of non-liberal forces

Either triggered by a collapse of the Euro or member nations just deciding that the union no longer serves their best interests, the disintegration of the European Union is appearing more likely every day. Throughout the member nations anti-EU (and anti-German) sentiment is growing.


Greece's Far-right 'Golden Dawn' Party

While the end of the E.U. is not in itself a threat to global stability, the form that it takes can be. If history is any indicator, we can expect to see an increase in the popularity of anti-democratic/anti-liberal political parties as the economic conditions worsen. This is what happened in the Great Depression of the 1930s, when totalitarianism replaced democracy as the most common form of government in Europe. And we all know what that led to.

3) Muslim Extremism

Terrorism is no longer the only threat that Muslim extremism poses to the world. As the Liberal Arab Spring turns into the Muslim Extremists Winter we can expect to see not only a less stable Middle East, but a less stable world. Oil and Israel are the obvious two threats but we cannot discount the danger to Europe. With points 1 and 2 being real possibilities, there is a good chance that Europe may find itself politically fractured and economically weak. Although it is politically correct to highlight Christian European aggression against the Muslims (i.e. the Crusades) it needs to be remembered that Islam has attacked Christian Europe in just about every century and such an economically prostrate and politically disunited Europe would present a very tempting target. A perusal of the rhetoric of many of the Muslim extremist fractions now obtaining power in formerly moderate Arab states clearly shows that this dream is not dead.

4) Iran-Israeli War

With the rise of Muslim extremism comes a re-alignment of alliances in the Middle East. The once moderate Arab states, who were neutral on Israel, are now switching alliances. We are seeing an aggressive and anti-Israel Iran gaining greater influence over the whole Middle East. With an ever growing number of her neighbors becoming hostile Israel cannot stand-by and let Iran become a nuclear power. If the world is not willing to prevent this, then Israel will have to do it herself. With oil being the life blood of the industrial world the resulting disruption—and the disruption of oil will be a prime target—would put the already weak global economy over the edge. The instability this will cause cannot be understated.

5) Militarized China

China's New Aircraft Carrier

For over two decades China has had the largest military on earth. But, as a recent article in The Economist points out, that military is now becoming a very large modern one capable of threatening the military power of the United States, which has served as a restraint on China’s expansionist desires. As the power of this great nation grows will she feel emboldened enough to reclaim Taiwan or to return greater Asia to the hegemony of an Asian country?

6) Decline in Anglosphere Influence

Whether we like it or not, we live in a world created by and in the image of the Anglosphere. During its 400 years of dominance the Anglosphere has spread the ideals and principles of the enlightenment, ushered in the industrial age, promoted free trade, opened the sea lanes for all, fought for democracy and championed human rights. It has defended the world against Napoleon’s tyrannical despotism, Hitler’s genocidal socialism, and Stalin's bloodthirsty communism. The unmatched power of the Anglosphere has been a stabilizing force in the world. Without the Anglosphere the world would have been a very dark and barbaric place. Now, many are saying that we are witnessing the end of Anglosphere dominance. If this is true, then we can definitely count on a very unstable world as the anti-liberal forces of authoritarian China and theocratic Islam make a bid to re-construct the world in their image.

7) Global Economic Collapse

Although any one or combination of the above can trigger a collapse of the global economy, they are not required. In fact, there may not be a need for a trigger at all. The global economy may collapse on its own as central banks and governments experiment with theoretical and untested economic policies, which, as we have seen in point 1, have not been very effective. Critics argue that these experimental policies have done nothing but postpone the inevitable and, by doing so, increased the impact of the collapse once it happens. If they are correct then the world is headed for very dark and difficult times.

I know that this is a very gloomy view of our near future but I also know that I am not alone in sensing the danger the next four years may bring. In a recent survey, 61% of Americans believe that there is a catastrophe of historical proportions lingering just beyond the horizon and I bet that a survey in other countries would produce similar results. If, what they sense, does come to pass than I am afraid that Rio 2016 may not happen or, if the games do take place, it will do so in a world a lot less democratic and a lot more violent.

Modern Liberalism: The great deception

2012-08-05T13:03:00.002-07:00

I remember that it was during the early part of the Clinton presidency when I first heard of ‘political correctness.’ Although I was still in my early twenties, I instantly recognized the term represented something to be despised for its wickedness. My first instinct—and fear—was that it originated from my side of the political spectrum as I could not imagine anyone who consciously considered themselves as being ‘liberal’ embracing it, much less developing this contemptible concept.

Yet, two decades later, the intolerant and illiberal ‘liberal’ reaction to a person expressing his personal opinion, as evidenced in the recent Dan Cathy/Chick-Fil-A uproar, did not surprise me at all.

The difference in my reaction to these two events is that I have come to realize that what is termed ‘modern liberalism’ is not liberal at all and is one of the greatest deceptions perpetuated on the American electorate.

Before I can explain what I mean by this, we need to examine what real liberalism is.

Real or true liberalism evolved out of the enlightenment period that swept Western Europe in the 16^th, 17^th, and 18^th centuries and is considered by many to be the zenith in the history of liberty and the governance of man. It is based on the belief that the average man could rule or govern himself without the oversight of some aristocratic lord directing his behavior. This belief found a welcome home among both the enlightened intellectuals and the common people of England. Over those three centuries, the English developed a political system based on this conviction. At the heart of this form of governance, which has been conveniently renamed ‘classical liberalism’ by leftist academics, are four basic principles.

Limited Government
Individual Rights
Private Property
Free Contract Economics

The first two preserved political freedom while the last two guarded economic freedom. [I should note here that Free Contract Economics refer to the freedom that individuals have to willfully engage with each other without approval of an aristocratic overseer. It is not a license to rob, cheat, swindle, defraud, or steal.]

It is this philosophy and these principles that are represented in the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution of the United States, and, especially, the Bill of Rights. Hence, it is also referred to as ‘Jeffersonian Liberalism.’ It is also the version of liberalism that I understood when I first reacted to hearing of the non-liberal concept of ‘political correctness.’

[If you doubt this understanding of liberalism, then please read the platform of the Liberal Party of Australia, which, to their credit, has remained faithful to the principles of true liberalism.]

The Deception Begins

As I noted above, in the early part of the 20^th century true liberalism was renamed classical ‘liberalism.’ This allowed Marxist-based Progressivism to usurp the name and the great accomplishments of true or authentic liberalism.

Unfortunately, modern liberalism has none of the trust in the average man that true liberalism does. In fact, at its core is the belief that the average man cannot be trusted to make the correct choices or decisions. Like the serf of the Middle Ages, the average person must be guided, controlled, and tempered by the ‘wisdom’ of the more educated, cultured and civil members of society. This is why Faux-Liberals (my term for illiberal modern liberals) can not only embrace but can also originate concepts that are, at their core, the anti-thesis to the principles of true liberalism.

I do not make this accusation based on their words since the manipulation of the language is the basis of deception, and, as the redefining of liberalism illustrates, Faux Liberals are very competent in language manipulation. It is their actions and the results of those actions that provide basis of my charge. All one needs to do is to compare some of the core objectives and policies of Faux-liberalism to see that it has very little in common with being liberal and is more akin to ideologies that have lead to tyranny and despotism:

From the support and acceptance of ‘political correctness’ to the practice of silencing opposing opinion we see the disdain Faux Liberals have for the rights of the individual, including the freedoms of thought and expression.
By using government as an instrument of change, often referred to as ‘social engineering,’ we see a complete disregard for the principle of limited government
Through the redistribution of wealth schemes we witness complete contempt for private property.
The attempt to regulate all business and control economic activity violates the principle of Free Contract Economics

Now, I do not have a problem with people supporting or being in favor of these policies—after all, disagreement is the product of a free society—but I do take exception with people who are deceptive about their beliefs and ideology. This is exactly what Faux-liberalism does. It is an ideology claiming to be liberal when its actions are the complete opposite. Additionally, its adherents continue the deception by chastising others for lacking tolerance, understanding, and compassion when they continually fail demonstrate those values themselves. This leads to some very interesting questions:

Why must a political ideology or movement use deception in order to gain support for its objectives?

Why must it feel compelled to usurp the title of a political philosophy that is the anti-thesis of everything it stands for?

Why did its adherents not choose a label that properly reflected the ideology’s true values and principles?

Why must it resort to language manipulation to get people to support its causes?

And, more importantly,

Why the deception?

What is it hiding?

I know at this point you may be thinking, “Well, conservatives are no better” and to a degree you are right since both sides have done an exceptional job of eliminating true liberalism from America’s political landscape. The difference is that conservatives did not take the term and redefine it to suit their needs or to mislead people. On the contrary, conservatives tend to use phrases, such as traditional values, American values, free market economics, etc to accurately reflect their ideology and beliefs. This is what makes modern or faux-liberalism the greater of the two evils. Its use of language manipulation, which is designed to deceive a well-intentioned, although not well-informed, electorate, is by any measure loathsome and should generate the feeling of revulsion in anybody who truly values freedom, liberty, and individual rights.

References:
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/what-is-classical-liberalism
http://www.whatisliberalism.com/
http://www.liberal.org.au/The-Party/Our-Beliefs.aspx#FederalDirector

Romney, the Anglo-Saxons, and the Misinformed

2012-07-25T20:50:00.003-07:00

The recent hullabaloo over a Romney adviser stating that Romney understands better than President Obama the special relationship between Britain and the United States demonstrates a total lack of historical understanding of what the term ‘Anglo-Saxon’ means.

What uninformed people do not realize is that long before the term was usurped by ignorant racists such as the KKK, it was used to describe a political system that is the basis of the English-speaking world.

As I explain in my book, Liberty Inherited, Britain, and specifically England as an island nation, developed much differently than mainland Europe. As early as 500 A.D., with the Anglo-Saxon invasion led by the Germanic brothers Hengist and Horsa, we can identify the beginning of a cultural--not racial--character that continues to this day. As Churchill explains in the History of the English-Speaking Peoples, the Saxons created a “strong strain of individualism based upon land-ownership [private property]” that was to “play a persistent part in the politics of England.” In The English Constitution and Legal History Colin Rhys-Lovell explains that as early as 800AD the Anglo-Saxons considered themselves a commonwealth of freemen. This was reflected in their laws and government, which established that

All decisions in the selection of leaders had to be with the consent of the people, preferably by full consensus, not just the majority.
The laws by which they were governed were considered natural laws given by divine dispensation.
Power was disbursed among the people and never allowed to concentrate in any one person or group.
Primary responsibility for resolving problems rested first of all with the individual, then the family, then the tribe or community, then the region, and finally, the nation.
They were organized into small, manageable groups where every adult had a voice and a vote.
They believed the rights of the individual were considered unalienable and could not be violated without risking the wrath of divine justice as well as civil retribution by the people’s judges. (Incredibly, as early as 800AD the Anglo-Saxons had the legal practice of trial by jury)

This highlights what Walter Russell Mead writes in God and Gold: Britain, America and the Making of the Modern World, “The Anglo-Saxons in the seventh and eighth centuries were free people, and that England owed its liberty and its most important institutions to these ancient traditions.”

Thus, based on its Anglo-Saxon heritage, England became the birthplace of the principles that are (or were) the foundation of liberty—liberty the English-speaking world now takes for granted. Additionally, it is the foundation of what was to become known as ‘Liberal Democracy.’

In fact, I argue that there would be no such thing as human rights if not for the Anglo-Saxons since their principles of individual rights, rule of law, and the limited power of government were alien to the system of government that developed on the continent or anywhere else in the world. It must be noted that at the time the system of government that was established on continental Europe evolved from the absolute rule that the Roman Emperors enjoyed. Under that system an all-powerful prince owned everything including all the land and the people within his realm. (Note: this is why England (Britain after the unification of 1707) never has had a Napoleon, a Hitler, a Mussolini, a Franco or a Stalin. It is contrary to their culture.)

Additionally, which may surprise many of us in the English-speaking world, much of the non-English speaking world sees the glaring similarities rather than subtle differences between our countries. In the 19^th and 20^th centuries, the United States and the British Empire were often jointly referred to as the “Liberal Democracies” or the “Anglo-Saxon powers.” (Note: Liberal in this case refers to the authentic Classical Liberalism, not the faux-modern liberalism of today) Even as late the 1960s, French President and World War II hero Charles de Gaulle always referred to the United States and Britain jointly as “les pays Anglo-Saxonnes” (the Anglo-Saxon countries) and the term is still used by such enemies of liberty as Iran’s Ahmadinejad.

So, in it original form, “Anglo-Saxon” is a political—and not racial—term that describes nations that are based on the Anglo-Saxon principles of limited government, individual rights, private property, and free-market economics. With President Obama’s contempt for most, if not all, of these principles and his scorn for the anything remotely English it is hard to believe that he would have a deep understanding of the special relationship that exist not only between the U.S. and the U.K., but also between all the English-speaking nations that comprise the Anglosphere.

It is regrettable that the Romney adviser stated that Romney’s understanding of the ‘special relationship’ was due to his “Anglo-Saxon heritage” (as opposed to his worldview) since it denotes the commonly, yet ill-informed, understanding of the term as being racial. Otherwise, what he said was 100% on target!

Book Review: Attack State Red by Col. Richard Kemp

2012-07-21T13:34:00.001-07:00

I usually do not do book reviews—actually this is the first one—but I have recently read a book that I believe needs to be recognized. It is titled Attack State Red and, although it has been out since 2010, most people outside of the UK are probably unaware of this exceptional piece of military literature.

Written by British Army Col. Richard Kemp and journalist Chris Hughes, the book details the Royal Anglian Regiment’s six month deployment to Afghanistan and is a reminder there are more than American servicemen fighting and dying in that worn-torn country. From page one, the book grabs your attention and never lets go. The first chapter starts the book off with a page turning firefight that is reminiscent of We Were Soldiers (another compelling book written by Colonel Hal Moore and journalist Joseph Galloway about the Vietnam War).

Overall, the book is an excellent read for anyone interested in gaining an accurate understanding of what our servicemen go through while in Afghanistan. It takes the reader through the tactics and down to the level of the individual soldier. It shows men in combat as they really are. It does not attempt to be politically correct by glossing over the joking and kidding, at times morbid, that is the norm of all fighting men or the pride a soldier feels after successfully terminating a bad guy with a well placed shot. Nor does it overplay the sadness over the loss of one of their own. What it does do in exemplary style is to give credit to the professionalism of the young soldiers who, while suffering the death of one of their brothers-in-arms, still manage to “crack on” and get the mission done.

This is what makes it a compelling and touching story that leads the reader through the full spectrum of emotions. You will not be able to stop smiling as you read about the young soldiers playing with plastic army men while in the middle of a battle zone or with their play stations while back at their bases. In the end, it is these human touches that takes you beyond the dry tactics and makes you feel part of the story…a member of the team. As a result, you will not be able to resist shedding a tear when you read of one of these brave soldiers losing his life to a mine, sniper, or even friendly fire.

In this regard it reminds me of Cornelius Ryan’s work (The Longest Day and A Bridge Too Far) in that it highlights that life goes on even in a warzone. That, as human beings, we have an immense capacity not only to endure, but to make the best of a bad situation, to laugh in the face of adversity and even death.

Additionally, it takes you beyond the headlines and into what is really going on in Afghanistan. Its firsthand account will surprise even those who think they know what is ‘really’ going on in that conflict riddled country. It also details the realities of modern day warfare. It is not clean, perfect, nor precise and, no matter how much we try, innocents will die and soldiers will get hit with friendly fire.

Lastly, as an American, I recognize that we shamefully hear too little of what our allies in Afghanistan are doing. We hear too little of the losses they suffer while fighting alongside our own servicemen. In fact, the book details cooperation between the American and British military, which is quite impressive. For example, the respect that the British ‘Tommies’ have for the ‘Yank’ Apache pilots will make any American proud of the men and women of our armed forces.

Final verdict: I recommend Attack State Red to anyone who is interested in military history, tactics (especially small unit), men in combat, and what the everyday life of our soldiers in Afghanistan is like.

The book is available worldwide from Amazon. Click on the book's image above to view its Amazon page.

Still an Amazon Bestseller

2012-07-20T11:18:00.000-07:00

12 weeks after its debut in the Kindle format, Liberty Inherited still tops Amazon bestseller lists!

When education becomes indoctrination

2012-07-19T11:36:00.001-07:00

Once upon a time the prime objective of education was to teach individuals to be self-thinking adults. This was achieved by focusing on what were commonly referred to as the 3 Rs; reading, writing, and arithmetic. These three subjects were regarded as crucial to one’s development since the goal of educators of the time was much nobler then preparing the student for a job. They recognized that democracy could not exist without a solid citizenry made up of independent thinking individuals. It was their goal to create such a citizenry by teaching:

Reading: If a person can read he can independently learn without being told what to learn. He can develop his own way of thinking without being told what to think. In other words, it leads to education while avoiding indoctrination.
Writing: By developing the ability to communicate in verbal and written language the individual can effectively communicate his ideas, thoughts, and opinions with others.
Arithmetic: It has long been accepted that math develops analytical skills. Increasing math ability also increases a person’s ability to think analytically.

Once mastered and applied, these three skills gave the individual the foundation to learn any subject he wanted, communicate what he has learned, and, most importantly, to think critically for himself. This resulted in unleashing the creativity, originality, vision, and ingenuity of the individual person, which benefited not only the individual but also the society as a whole.

Unfortunately, over the last several decades the 3 Rs have lost favor with the elites that direct what our schools are teaching our children.

In his book the Lonely Crowd, David Riesman (considered the father of American sociology) points out that the education system has consistently moved away from developing educated self-thinking individuals to creating citizens who can relate to others. As a result the 3 Rs have been replaced by

Conformity
Sensitivity
Thinking “correctly”

Although his book was written in the 1950s, the process of getting students to think “correctly” started nearly a half a century before. As the Commissioner of Education under President Taft, William Harris, wrote:

Ninety-nine [students] out of a hundred are automata, careful to walk in prescribed paths, careful to follow the prescribed custom. This is not an accident, but the result of substantial education, which, scientifically defined, is the subsumption of the individual. - The Philosophy of Education (1906)

Four generations later, John Gatto, the recipient of New York City’s 1990 Teacher of the Year award, would remark on how thorough the collectivist transformation of the education system has been. In a speech, he observed that “schools are intended to produce through the application of formulae, formulaic human beings whose behavior can be predicted and controlled.”

As recently as 2008, a California appellate court re-affirmed this collectivist approach to education when it ruled that the “primary purpose of the educational system is to train schoolchildren in good citizenship, patriotism, and loyalty to the state and nation as a means of protecting the public welfare.” [If this does not scare you, nothing will!]

Note that in each of these examples, there is no mention of creating self-thinking individuals. In fact, the quotes seem to imply that the modern method of education sees individualism as something that needs to be discouraged or even eliminated. Neither is the revered Gifted (or Gate) program a safe haven for the individualistic and self-thinking youngster. In his biography of Winston Churchill, renowned historian William Manchester notes that the standards teachers use to select bright students “would have excluded Churchill, Edison, Picasso, and Mark Twain.”

When does education become indoctrination?

I believe that the line between the two is crossed when we start teaching what to think instead of how to think. The sad truth is that we are no longer teaching our children how to think. Instead, we are telling them what to think. Our schools have passed through education and onto indoctrination. Until that is changed, our education system can never be fixed; regardless of how much money we throw at it.

10 Steps to Preserving American Liberty

2012-07-06T10:46:00.001-07:00

In the ten days leading up to Independence Day I wrote a series of posts that listed 10 steps that are needed in order to preserve our liberty. These 10 steps were taken from my book, Liberty Inherited, and are followed by some additional comments. Since each post was an individual post the reader had to search each one out. It was suggested that I create a post linking the series together. So, by demand, here is the list of the blog posts that made up the series.

Click on the title to read the entire post.

1. Do not take the way things are for granted

When we consider that men have been forming civilizations as long ago as 4500 BC it becomes clear that 60 years of liberty and freedom does not guarantee the world will continue to embrace those principles.

2. Always remember that America is based on an idea

To do otherwise would be to just hasten the destruction of the principles that have made America exceptional.

3. English must be the language of the United States

By not learning English individuals are limiting their ability to become Americans in their hearts and minds.

4. Understand what America means to people around the world

There is no other country that can match the United States’ history of liberating oppressed people all over the world.

5. Be proud of being an American

I urge each of you to hold your head up and proudly proclaim that you are an American.

6. Respect individual sovereignty

The first is that an individual receives those rights and the second is that other individuals are obligated not to trample on the rights of others.

7. Continue to educate yourself

It is not enough to rely on the history you were taught in school, even if you were one of the few who paid attention.

8. Understand America’s classical liberal philosophy

Classical liberalism was the basic philosophy of this country until the turn of the 20th century.

9. Return America’s exceptionalism to the schools

Instead of educating our students on European political philosophies we need to be teaching first and foremost the philosophy that was at the heart of this country’s foundation.

10. Vote responsibly

As individuals in a representative democracy the biggest weapon we have is our right to vote.

Countdown to Independence Day: #10 Vote Responsibly

2012-07-04T12:41:00.000-07:00

Over the next several days leading up to Independence Day I will be posting the 10 steps that must be taken to preserve our great nation and the principles it was established on. Each day will cover one of the steps as they appear in my book Liberty Inherited. It is my hope that, in some small way, I can get Americans to start thinking of what they are on the verge of throwing away. Today's posting covers the 10th and final step. I recommend reading the previous posts for step #1 through 9. Please note that any additional comments that I add to the original text will be in italics.

10. Vote responsibly

As individuals in a representative democracy the biggest weapon we have is our right to vote. But this right does not guarantee preservation of our freedoms unless it is exercised wisely. Too often it is tempting to take the easy way and allow political parties or special interest groups to decide who we are going to vote for. At this point in time in our country's history we cannot afford to take the lazy approach to voting. It is also not enough to make sure you are voting for the correct political candidate. Nowadays with judges having so much power and ability to shape our country it is essential to understand who is asking for you to confirm or reconfirm him as a judge.

Unfortunately, most of these people do not even have enough respect for the voter to supply a brief statement of why you should vote for them. Therefore, it has been nearly impossible to determine whether they deserve your vote or not. Now with the Internet this is no longer the case and in most states you can at least get a bio of the person. This bio will often provide you information about a person’s experience on the bench, his career path to become a judge, and if he was appointed, by whom. You will be amazed how easy it is to discern a person’s political views from this information.

Since 2008 it has become painfully clear that relying on political parties has done nothing but jeopardized our liberties and freedoms. It is no longer sufficient to vote for the candidate with the right initial (D or R as the case maybe). It is also no longer sufficient to vote for who is going to be in the White House. Now more than ever we must give equal consideration to all offices, including those at state and local levels. As the recent Supreme Court ruling on ObamaCare illustrates, judges need to be properly vetted. This should be the role of local news media but, like the national media, they are negligent of their responsibilities. So it falls on the individual voter to discern who deserves his vote.

The problem is, as I state in the book, many of those seeking judgeship and/or local office have so little respect for the voter that they do not even bother to provide any details for the voter guides. In my opinion, this contempt for the voter should automatically disqualify anyone asking for your vote. If, while trying to get your vote, he does not have enough respect for the voter to provide some basic information how much respect will he have once in office?

Unfortunately, voters cannot rely on the parties nor the media to assist us. Therefore, we must do the work ourselves. We can no longer put into office politicians whose idea of sacrifice is turning their backs on the people and undermining the nation while lining up funding and support for their next campaign. The nation deserve better and we the people deserve better. Voting is not only a right but also a weapon to be used by the people against an unresponsive government. If we want to preserve our liberty and America's exceptionalism, then being lazy and careless is not an option.

Countdown to Independence Day; #9 Return America’s exceptionalism to the schools

2012-07-03T22:17:00.001-07:00

Over the next several days leading up to Independence Day I will be posting the 10 steps that must be taken to preserve our great nation and the principles it was established on. Each day will cover one of the steps as they appear in my book Liberty Inherited. It is my hope that, in some small way, I can get Americans to start thinking of what they are on the verge of throwing away. Today's posting covers step number #9. I recommend reading the previous posts for step #1 through 8. Please note that any additional comments that I add to the original text will be in italics.

9. Return America’s exceptionalism to the schools

As exposed, America’s exceptionalism has been slowly removed from our schools. Although most Americans sense that there is something special about our country, very few know what makes it so. This is because they were never taught it. It is truly the history lesson that all Americans should have had but never received. Instead of educating our students on European political philosophies we need to be teaching first and foremost the philosophy that was at the heart of this country until the progressive movement began its campaign to erase it. Americans of all ages need to have well-founded pride in their country but instead our children are being educated to loathe it. By focusing on America’s imperfections, rather than comparing it to its contemporaries, American children are receiving a biased and unjustified view of the nation and its history. It is time that our children are given a more realistic and balanced view of America and her role in the world. This is not indoctrination for it is based on historical fact, which makes it education.

As I have always stated, I will put America (and for that matter the British Empire) up against any of its contemporaries. What I will not do is put it up against some ideal of perfection. Yet, by focusing on what America has done wrong, this is exactly what many schools across the country do. They focus on America's history of slavery or the oppression of the Native-Americans. It is true that both of these events (as well as others) are black spots on America's legacy. But it must be remembered that all societies are comprised of people...imperfect people. Therefore, any society that has any history at all will have black marks on its record. As I explained in my book, many bad and horrible actions were done by and in the name of the British Empire. By today's standards it was barbaric, racists, and oppressive. But compared to its contemporaries it was very enlightened and civilized. This is the same for the United States. While not perfect, it has been the best system man has ever devised. By removing the chains of bondage it has allowed man to use his creativity and intelligence to their full potential. And, overall, the world has benefited from its example.

What many fail to recognize is that before the United States there was no such thing as human rights. In fact, the Human Rights many take for granted originated with the rights of Englishmen that the original patriots fought for. This is the lesson schools need to be teaching. Not only is it accurate but it is also more realistic since it does not compare America to some impossible standard of perfection.

Countdown to Independence Day: #8 Understand America's Classical Liberal philosophy

2012-07-03T18:01:00.000-07:00

Over the next several days leading up to Independence Day I will be posting the 10 steps that must be taken to preserve our great nation and the principles it was established on. Each day will cover one of the steps as they appear in my book Liberty Inherited. It is my hope that, in some small way, I can get Americans to start thinking of what they are on the verge of throwing away. Today's posting covers step number #8. I recommend reading the previous posts for step #1 through 7. Please note that any additional comments that I add to the original text will be in italics.

8. Understand America’s classical liberal philosophy

As mentioned previously, classical liberalism was the basic philosophy of this country until the turn of the 20th century when progressivism started to pervert the term “liberal” for its own agenda. It is essential that every American understand what true classical liberalism is and why it was so important in the development of the United States of America. The truth is that classical liberalism has been completely removed from modern America’s political discourse. Most people have never heard of it and are unfamiliar with how it led to America’s exceptionalism. As a result of this ignorance and unfamiliarity, most Americans continue to allow themselves to have to choose between faux liberalism or conservatism, neither one of which truly fits the American character.

This is a topic that I discuss throughout Liberty Inherited and, as I explain in the introduction to these posts, the above is copied directly from the book. Thus, being taken out of context, I feel it helpful to explain its meaning.

It is clear from its founding documents that America is based on a philosophy and principles that evolved in England. That philosophy is called Classical Liberalism and I believe it to be the apex of the enlightenment that started with the Renaissance. Lacking an aristocracy, the United States was able to take this philosophy and its principles of limited government, individual rights, private property, and free-market economics to a level not possible in 18th century Britain.

It may come as a surprise to many Americans that Classical Liberalism not only guided the founding of this incredible nation, but was the the nation's basic political philosophy up to the late 1800s/early 1900s. Since then it has slowly been erased from America's political conscientiousness to the point that most Americans are completely ignorant of it and its significance for the country. But I believe that, at heart, the majority of Americans are still Classical Liberals. After all, it is in their political genes and remains part of America's psyche. This is why so many are not comfortable with what both political parties have been doing over the last 100 years.

This is what the Progressives understood when, after years of failed policies, the Progressive title became unpopular and they rebranded themselves as 'Liberals.' But, as I explain in the book, their policies had and still have nothing to do with the principles of Classical Liberalism. In fact, they envision the opposite. They are, in reality, wolves in sheep's clothing. That is why I call their version of Liberalism 'FAUX LIBERALISM.' It is nothing but a fraud....a very dangerous fraud.

Now, 236 years after the Declaration of Independence, America is on the verge of losing its political identity, its political soul. I strongly believe that only by reconnecting to our political roots can this country be saved and that is why I wrote "Liberty Inherited: The untold story of America's exceptionalism." It is my attempt to play my part in saving this great, and ,yes, exceptional country.

Countdown to Independence: #7 Continue to educate yourself

2012-07-02T17:47:00.000-07:00

Over the next several days leading up to Independence Day I will be posting the 10 steps that must be taken to preserve our great nation and the principles it was established on. Each day will cover one of the steps as they appear in my book Liberty Inherited. It is my hope that, in some small way, I can get Americans to start thinking of what they are on the verge of throwing away. Today's posting covers step number #7. I recommend reading the previous posts for step #1 through 6. Please note that any additional comments that I add to the original text will be in italics.

7. Continue to educate yourself

Remember that ignorance and neglect are one of the causes of the rotting that is afflicting the roots of the Liberty Tree. As James Madison wrote in a letter he penned in 1822, “What spectacle can be more edifying or more seasonable, than that of Liberty and Learning, each leaning on the other for their mutual & surest support?” This is what this book attempts to achieve. It was designed to be an introductory course to a part of history that many have been deprived of. Its purpose was to provide an informative and educational book that is easy to read. It is by no means an exhaustive piece of work. Therefore, I urge you not to take everything you read within these pages at face value. Instead I ask you to start your own journey of discovery. In doing so, I believe you will discover that the arguments I put forth within these pages are true and accurate.

With that said, the biggest fear people have with studying history is trusting the accuracy of the facts they are reviewing. To this I reply, “If you read one book on a topic you get one opinion, the author’s. But if you read four books on the same topic you get five opinions - those of the four authors and then your own. Once your opinion is established, you will be able to discern what rings true and what rings false.” This is the reason why it is not enough to rely on the history you were taught in school, even if you were one of the few who paid attention. In many cases it is nothing but the point of view of the teacher and, as Daniel Hannan told me, “When history is taught, it is taught badly.” So go out and educate yourself!

Countdown to Independence Day: #6 Respect individual sovereignty

2012-07-02T12:09:00.001-07:00

Over the next several days leading up to Independence Day I will be posting the 10 steps that must be taken to preserve our great nation and the principles it was established on. Each day will cover one of the steps as they appear in my book Liberty Inherited. It is my hope that, in some small way, I can get Americans to start thinking of what they are on the verge of throwing away. Today's posting covers step number #6. I recommend reading the previous posts for step #1 through 5. Please note that any additional comments that I add to the original text will be in italics.

6. Respect individual sovereignty

In his book The 5000 Year Leap Skousen explains that respect for individual rights has two parts. The first is that an individual receives those rights and the second is that other individuals are obligated not to trample on the rights of others. It is one thing to complain that the government is trampling on your individual rights and freedoms but we need to recognize that we as individuals can sometimes step on the rights of other individuals. Therefore, I recommend that you practice the philosophy of share but respect. In other words, feel free to share your opinions and your views with others but be respectful of their views and opinions. If we believe in the freedom of speech then we must allow those who have opposing opinions the same freedom. If we believe in freedom of religion then we must allow those who practice different religions the same freedom. If we believe in private property we must allow others to enjoy their private property. Whatever we demand for ourselves we must allow for others.

Unfortunately too many of us remember the first part but forget the second. Where I live I have seen Christian churches that demand the freedom of religion for themselves while simultaneously attempting to stop the establishment of a mosque in their area. Likewise, progressives who demand the freedom of speech and expression often fall short on tolerance when that same freedom of speech and expression is extended to views they disagree with. Individuals who claim to support private property are sometimes the first ones to tell someone else what to do with their property. In my opinion, the biggest threat to private property is not imminent domain but the self-appointed busybodies who go around telling other people what to do with their property. Yes, these actions may be done with good intentions but the more that we accept them the more we allow our freedoms to be eroded. As John Stuart Mills put it:

The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental or spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest.

So if we want our rights as individuals to be respected then we must also respect the rights of other individuals.

Since the writing of this part of the book several disturbing events has transpired. One of the most shocking was the recent assault on Christians by Muslims in Dearborn, Michigan. The fact that the police, whose first priority should be the preservation of one's rights, gave into the unprovoked aggression being committed by the Muslims makes the whole episode even more disturbing. At one point a young Iraqi man angrily preached about the freedom of religion while, ironically, supporting the suppression of a religion that he does not agree with. This is the prime reason I came up with point number six. If we only demand rights for ourselves while using government to suppress the rights of those we disagree with, then we are as guilty of tyranny as the police officials who, in Dearborn, turned a blind eye to the violation of a fundamental American right.

Although guilty of denying the Christians their freedom of speech I will give the Dearborn police the benefit of the doubt and accept that they erred on the side of safety, But I cannot emphasis strongly enough how essential the principle of respecting individual sovereignty is. It needs to be preserved at all cost and any attempt to suppress it should be met with the full force of the law.

Above I mention that I am in disagreement with the automatic anti-Muslim response some have to the establishing of a Mosque in their community. I also respect the right of the Arabs/Muslims to have a fair. But they must show the same tolerance to those they disagree with. To do otherwise crosses that line and any individual that does so needs to be prosecuted.

As I state in the Liberty Inherited (and restate in Step 2 of this series) it is not race, religion, or even country of origin that makes someone an American. It is the belief in certain core values and the value at the core of America's exceptionalism is respecting the rights of others.

Anyone doing otherwise, regardless of where they were born or what papers they have, is, in my estimation, being un-American.

Countdown to Independence Day: #5 Be proud of being American

2012-07-01T17:13:00.000-07:00

Over the next several days leading up to Independence Day I will be posting the 10 steps that must be taken to preserve our great nation and the principles it was established on. Each day will cover one of the steps as they appear in my book Liberty Inherited. It is my hope that, in some small way, I can get Americans to start thinking of what they are on the verge of throwing away. Today's posting covers step number #5. I recommend reading the previous posts for step #1 through 4. Please note that any additional comments that I add to the original text will be in italics.

5. Be proud of being an American

At times it may feel awkward to display how proud we are to be Americans. I believe this to be for two reasons. The first is that we are often kept ignorant of the greatness of our country and its people. More often than not we are taught to be ashamed of what America has done wrong rather than celebrate what it has done right. But we need to recognize that this version of our history is incomplete at best and fraudulent at worst. I believe this is done as a step to internationalism. Proponents of that philosophy know that they must destroy our sense of national pride before they can get us to give up our national identity. The second reason is that, for many Americans, pride is seen as a form of conceit. That would hold true for false pride but there is nothing wrong with being proud of your accomplishment or those of your country as long as that pride does not turn into arrogance. So I urge each of you to hold your head up and proudly proclaim that you are an American. America and the patriots who have sacrificed so much to make United States exceptional deserve no less.

In the book I warn against confusing arrogance with pride. So when I encourage Americans to be proud, I am not encouraging them to disparage others from being proud of their nation. It needs to be remembered that pride is not a competition. Every nation and culture has something to be proud of and I love experiencing the pride that others have in their own nation and the achievements of that nation. (For example, today is Canada Day and I am thrilled seeing our northern neighbors waving the Maple Leaf. The same goes for the Queen's Jubilee in the UK. It was very heart-warming watching Britons showing of the Union Jack) It is when we start trying to compete on whose pride is more justified that our pride turns to arrogance. (Real pride never need justification. It always speaks for itself). People rightly deserve to be proud of who they are and we as Americans need to accept that right for ourselves and respect it for others.

Countdown to Independence Day: #4 Understand what America means to people around the world

2012-06-29T21:36:00.000-07:00

Over the next several days leading up to Independence Day I will be posting the 10 steps that must be taken to preserve our great nation and the principles it was established on. Each day will cover one of the steps as they appear in my book Liberty Inherited. It is my hope that, in some small way, I can get Americans to start thinking of what they are on the verge of throwing away. Today's posting covers step number #4. I recommend reading the previous posts for step #1 through 3. Please note that any additional comments that I add to the original text will be in italics.

4. Understand what America means to people around the world

If you were to pay much attention to the mass media or believe the anti-American rhetoric of so-called experts you may think that America is no longer admired in the world. This may be true for the elites and those who follow them but for the majority of people – the silent majority – America is still a special place. Just the amount of people that want to come to this country is evidence of this being true. Of even greater significance is the popularity of American culture around the world. The anti-Americans complain about its influence on their culture but the reality is that American culture would not have the influence it has if it was not for the common people embracing it. And the reason they embrace it is because they are trying to capture a little bit of America’s exceptionalism for themselves.

More significantly we need to note how important America is for the oppressed people of the world. It is no coincidence that the first countries to support the United States in its war on Iraq were the Eastern European countries that were recently liberated from the oppressive rule of Soviet communism. This is because for oppressed people the United States has always inspired hope and faith. If anybody can rescue them from their desperate lives it will be the Americans. Who else is there? The Germans? The French? The Chinese? The fact is that there is no other country that can match the United States’ history of liberating oppressed people all over the world. It is these oppressed people who truly recognize that America is indeed exceptional and they know that if America were to stop being that “shining city on the hill” a dark and sinister shadow would cover the globe. But we must believe this ourselves for as Hannan points out, “as long as Americans believe in themselves, others will believe them, too.”

Ever since 1776, oppressed people have attempted to recreate the American Revolution for themselves. This was the case for the French in 1789, the Russians in 1917, and the Cubans in 1953. It is also the dream of many who are taking part in the revolutions that are currently spreading throughout the Middle East. While all those revolutions ended in tyranny (and the current Middle East revolutions appear to heading the same way) it is important to note that there were/are significant segments of those societies that believe in America and what it stands for. It is for these people that America must stay exceptional, must stay the 'shining light on the hill.' For without the USA and what it symbolizes any hope of freedom that these people have will be forever extinguished. It is these people, and not the American-haters, that we must keep in our hearts and our minds.

Countdown to Independence Day: #3 English must be the official language of the USA

2012-06-28T17:22:00.000-07:00

Over the next several days leading up to Independence Day I will be posting the 10 steps that must be taken to preserve our great nation and the principles it was established on. Each day will cover one of the steps as they appear in my book Liberty Inherited. It is my hope that, in some small way, I can get Americans to start thinking of what they are on the verge of throwing away. Today's posting covers step number #3. I recommend reading the previous posts for step #1 and 2. Please note that any additional comments that I add to the original text will be in italics.

3. English must be the language of the United States

I have always thought interesting that Winston Churchill would name one of his greatest works The History of the English-Speaking Peoples. The book could have easily been called "The History of the English Peoples" or even "The History the English Race," which would have been perfectly acceptable when it was written in the 1930s. But Churchill, who was a famed orator and had won a Nobel peace prize for literature, understood the power of words.

I believe that he chose the term “English-speaking peoples” because he understood that principles, values, and ideas must be communicated for them to have any significance. For Churchill the English language was the media by which English principles have been spread around the world. He understood that this goes beyond skin color and bloodline and directly into the hearts and minds of the recipients. Recent history proves him to be correct as countries such as India, Singapore, and Hong Kong, all of which have retained English as their language, have prospered even though the British no longer govern them.

This does not mean that speaking another language, especially of one’s heritage, should be discouraged. On the contrary it should be encouraged but not at the expense of learning to effectively communicate in the English language. This will not only be beneficial to America but also to the individual. In regards to the Turkish population in Germany Turkish President Abdullah Gul commented, “When one doesn’t speak the language of the country in which one lives it doesn’t serve anyone, neither the person concerned, the country, nor the society.”

This is especially true in for a country that is based on an idea. By not learning English individuals are limiting their ability to become Americans in their hearts and minds. This can lead to a crisis of identity in which the body is physically in one country while the heart and mind are in another. Interestingly, this identity crisis often afflicts the children of immigrants who have had difficulty adjusting to living in the new country. As a result as these children grow up they become susceptible to the philosophies of radicalism or extremism. Yes, it would be difficult for some of them and a few of them will never become competent in the language. But for those who do the reward of becoming an American in body and soul will be well worth the struggle.

Bomber Command and Moral Equivalency

2012-06-28T11:30:00.001-07:00

Today Queen Elizabeth II unveiled the World War II Bomber Command Memorial. This long overdo tribute takes me back to 2008 when my son and I visited London. One of the many museums we visited was the RAF Museum in Hendon (on the outskirts of London). While there we witnessed a television interview with Marshal of the Royal Air Force Sir Michael Beetham GCB CBE DFC AFC DL FRAeS. The purpose of the interview was to drum up support for the Bomber Command Memorial that the Queen unveiled today.

As I watched the interview I was shocked to learn that while all the other branches of the military, including Fighter Command, had memorials for their dead, Bomber Command did not.

Once the interview was over—and being the imprudent American—I walked up to the distinguished gentleman and started to engage him in conversation. By the reactions of everyone present, including the television crew, I immediately realized that I had committed some breach of propriety. This fact was driven home by the stunned look on the Marshal’s face but he quickly recovered and he turned out to be a very nice man. The burning question I had for him was why a memorial had not yet been dedicated to those in 55,000 who lost their lives serving in Bomber Command?

Marshal Beetham and I

He explained that the since the end of the war there had been a growing sentiment that the bombing of German cities were immoral. In more recent times it had even been referred to as a war crime on par with the crimes of the Nazis and no one had the will to support a memorial dedicated to war criminals. I finished our brief chat by thanking him for his time and his service. I also wished him the best in achieving his lifelong goal of establishing a memorial to the men who lost their lives taking the ‘battle to the Nazis.”

Today, I am very pleased to see that Marshal Beetham has indeed achieved his goal and I am delighted that the Queen herself is doing the dedication. But I am disturbed by the moral equivalency I am reading in some of the stories and in the comments to the stories. As one commenter wrote:

Unfortunately, force is also its own justification. Had the Nazis won the war, they would have, over the years, poured out reams upon reams of justifications for what they did. Anyone who questioned them would be sick and wrong and guilty of ignoring their obvious truth.

In other words, the Allies were morally no different than the Nazis. Like all proponents of moral equivalency this commenter only looks at the event while completely ignoring the motivation behind the action. Unlike the Nazis, who used force to subjugate “inferior peoples” the Allies, including Bombing Command, were using force in defense of liberty and freedom. In defense of liberal democracy and the rights of man. This creates a big distinction. It separates the use of force for self-defense from plain outright murder. Yet, moral equivalency sees them as being equal. The use of force is immoral regardless of the situation.

But there is a difference on the individual level and the national level. This is a distinction that Rudyard Kipling recognized when, as the 18^th century gave way to the 19^th, he gazed upon the hundreds of masts creating an artificial forest on the Thames River. These masts belonged to the frigates of the most powerful navy in the world, the Royal Navy. Recognizing the power they represented, Kipling would write:

Any other people or nation would have unleashed that terrible force long ago, for their own gain and glory, and brought a horrible Holocaust on humanity. But not England, not Great Britain.

Of course, Kipling came from a period when people’s moral compasses allowed them to distinguish right from wrong, good from evil. Unfortunately, today too many of us are lost in a type of moral Bermuda Triangle. Our moral compasses spinning and gyrating in all directions. As a result, we are so morally lost that we can no longer discern the hero from the villain, the liberator from the oppressor, the freedom fighter from the terrorist.

The Bomber Command Memorial is more than a symbol of those who lost their lives defending freedom. It is a symbol that maybe—just maybe—we are regaining our bearing and can once again accept the fact that not all societies are equal.

Well done, Marshal Beetham, well done! It was an honor and a privilege to have met you.

Countdown to Independence Day: #2 America is based on an idea

2012-06-27T12:08:00.001-07:00

Over the next several days leading up to Independence Day I will be posting the 10 steps that must be taken to preserve our great nation and the principles it was established on. Each day will cover one of the steps as they appear in my book Liberty Inherited. It is my hope that, in some small way, I can get Americans to start thinking of what they are on the verge of throwing away. Today's posting covers step number #2. I recommend reading the previous post for step #1. Please note that any additional comments that I add to the original text will be in italics.

2. Always remember that America is based on an idea

In 1701 Daniel Defoe, author of Robinson Crusoe, wrote a poem titled "True-born Englishman." In that poem Defoe uses satire to demonstrate that there is no such thing as a “true-born Englishmen” because at that time Englishmen were a mix of Anglo, Saxon, Roman, Norman, and Celtic blood. He finalized his poem putting forth the argument that being English has nothing to do with blood but everything to do with accepting a given set of principles and ideas.

This rings even more true for Americans. The previous chapter explains that being American is a choice. Choosing to accept American values is what makes you an American. This is regardless of skin color, religion, bloodline, or even where one was born. The biggest tragedy to befall the country that was established on the principle of all men being created equal is that we have allowed ourselves to be divided. It is true that this tragedy was started at the very founding of this nation but that does not mean that we have to continue to perpetuate it. There is no longer a place within the United States for racial bigotry.

We can no longer allow ourselves to be divided into subgroups and then pitted against each other.

We must as Americans stand-up to the hate-mongers and the practitioners of racial and gender politics, regardless of what side of the racial issue they may be on.

We need to reject and refuse to be seen as nothing more than Americans. It should be what is in a person’s heart and mind that counts and not the color of his skin or his bloodline.

This bodes the same for people who have immigrated from other countries or practice different religions. As long as they accept American values we should welcome them as Americans. To do otherwise would be to just hasten the destruction of the principles that have made America exceptional.

Sadly, this is the one step that many Americans, regardless of their politics, forget about. That is why I point out the hate-mongers and the practitioners of racial and gender politics. Individuals of both of these groups ignore the essential fact that America is an idea and not a paradise for WASPs (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants) nor a purgatory for non-WASPs. As I point out in the book, this idea was in its infancy at the time of the founding of this great nation and that infancy is reflected in the policies and attitudes of the time. Enlightened men were forced to compromise with the less wise and we ended up with policies such as the 3/5 compromise in the Constitution. Fortunately, the adherents of Classical Liberalism realized that it would take time for the idea to fully develop and over the last 200 plus years we, as a nation, have evolved closer to achieving what those men could only dream of. But that dream will never be truly realized as long as people, especially those in position of influence, continue to use race, gender, immigration, etc for personal and political gain. Until that vile practice stops, E pluribus unum will remain nothing more than an inspirational slogan.

Countdown to Independence Day: Saving our Liberty #1

2012-06-26T09:35:00.000-07:00

Over the next several days leading up to Independence Day I will be posting the 10 steps that must be taken to preserve our great nation and the principles it was established on. Each day will cover one of the steps as they appear in my book Liberty Inherited. It is my hope that, in some small way, I can get Americans to start thinking of what they are on the verge of throwing away. Please note that any additional comments that I add to the original text will be in italics.

1. Do not take the way things are for granted

“It is,” as Daniel Hannan says, “human nature to take for granted institutions that you have known throughout your life.” Growing up in a world where constitutional democracy is the norm it is incomprehensible to imagine mankind returning to a state of servitude. But it must be remembered that the classical liberal principles that the United States was built on and which has now spread around the world is not the norm. Until the end of World War II the world was dominated by tyrannical, autocratic, and absolutist rulers. The result of this was that the life of the average man was one of poverty, servitude, and desperation. When we consider that men have been forming civilizations as long ago as 4500 BC it becomes clear that 60 years of liberty and freedom does not guarantee the world will continue to embrace those principles.

In Europe there is already a move away from constitutional democracy. As explained in previous chapters liberal democracy is fairly new to the countries of Europe. As we can see from the chart, they have relatively little experience with it at all.

With the majority of them having less than 60 years of experience it is uncertain if their democratic institutions can resist a serious crises or challenge. History and current trends indicate that the answer is no. The first attempt with widespread democracy in Europe occurred after World War I. Except for Russia, which turned to communism, all of the large countries and many of the smaller ones attempted to establish a democratic form of government. These newly formed democracies were tested by the depression of the 1930s and most of them failed miserably. By the start of World War II, totalitarianism had replaced democracy in almost all of Europe. Even today, with the European Union, the IMF, the World Bank, and United Nations, we are seeing democratically established governments subordinating themselves to transnational and international organizations governed by bureaucratic elites. This does not bode well for a country founded and developed on classical liberal principles.

Since the publishing of Liberty Inherited, the Euro crisis has deepened and as a result, representative democracy has suffered. In both Greece and Italy popularly elected leaders have been replaced by those who will serve the best interest of the European Union even if it is at the expense of their nation and its citizens. As the crisis deepens, it will be interesting to watch how quickly continental Europe sacrifices democracy and liberty for order and security.

Interview with African-American Conservatives 19 June 2012

2012-06-23T09:54:00.001-07:00