The Steadfast Patriot

     A few weeks ago, when Steadfast Patriot Director Jay Young invited me to accompany him to join a rally at the Capitol, I was eager to take him up on his offer. I had already been to Washington, D.C. a dozen or so times to see the sights, everything from the National Zoo to the Library of Congress, but never before to a political protest. My first time, I would join others in protesting the continuation of the health care bill in Congress.

     Jay had helped spread the word about the rally to be held on Saturday, November 7, inviting people via the Internet and contacting representatives to speak to the crowd. Jay estimated that a thousand or so people would show up, significantly less than the approximately 30,000 that had congregated the previous Thursday. Taking into account his tendency to exaggerate, I wondered if Jay and I might be joining only a few dozen other people for the rally.

     When we arrived in D.C., we headed over to the offices of the members of the House of Representatives to get tickets to see the House in session later that day. As we walked down the halls, we passed by Joe Wilson’s office, and decided to go in. Joe’s fame had in all probability reached its height not long before when he shouted to President Obama “You lie!” during Obama’s speech to a Joint Session of Congress. Unlike the offices of other congressmen that I had seen, the walls of his were covered from the floor to the ceiling with pictures. In addition to the conventional papers, books (including Glenn Beck’s Arguing with Idiots and Mark Levin’s Liberty and Tyranny), etc., his desk also sported all sorts of trinkets, from miniature flags to a Michelin Man bobblehead. Joe, unfortunately, was not there when we came in. His secretary was very friendly and allowed us to look around; she even offered to take a picture of me and Jay standing behind his desk. We took her up on the offer.

     After that, we headed over to the appointed meeting place of the protestors. A podium had been set up, “patriotic” music was blaring over loudspeakers, and news agencies and reporters were busy setting up their cameras, but only fifty or so people were already there. That number steadily grew, however, as people kept trickling into the Capitol’s East Lawn. While we waited for things to develop, Jay and I met a couple of fellow protestors. As we talked, it was neat to realize that it just wasn’t my personal circle of friends that agreed with me on politics – here were complete strangers, who like me, were frustrated with an bloated, incompetent government, already interfering too much into the private affairs of the citizenry, and ready to further increase its power.

     Meanwhile, the crowd was steadily increasing. Soon, congressmen began to come down the steps of the Capitol to the podium to begin a series of pep talks to the crowd. The “Master of Ceremonies,” Iowa Rep. Steve King, introduced some of the rally’s organizers and fellow representatives. Among the most prominent of the latter were Michele Bachmann, an outspoken critic of the health care bill, and Joe Wilson himself. As the latter stepped up to the podium to speak, the crowd immediately erupted into cheers of “Thank you Joe!”

     The gathering was ebullient and very responsive to the speakers, bubbling over with enthusiasm. At intervals, they chanted “Kill the bill!” The speakers as well were very passionate in their speeches. One congressman, a former doctor, diagnosed the bill as “a dead, rotting, stinking fish that we will not eat!” Another hoisted a copy of the 2,000-page bill and with a great effort was able to heave it to the ground.

After the speeches ended, most of the speakers dispersed – except Michele Bachmann. She was all too willing to mix with the crowd, signing their autographs and taking pictures with them (including me and Jay). She told the crowd of a couple from Hawaii that had come all the way from their home to D.C. to join the protest Thursday. Michele wore the leis the couple had given her.

     The rally ended, Jay and I left to eat lunch; afterwards, we headed back to the Capitol to watch the House in session, debating the health care bill. After several long waits, we finally were inside, watching the debates. (Take it from someone who has seen it before; the House looks a lot bigger on TV during State of the Union Addresses than it does when you’re there in person.)

     After an hour or so, Jay and I would have liked to stay longer, but it was time to call it a day. As we walked down the hall outside to leave the Capitol, we passed by a man hurriedly leaving a meeting room with papers in hand. Jay stopped him to ask a question; having been supplied with an answer, we turned to leave. But then he stopped us, handing us his business card, and introducing himself as…Joe Wilson.

Joe, who by all appearances was a very nice man, talked with us for a couple of minutes, showing us pictures of his sons, deployed in Iraq, and giving us some of his papers, which argued that the health care bill would indeed cover illegal immigrants. (When he shouted “You lie!” to Obama, it was in response to Obama’s claim that the health care bill did not cover illegals.) He signed autographs, and then we departed.

     As we headed back to the car, Jay and I realized that Washington, D.C. is a totally different sight at night. The Capitol was an awe-inspiring spectacle, shining bright in the dark with its many lights. We stopped periodically to take pictures of the Capitol and the Washington Monument, which was clearly visible over a mile away.

     It had been an eventful day, one that I had been happy to take a part of. Out of the many trips that I have taken to the nation’s capital, this last one ranks high.

Until Next Time,

Michael Davis

     Americans fought the Revolutionary War to gain independence from Britain, in order set up a new government for themselves. The Declaration of Independence, an official statement of their reasons for doing so, admits “that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes,” but goes on to list the “history of the repeated injuries and usurpations” committed by Britain’s government against them, “all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over [the] States.” It was this “long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object…to reduce them under absolute Despotism” that gave them the “right…[and]…duty…to throw off such Government.”

     The Founding Fathers knew firsthand the dangers of a powerful, centralized government such as England’s was at the time. Such a government, with no direct accountability to the people, was a government that could commit, along with others, the twenty-eight offenses listed in the Declaration.

Our founders knew the foolishness of entrusting the welfare of millions to a handful of individuals, whose selfish nature would tend to have them rule based on personal gain and not the public good. They wanted to establish a government that the people themselves had control over, in order that they together, not just a lone ruler, could “promote the general Welfare and secure the Blessings of Liberty” for themselves.

     Thus, this country was fought for and founded based on the premise that the state should be decentralized and its powers limited. Yet today, we supposedly must give the government unprecedented power by entrusting President Obama and the rest of the state with the responsibility of, as he said, “hold[ing] [insurance companies] accountable” (and car companies and banks). But for every bit of power we give the government so that it can do things for us and help us, not only do we lose that much freedom, but we also give the government that much power so that it can hurt us.

     The dangers of state intrusion into the business affairs of its citizenry are readily apparent. For example, there has been much debate recently over whether to grant “affordable, quality health insurance to every American,” compliments of the state. Proponents of such government intervention in the health industry claim that the government’s assistance is required to give health insurance to (1) those who can’t afford it themselves (I will address this concern in the follow-up to this article), and to (2) those who are apparently being ripped off by private insurance companies. The latter supposedly need government-run health insurance because, unlike greedy private businesses, the state is comprised of saints and guardian angels who would never dream of doing anything but what is in the public’s best interests.

     But in reality, government officials are no less selfishly motivated than private business owners are. And since the latter don’t have revenue automatically coming their way, their “greed” will make them eager to please their customers in the hopes of keeping their business. Even if it has a “monopoly,” a business, if it hopes to stay afloat, still must be able to offer a decent product; otherwise, their customers will be quick to take their business elsewhere when another competitor comes along. But in the case of the government, they have the payment for their “service” coming to them already in the form of taxes, regardless of the quality of their product. The government has no incentive to provide the consumer with a good product that he likes, because he’s forced to pay for it anyway. Instead of having the government weed out bad companies and reward good ones, capitalism lets the consumer, those actually affected by such decisions, do this.

     In order to appease the justified concerns of those who fear receiving low-quality health insurance should the state take over, those espousing the government’s intervention claim that insurance will still be available from the private sector. Indeed, they claim, the “public option” encourages more competition by adding another competitor to the market. But in fact, the government would end competition – private businesses won’t be able to compete with the government. For one, if consumers are already paying for Government-Brand fill-in-the-blank, many won’t be able to afford the products made by private businesses that they actually want. In addition, if a private business is to eliminate its competitors, it must make its product better than that of its competitors; if the government wants to get rid of competition, all it has to do is outlaw it. In short, a private business must earn its monopoly; if the government steps into the market, it can just take one.

     To say that the government needs to intervene in order to help us and make things fair assumes that we can’t do these things ourselves. “Big business” is made out to be an institution that will swindle us because we are too naïve to know better – we supposedly must trust the government to protect us from it. But if you hire someone to do something for you, and you don’t like the job they do, you can just fire them. And because they know that their job is on the line, they’ll probably try to do it well. If you hire the government, and you don’t like the job they do, you can’t fire them. Because you can’t, they have no incentive to do a good job; they get paid anyway. Which option is more risky?

     Again, learn from our founders. If they had thought it was the government’s duty to provide all citizens with a house and health care, they would have included provision for these things in the Constitution and elsewhere. But apparently, they didn’t think it was the government’s responsibility to provide those things. They didn’t worry about the government not being big enough to solve the world’s problems; they wanted to make sure that its powers would be limited so as not to cause problems.

     Thomas Jefferson declared that “good government” “shall restrain men from injuring one another” and “shall leave them otherwise to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement.” Unless a business’s activities are in fact illegal, the government has no place dictating to them what products they are to sell, how much money they are to make, etc. That is up to the business and its customers, who will indirectly influence its decisions. It is the people’s duty “to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement” – not the state’s.

“In this present crisis, government is the not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” – Ronald Reagan

Until Next Time,

Michael Davis

Dear Main Street,

A letter from Chris Foster to his congressperson and Senators. Feel free to copy the letter and put your own name and address it to your Senators and Congressmen/women. You have his permission. To learn more behind the letter and to get involved in the health care debate, see the latest episode of Fostering America by clicking the link above.

Best,

Jay

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

Dear Senator Johnson,

I am writing to strongly encourage you to oppose the healthcare insurance bill that passed the Senate Finance Committee.  This bill is not what the American people want.  This bill is not what the American people need.  The American people need a free market.  This bill, or any bill that includes a government run healthcare option, will eliminate free market participation.  Americans need choices.  This healthcare bill will eliminate all choices with the exception of the government option.

This bill will cost an enormous amount of money.  As you are well aware it is money that we do not have.  The notion that somehow this will be “deficit neutral” or that a small amount of American millionaires are going to foot the bill for this is preposterous.  The American people are aware that this will cost all of us more money.  Frankly, many of us feel that the government does not need any more of our money.

I hope you understand that many of us are not interested in the government passing one more piece of legislation that spends one more cent of American taxpayer money.  I think you will admit that there is far too much waste, fraud and theft out there already.  We do not need another trillion dollar piece of legislation just to see a far-to-large portion of it disappear due to waste, fraud and theft.  We have been down that road before.  Afterall, Medicare is a government run healthcare program.  It is heavily in the red financially.  The latest statistics show that Medicare actually denies twice as many claims as the nearest private insurance company.  Is this what we all have to look forward to with the government option?

Just so you do not misunderstand me, like you I do believe that we need health insurance reform.  Where we differ is how to achieve this.  I believe that if we reform tort law, we can reduce malpractice insurance costs for doctors.  That will lower costs across the board.  We must allow private insurance companies to sell insurance to people outside their own state.  This will allow insurance companies to compete on a larger scale.  Basic economics say that the more competition that exists, the lower the prices will be.

Thank you for taking the time to read my letter.  I hope you will consider its content before casting your support or opposition to this horrible, disastrous legislation.

Best regards,

Christopher J. Foster

Dear Main Street,

     The preamble of the Constitution reads: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense [emphasis added], promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” The Founding Fathers immediately order government to provide – not for health care or education, but for defense. The government is to be a bread-defender, not the breadwinner – protecting wealth, not providing it. Thus, national security should be the federal government’s top priority.

     As commander-in-chief, President Obama plays an important role in the federal government’s responsibility to provide for defense. Yet Obama, like many who want to increase government spending, seems to think that an adequate defense system, unlike other government programs, can be procured rather cheaply. During his presidential campaign, Obama declared that, if elected, he would “cut investments in ‘unproven’ missile defense systems,” “slow our development of future combat systems,” and would “not weaponize space.” In setting “a goal of a world without nuclear weapons,” he would “not develop new [ones].”

     Instead of strengthening the military in order to protect the country, should the need arise, Obama has taken it upon himself to be the nation’s sole guardian. In order to accomplish the formidable task of allaying all international feuds, as he seems to believe he can, Obama has made himself the main spokesman in a campaign to appease and “restore our image” to a world, as Obama claims, is angry and bitter over the fact that “America has shown arrogance.”

     During his presidency, Theodore Roosevelt’s foreign policy was, “Speak softly and carry a big stick.” Obama claims to want to speak softly, but by downsizing our military capabilities, as he plans to do, Obama does not help give the U.S. bargaining power in confronting hostile nations, to whom whether or not we have a stick is the most influential factor in whether they are willing to cooperate with us. Something more reliable than Obama’s servile speeches is necessary for the country’s protection.

     Whether we fight a war is not dependent on what the war will cost, but on whether it is necessary. Nathan, “a small business owner” who disagrees, posted the following on the Steadfast Patriot website: “…I didn’t see any blog posts on this website about how spending trillions of dollars on war is bad. Personally, I would rather have new computers and books for kids in the classroom than a [shiny] new aircraft carrier.” 1 What Nathan apparently fails to realize is that we won’t have computers or books, nor need them, if we don’t exist because an enemy from which we couldn’t adequately protect ourselves blew us off the map. Yes, it would be great if we could spend $10 on a war instead of $1,000,000,000,000. But if something needs to be done, it needs to be done – no matter what the cost. If we have an aircraft carrier, it will provide a way to protect our computers and books. If we just have computers and books and no way to defend them, it won’t be long before we have nothing. We must be able to protect our wealth before we actually accumulate it.

     The fear of costly but necessary combat (or the lack of a military with which to combat) encourages a dangerous “compromise.” This is best illustrated during the unstable years preceding World War II. In response to Adolf Hitler’s demand for more “living-space” for Germany, he and Italy’s Benito Mussolini, France’s Édouard Daladier, and Britain’s Neville Chamberlain signed the Munich Pact in 1938. This agreement essentially gave Hitler control over what was then Czechoslovakia. Czechoslovakia itself had no say in the matter, and was informed that it could accept Hitler’s rule or fight Germany alone. Due to the inferiority of their military as compared to Germany’s, they were forced to capitulate. 2

     Back in London, Chamberlain, who had been a leading voice in calling for the “peaceful” German occupation of Czechoslovakia, declared that the Munich pact meant “peace for our time.” There was one man, however, who disagreed, and could hardly believe that Hitler had been given Czechoslovakia: “The German dictator, instead of snatching the victuals from the table, has been content to have them served to him course by course.” Winston Churchill, who had been warning of the coming dangers of Nazi Germany, also declared, “We have sustained a defeat without a war, the consequences of which will travel far with us along our road…And do not suppose that this is the end…This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigor, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.” In a speech to the House of Commons, he said, “You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.”

     Churchill’s words would prove true – a year later, in 1939, Hitler, whose idea of sufficient “living-space” for Germans was the whole world, invaded Poland. Thus World War II began. Fortunately, by that time Churchill had replaced Chamberlain as Prime Minister of Britain, and saw his country through to the end of the war six years later. But by that time, over 60 million people had been killed, and hundreds of billions of dollars had been spent to fight the war and would be spent to recover from it.

     Churchill realized from the start that there was no point in delaying the inevitable confrontation with the Nazi regime by continuing to appease Hitler. If instead of pandering to his demands, Britain and France had stood up and confronted Hitler, there would have been a war – but likely one much smaller in cost than World War II. By stalling and delaying the inevitable confrontation with tyranny, Chamberlain had only made things worse.

     What helped defeat Hitler was not Chamberlain’s efforts to “compromise” and appease him, but Churchill’s determination to defeat him.

     Harry Truman, however, had more in common with Neville Chamberlain than Winston Churchill in his management of the Korean War. Up to that time, Korea had been divided along the 38th parallel, with the Communist nation to the north and the free one to the south. In June 1950, North Korea determined to bring her southern neighbor under Communistic control, and invaded South Korea. But later that year in November, Gen. Douglas MacArthur and the U.S. and United Nations forces under his command had reclaimed almost the entire Korean Peninsula. In an effort to preserve her fellow Communist neighbor, Red China sent 300,000 troops, with another 700,000 as a backup, to assist the North Koreans. Realizing that more was in the balance than simply the Korean Peninsula, MacArthur advocated bombing China’s means of supplies and transportation. Truman, however, was unwilling to let the conflict with Communism escalate beyond Korea, and vetoed MacArthur’s plans for an absolute victory against Communism. The war ended much like it had begun, with North and South Korea divided closely along the 38th parallel. A chance to stop Communism, if not just in North Korea, but perhaps even in China and worldwide, had been squandered.

     The effects of the Korean war are still present, as we face dangers from a North Korea with nuclear capabilities – a nation hostile to the U.S. that might not even exist today if it were not for Truman’s reluctance to stop Communism in its tracks back in the 50’s. Chamberlain’s reluctance to confront Hitler in 1938 only escalated the conflict into a world war in 1939, necessitating the likes of Churchill. Truman’s reluctance to confront Communism during the Korean War has only escalated the conflict for 2009.

     Providing for defense remains the federal government’s most important responsibility, mandated in the first paragraph of the Constitution. Maintaining strong national security will require that our leaders have the mettle to act courageously, and not appease enemies in order to prevent war at whatever cost. For the longer we wait to get a job done, the harder the job gets. As we face dangers from hostile nations such as North Korea and Iran that are striving to build nuclear weapons, we will do well to “speak softly [yet] carry a big stick” and not neglect the importance of keeping our military strong. The military was necessary to gain this country’s independence; it is still necessary to maintain it.

1 The military is not such an enormous recipient of tax dollars as Nathan implies. Whereas the federal government spent $5.25 trillion for defense from 2001 (when the war in Afghanistan began) to 2009, we have spent $6.53 trillion for education during that time span. If spending trillions of dollars for aircraft carriers is so bad, why isn’t spending more trillions for computers and books bad? Spending for defense was only 80% of spending for education, and consumed 13% of total spending as opposed to education’s 16%, health care’s 16.4%, and welfare’s 9%.

2 Despite receiving Czechoslovakia, Hitler was furious because he thought he had been forced to make a fool of himself. He said, “If ever that silly old man [Chamberlain] comes interfering here again…I’ll kick him downstairs and jump on his stomach in front of the photographers.”

Until Next Time,

Michael Davis

Dear Main Street,

Decided to leak a whole chapter from my new book I'm writing to see what you all think. It's almost finished, but still in the draft process.

-Jay Young

***

The Nuclear Family: Its Not Rocket Science

    I hope I don't scare you by putting 'the family segment' as the first substantial chapter in this book. As a matter of fact, I think you'll enjoy it. I try to put things into everyday language as much as possible, though occasionally it may seem a bit confusing at first, but I thoroughly explain it and try to cover as much as I can. No, I can't work magic like Dr. Phil or fix your teen into an angel. This is just basic, common American sense that can be put into practice. So here goes.

    The sacred tradition of a family, a social unit headed by one man and one woman, has had a profound impact on society, culture, and life as we know it (I know, deep, huh?). Rooted in Judeo-Christian values and stemming from the beginning of time at the cradle of civilization, back to the biblical time of Adam and Eve.

    Even if you don't believe in religion, it's hard to deny the importance of the nuclear family and marriage as a stable, deep-rooted structure acting as a sort of anchor and foundation of our civilization. Families are, in essence, the smallest and most basic form of government in the world, a simple hierarchy or mini-state if you will, which comprise the basic building blocks of society. As a matter of course, the husband and wife are charged with certain jobs in distinct focus, originating from biblical principles as well as practical matters of human sexuality, psychological makeup, and social temperament based on that particular gender's natural inner subconscious and intrinsic strengths. Okay, big breath; in laymen's terms, these are just fancy words for their natural abilities and God-given gifts. For example, through custom and established practice, the father is (traditionally) the chief-breadwinner, chief-protector, and considered the head of the family's religious and spiritual needs. He is the one who is physically stronger and more able to go out and make the living, because the mother traditionally needed to stay home and raise the children. She is the child-bearer and raiser, given the very important and often underrated task of nurturing the next generation of Americans and, in doing so, is often the primary person who bequeaths the family values and principles.  She is blessed with the task of heading the household's domestic life, but radical feminists trash the role as wretched and meaningless, and portray stay-at-home moms as traitors to the "sisterhood". They wholly disapprove of a woman's crucial role in the family and decry marriage as an injustice created by male society to oppress women across the globe.

    American radical feminist Robin Morgan, a political activist and editor of Sisterhood is Powerful and Ms. Magazine, speaks of the significant roles men and women each play in marriage and their important differences as sexism and clearly she utterly despises it. "We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage." To be fair, Mrs. Morgan (yes, she is married now, look it up if you don't believe me), we can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy men and women. That would mean wiping out the human race. Men and women are physically, biologically, and psychologically different, and each play essential roles in the circle of life which have natural-born differences. In stark reality to the radical feminist agenda, Robin Morgan couldn't be further from the truth. Marriage, while dolling out different jobs to best suit the particular needs and strengths of men and women, gives them an equal role and a level playing field as the dual ruling authorities, each with a fair voice.

    Leader of the feminist organization NOW, Sheila Cronin, fully complies with her radical colleague. "Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage."

    Out of touch with the moral majority and America's prized heritage, radical feminists like Cronin compare the "liberation" of women through the total and complete destruction of marriage to the freeing of black slaves and emancipation. It may sound crazy, but some people actually do believe in this radical propaganda. Again, getting back to reality and out of the pink clouds, marriage primarily protects women and their children from oppression and abuse. Wedlock, when properly maintained, ensures the children stability and a future, the wife love and security, and protects the family from a ditch-and-run father who bails out, either seeking to shed his responsibility or go after another, often younger, woman, leaving the family to deal with the consequences of his poor decisions. Long-term personal, legal, financial, and spiritual commitment makes it much more difficult for a husband to abandon his marriage when the going gets tough. Husbands and wives were meant to weather storms together as a family, perhaps wavering at times but never to falter. They are supposed to be unbreakable and inseparable, like the Cleavers in "Leave it to Beaver" or the superhero family from "The Incredibles". Unlike a woman who co-inhabits a house wither her boyfriend who can leave his "baby mama" at any moment that behooves him, marriage forces a man to discipline himself, make a life-long commitment to love and cherish his family, and stick with them as their husband and father, not the "baby daddy" or "mommy's boyfriend. It forces him wait until he is mature and truly ready to take on the responsibility of fully raising a family. Far too often, Uncle Sam becomes the daddy and hands out welfare and child dependency checks at the expense of taxpayers. Baby daddies, take responsibility. You're fathers now, and whether you like it or not you made the choice and what's done is done.

    The quote below is one of the most powerful, meaningful oaths that can ever be spoken by human lips. It is the traditional wedding vows, and you've probably heard them, or something similar, before.

    I [name] take you [spouse] to be my lawfully wedded husband/wife. To have and to hold, from this day forward. For better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness or in health, to love and to cherish ?till death do us part. And hereto I pledge you my faithfulness.

    These compelling words, a vow of life-long allegiance, are not to be taken lightly. Unfortunately, these vows not mean to be broken until death are too often severed at the slightest human whim. Today in our morally-challenged society, half of all marriages end in divorce. How does this tragic ending, the opposite of all happily-ever-afters, effect families and society as a whole?

1.    Growing up in a divorced family greatly increases the chances of ending one's own marriage, a phenomenon called the divorce cycle or the intergenerational transmission of divorce.

2.    Single mothers are nine times more likely to live in deep poverty than the married family, with incomes less than half of the official poverty line.

3.    Fatherless children are three times more likely to fail school, require psychiatric treatment and commit suicides as adolescents.

4.    They are also up to 40 times more likely to experience child abuse compared with children growing up in two-parent families.

5.    Religious worship, which has been linked to better health, longer marriages, and better family life, drops after the parents' divorce.

Divorces have a general negative impact on all families morally, economically, psychologically, socially, and spiritually, as explained above.

The best protection for women and their children from abusive boyfriends and ditch-and-run "baby daddies", relationships that lack the stableness and security of marriage, is marriage. If a man or woman truly doesn't love you in the first place, he or she will most likely not even want to commit to a long-term relationship like marriage. And even if they do commit with the best of intentions, they can always bail, even at the moment you may need them the most. Half the people do anyway. Do you want that couple to be you?

So, what happens if all else fails? If the husband is repeatedly abusive of his wife and children, or the wife frequently cheats on her husband, or spouses commit other serious offenses against their family? There still is one way out; divorce. Do I sound like I'm contradicting myself?

As I have already explained, divorce has a general negative impact on families and on society, but if relationships are so bad that they are truly falling apart and the dye has been cast, that the problem is irremediable and uncorrectable, and if the offense is unforgivable and the family is unable to move on, that the couple and/or family have been through counseling and all other options have been completely exhausted, the only way to get to the healing process is divorce. That's why it exists; to act as a fail-safe.

Divorce, while an important "emergency exit" is just that; a way out for use only in an emergency. But unlike the last resort or desperate remedy it was created to be, divorce is all too easy to obtain and more often than not cause more damage than healing. In today's fast-paced world of iPods, touch phones, microchips, blogging, and Twitter, no-fault divorces are one of the worst offenders responsible for the dangerously high divorce rate in this country, one of the highest in the world. There was never meant to be an easy way out of marriage because it is a life-long commitment, lawfully ordered by human authority and sanctioned by God Himself. No-fault marriages destroy all that, allowing couples to separate simply if they are tired of one another. Fifteen states now offer some form of no-fault "easy-way-out" divorces, laws that should be illegal because they destroy families and drive poverty and crime sky high. The truth is, there is no easy way out. Marriage is a commitment until death.

    How should our government and lawmakers correct this problem, fight crime and poverty in the long-term, and reroute America's moral compass back to where it should be, pointing upwards?

1.    Establish greater tax incentives as well as tax cuts for married couples. Instead of punishing people for getting married, let's encourage them. Rather than have "daddy Sam" bankroll single mothers on welfare (we are not talking about widows or victims of rape here, but of women who make a conscious decision not to get married and then get pregnant) who take the "quick and easy" path, give the married couples the extra benefits in the form of tax cuts. Their efforts of long-term commitment help to keep crime and poverty low and ultimately better society. The cuts pay for themselves in the long run.

2.    End no-fault divorces for people with children under age 21, or better yet, abolish all no-faults. These forms of divorces implicitly break the vows taken on the day they said "I do", destroys family relationships, often leads to future hardships, and hurts children most of all.

3.    Open the door to a new option - the "Covenant Marriage: - nearly unbreakable except for the worst circumstances, it is what marriage was originally and still is intended to be. While we shouldn't need a "special" Covenant Marriage since "regular" marriage itself is supposed to be the special covenant, this would greatly encourage long-term commitment and strongly deter divorce because it would be penalized. Plus, what wife would accept a "regular, average" marriage when they could have something more special? I can almost hear them now. "What, you want a regular ol' marriage just in case you wanna ditch me?!  Uh, uh, baby I don't think so!" Most women (and men for that matter) want a happily-ever-after and don't expect to break the oath of marriage later in life.

   These three basic steps, as well as additional divorce restrictions and regulations, would do much to lower the divorce rate, lengthen marriages, strengthen families, and fight long-term crime and poverty by getting to the root of the problem; dysfunctional families. Our lawmakers would do well to implement the recommended steps above, for the sake of our great nation. Indeed, building stronger, healthier family relationships will lead to better building blocks for society and is almost a panacea to help cure the nation of our moral flu and would be a big step forward in taking the lead in the so-called culture wars. The fact remains undiminished; conservatives still can win the culture wars. Sure, we are losing ground and falling behind, and we'll have to make up for that. But we still have the hearts and minds of the majority of the American people. All it takes is some courage, leadership, and the willingness to stand up and fight for what is right even if, at first, you're standing alone. Because I assure you, people will follow. We cannot be afraid to take afraid to speak up and take action. As 18th century English philosopher and the philosophical founder of modern conservatism once said, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." We my friends are naturally stronger than them because we have the truth on our side. Now let us stop letting ourselves fall behind and take steps, like those I listed above, to win back our values and principles and the moral nation the founding fathers envisioned.

    We speak to the conscience of America, while radical feminists push an agenda that is contrary to everything this country has stood for in its brief, 200 and some years of existence. Their "values" are often in direct conflict with the principles of the moral majority and Americans at large. And while they preach "feminism" and proclaim themselves champions of women's rights and liberties, they stand idly by when those who don't fully oblige to their radical agenda are unfairly attacked.

    In this instance, I speak of former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin when she was Senator John McCain's vice presidential running mate. She really energized the conservative base and had many Republicans, even Independents, on board. Palin shot fear straight into the hearts and minds of liberals, because she was tough, wasn't afraid to speak her mind, and she was a strong woman. Ironically, many liberals are secretly afraid of strong conservative women much more so than men.

    Let's get real here; McCain wasn't the real threat to the Obama machine or the liberal agenda. He didn't have the hearts and minds of the majority of Americans. But Sarah Palin did, so the liberals mobilized the Democratic war machine against her, the mud-slingers, dirt-diggers, character assassinators, sparing no mercy because the White House was up for grabs.

    We had heard Obama tell us and the bloggers to "lay off my wife". And I quote frpm an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America": "If they think that they're going to try to make Michelle an issue in this campaign, they should be careful because that I find unacceptable, the notion that you start attacking my wife or my family." He went on to call the strategy "low class" and perhaps it may be or may not. But its a double standard. Liberals and the elite media, of course, backed him up, citing the family is "off limits" since they weren't running for office. Okay, you have a point, though I would reason to say that anybody campaigning for a candidate (like his wife Michelle) should be fair game.

    But then it was revealed that Bristol Palin, the Governor?s seventeen year-old daughter, was pregnant. It was the top story for weeks, and the media had a firestorm with it. The tabloids, the liberal press, and of course NBC, had a bonanza with it. Finally, after all that dirt they had been desperately scarping to dig up, they found something even though it was only about Palin's daughter. They cast it in the national spotlight as a national embarrassment to Republicans and, more importantly, to Bristol and her family. She was humiliated on national television, newspapers, and magazines across the country by partisan elite media who will get what they want at any cost. For God sakes, she's seventeen! Why was Michelle Obama completely off limits when Bristol Palin was completely trashed? Isn't that a huge double standard?

    To make matters worse, soon we started seeing pictures of Palin photo-shopped into bodies wearing skimpy bikinis and wielding rifles like some sort of lawless, wild western cowgirl. And the liberal media lambasted Palin for the amount of money spent on her clothes but spoke nothing of the elaborate outfits worn of Michelle, Hillary, and Jill Biden. Who are the hypocrites here? While the media and press was being outright dirty and sexist, the feminists stood idly by as if they were mute, deaf, and blind. Where is the outrage? Feminists are supposed to be protectors of women and warriors against sexism, but they did not stand for Sarah Palin, or her daughter Bristol. Apparently, since they didn't share the same extreme views and didn't fit their radical agenda, they sat quiet. Even the McCain campaign didn't stand up for her, and shame on them! That probably cost them the election.

    Palin soon resigned from Governor after having been left with thousands of dollars in legal fees from frivolous lawsuits, most of which if not all were thrown out of court and none of which she was ever convicted. Sarah is now left to clean up after the Democratic war machine and the mud spewed onto her family. Clearly, feminists care more about their radical agenda then they do the rights of women.

    The same radical feminists go so far as to even defend pornography, nudity, and prostitution as "women's rights". In reality, these immoral acts only destroys women and lowers their social standing by objectifying them and giving men the message that women are material things, to be used, and then discarded, that they are objects and only good if they're hot or still young, and if they're not, they're worthless. Prostitution is also physically and emotionally dangerous to women do to abuse, sexually transmitted diseases, and all kinds of other causes, so why do radical feminists defend it?

    Bottom line; radical feminists are hypocrites. Not your typical neighbor "I'm for women's rights", but the radical, extremist feminists. Now that I've made my point, let's move on to another family and moral issue that currently plagues politics today; gay marriage.

    Fact: marriage is the union between one man and one woman. If you didn't see the period there, I'll just spell it out: period.

    Liberals and feminists would scream at me for claiming this as fact, but it's true. This is how marriage has always been defined and how it has been since it was created. It's natural; it's how we reproduce. You don't see any gay partners in the wild because it isn't natural. Sure you have the occasional, bizarre instance, such as the couple of confused and lonely penguins in a San Francisco zoo who lived as a nesting couple, but Harry the penguin ditched his roommate Pepper after six years. Sorry, Pepper, but when he was given the chance to see a female penguin, he decided to move in with her, and now Harry and Linda are a happy couple. Poor pepper, but love hurts.

    Once we extend marriage rights to the LGBT community, not only will that destroy families and marriage as we know it and destroy a semi-moral society, other morally-challenged groups, such as polygamists, will want it as well, leading to further degradation of our society. Fifty year-old men will want the right to marry eight year-old girls because "its true love" and "they have rights, why don't I?". Will incest be legalized? Where does it end? Will rights extend so far that Tommy will be able to petition to marry his pet turtle, and win? "But I love it, that's all that matters!" Welcome to the marriage of the future. "I now pronounce you man and tortoise."

    If you're gay and want to get hitched, go do it in Sweden, but not in this country. It's not what we stand for, nor what we have ever stood for.

    I have no problem with gay people; I am certainly not homophobic. And to be candid, I sympathize with gay people who want to get married, as I happen to know many and understand them, and am on friendly terms with them. But it's just not America. I am against gay marriages, but I am not against laws allowing partnerships. To be honest, I think that is their concern and we have no business forbidding people to love each other, even if we don't understand or may not agree with it. And if they want to go get married in a foreign country, great! Who knows, maybe I'll even attend. We do, however, as moral American citizens, have a right to protect society and the institution of marriage as defining it for what it is; between a man and a woman.

    So how do we solve this moral dilemma? Write a federal law defining marriage as between "one man and one woman."

    Now many strict constitutionalists (like many conservatives) are against this, arguing that it's supposedly "unconstitutional" and that the matter should be left up to the individual states. The fact is, if we left everything of such moral and ethical importance to each individual state, nothing would ever get done and we couldn't grow together as one nation under God. And if you still want to make the claim that it's unconstitutional then the heck with it, make it a constitutional amendment; then it's constitutional! The only way to solve a national problem is on a national level. Marriage must be a universal term, not a state or local term that varies from city to city; that's too complex and confusing. A federal Defense of Marriage Act or a Sanctity of Marriage amendment to the Constitution of these United States would help our nation get back on track and we would be one giant step ahead in winning the culture wars. It's as simple as that. So call and write your senators and representatives, and tell them to support a federal law or constitutional amendment (in which two-thirds of the states must adapt in order to be enacted) on the basis of defining marriage as between "one man and one woman".

Courtesy The Heritage Foundation

Top Ten Countries

Worst Ten Countries

Other Rankings of Note:

Japan: 73

Germany 71

Sweden 71

Spain 70

Taiwan 70

Israel 68

Mexico 66

Saudi Arabia 64

South Africa 64

France 63

Italy 61

Poland 60

Kenya 59

Egypt 58

Pakistan 57

India 54

China 53

Argentina 52

Syria 51

Vietnam 51

Iran 45

Iraq, Afghanistan, and Sudan Unrated

See http://www.heritage.org/index/Ranking.aspx for more countries.

Dear Main Street,

Another excerpt from the book I'm writing on our right to bear arms. It's not completely finished yet so please excuse some of the grammar errors. Any suggestions are welcome; fill out the form on the "Contact Us" page.

-Jay Young

***

               There are so many rights and liberties we take for granted each and every day, like the very air we breathe, freedoms past and current generations fight and die for. Even today, many people still live in the shadows of tyranny and lack basic human rights. There are lots of freedoms that are expressly guaranteed by the Constitution and thus I only have time to explain several of the most important in this book, those we should guard especially close to heart. Let's be honest - freedoms don’t come free. They are bought at a price which is often very high. They require constant alertness and vigilance from attacks posing both clear and present dangers like the 9/11 attacks, and those unclear and perhaps more distant, but ever more serious, like the explosion of the federal bureaucracy. Even the liberal Justice William O. Douglas, who was appointed by FDR and served on the Supreme Court from 1939-1975, recognized this. “As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such a twilight that we all must bemost aware of change in the air – however slight – lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness.”

               To quote a more conservative Ronald Reagan from his 1967 gubernatorial inaugural address, “Perhaps you and I have lived with this miracle too long to be properly appreciative. Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it only comes once to a people. Those who have known freedom, and then lost it, have never known it again.”

               The first amendment we shall talk about is the 2nd Amendment, which I chronologically place first in this chapter because it is the key to safeguarding our other liberties and freedoms we as Americans are fortunate enough to enjoy.

               The Right to Bear Arms

               “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.” – 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

               The Constitution frequently speaks in very general terms, often allowing for broad interpretation and speculation. After all, it was meant to be the framework for a solid legal foundation from which we could build upon as the nation grew and matured, flexible enough to allow some changes and adjustments but tough and durable enough as to provide strength and stability. In these instances, it canbe rather frank and straight forward. The Founders’ granted specific power, authority, and representation to the federal government, the states, and the people, which are identified as three separate entities bound together by this social contract we call a constitution. This concept of a social contract, that of legitimate authority receiving its rights to govern based on the consent of the governed, originated in its more contemporary form from the ideas of 17th century philosophers Thomas Hobbes and John Locke as well as 18th century theorist Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The purpose of such a document is mainly to control and restrict the powers of a government and to protect the rights of the people.

               In our Constitution, normally Uncle Sam is referred to as “Congress” or “the President” or “the Judiciary” in the Constitution, while the states are simply “the states” and the people “the people”. Sounds simple, and specific, enough. If you go to the appendix of this book, you’ll find the Bill of Rights (amendments one through ten), and notice the phrase “the right of the people” numerous times, like in the 2nd Amendment above.

               Liberals, however, claim that the Constitution grants not the right of the citizen to bear arms but the right of the state government (the state Militia or National Guard). I don’t have to be a lawyer to point out how fatally flawed that argument is, and how it misstates and misinterprets one of our most fundamental and highly cherished freedoms. Clearly, and again you can read it above or go right to the source at the National Archives, the Constitution expressly states“the right of the people”; that means us! Just like in the 1st Amendment, our right to freedom of speech, press, peaceful assembly, and religion, it is and I quote “the right of the people”. But what, is the 1st Amendment just for the state government?

               The Constitution states in the Preamble and in other instances throughout the social contract the right of the feds to “provide for the common defence” in order to establish a federal army and navy but leaves the two other participants, the state and the people, out, or at least doesn’t expressly guarantee that right. The 2nd Amendment was created to level the playing field, to create a separation of powers, a system of checks and balances, to allow the states the right to a Militia and the people the right to bear arms. This way, one participant in the social contract can’t trample on the rights of others. After all, the first step a tyrannical or oppressive government usually takes is to disarm the people, and people, if promised security, are often willing to sacrifice liberty.

               The reason many people misinterpret the 2nd Amendment is that they look at it as a single, one-part amendment. In reality, this amendment is a two-part amendment. It acknowledges the states’ rights to organize Militias, and the right of the people to own and bear arms. Clearly, it is a two part amendment, and neither of us needs some Ivy League judge to point that out for us or need Ruth Bayder Ginsburg to give us a detailed lecture on her misguided version of Constitutional law.

               Now that we have busted the liberal argument’s legal case and Constitutional legitimacy, ask yourself this; why did the Founding Father’s give we the people, and not just the states, the right to keep and bear arms? So we could go duck hunting? Sure, but also for a much more serious reason; to keep government, both the feds and the states, in line so they don’t trample on our other important civil rights and liberties we enjoy as citizens, because that’s what the 2nd Amendment is for; to protect the other nine amendments. According to Richard Feldman, a member of the Reagan administration and author of the book “Ricochet: Confessions of a Gun Lobbyist”, there are over 100 million gun owners in the United States today. Many of these people own multiple firearms and the government knows that if they were to cross the line, they’d have a revolution on their hands. To quote the Declaration of Independence, “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” The 2nd Amendment protects that duty and keeps government in check.

               Even still, liberals argue that no guns means no crime, or at least a drastic reduction in it. But guns don’t cause crime; people cause crime. The gun or knife didn’t make a person kill; it was their conscious decision. What kind of legal case is that? Imagine an accused murderer showing up in court arguing “the gun made me do it”. We send the criminal to jail, not the gun. That case would quickly be closed and that criminal would get some good quality prison time.

               Let me ask you this; if guns don’t protect people, why do cops carry them? Why does the military use them? Why do body guards surround celebrities with them? Why does the Secret Service surround the President with them? Because guns are a practical means of deterrence and self-defense. The issue, folks, isn’t the guns themselves, the issue is who’s hands they’re in, and it's obvious many in the government don't trust them in your hands. After all, you're a legitmate threat to their sovereignty.

               If Congress were to utterly defy the 2nd Amendment and pass legislation banning the right of the people to keep and bear arms like guns, the only persons it would be keeping from having firearms would be law-abiding citizens. It’s illegal for convicted felons to own guns anyway; what do you think outlawing it for everyone else would do? Do you really think these thugs would just turn in their guns? What reason would there be for law-breakers to turn in their firearms?

               Criminals, ever since the gun was invented, have always had guns and will always have guns even if they are completely 100% illegal, just like addicts have always had illegal drugs and narcotics. Even if these weapons were to be confiscated from some criminals by force or secret raids, more arms would be smuggled into thecountry or illegally manufactured domestically, much like bootleggers in the1920s during prohibition. As the old saying goes, where there’s a will, there’s a way. It doesn’t matter if it’s legal or not for citizens to own guns; criminals will always have them. A law banning guns would disarm law-abiding American families who would only use a gun if, God forbid, the lives of themselves or their families were being threatened (or those who like duckhunting) or if there were to be some kind of foreign invasion. Banning guns would actually encourage crime because it would ensure criminals that they have nothing to worry about. If there’s no gun in the house they can rob it with ease, since only criminals would be left holding weapons. Crime would be much easier to commit with higher rates of success and less risk. Is this really what we want?

               Liberals like to say, “If we could just save one life by banning guns, the life of just one child, wouldn’t it be worth it?” Even if the myth that banning guns would save lives were true, would it be worth sacrificing liberty and freedom for one life? Isn’t that what we fought for in the first place? Don't get me wrong, a life is invaluable, and so are the many freedoms we enjoy. Soldiers die for our freedoms and liberties nearly every day because they are cherished so highly, and the Founding Fathers were willing to sacrifice their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor for them. Owning arms is an important part of liberty; we have the right to self-defense.

               And what about cars? A vehicle is a weapon and kill many more children then guns. Should we ban cars too? According to Mr. Feldman, more people die behind the wheel of a car in a day then by gunfire in a year. That’s something to think about. If liberals want to save children, let’s ban abortion, which has killed over 49 million human beings since the decision of Roe v. Wade in 1973.

               Plus, guns are more often then not used to save lives, as Phil Valentine explains in his book The Conservative’s Handbook:

               I should let you know right from the start that handguns are used for protection against criminals in American more than two million times per year. That’s up to five times more often than they’re used to commit crimes and nearly 128 times the total number of murders in the United States. [Guns are Good, Page 106]

               People should have the right to protect themselves and their families from threats. We have a right to life and liberty. There’s no true legislative solution to secure our right to bear arms; after all, the 2nd Amendment already guarantees it. It’s up to the courts to “interpret” that right, often letting their partisanship wrongfully play a part in the system of justice. The bottom line is anybody should have the right to bear arms, so long as they meet the following criteria:

1.     They have attained a reasonable legal age.

2.     They have a clean criminal record and background.

3.     They are mentally stable.

Am I right or wrong?

Dear Main Street,

Wanted to post this email foward going around for you.

-Jay Young

The Smart Car or Obama's Car?

Below is a photo of a wreck in Jefferson Parish, LA (near New Orleans) between two trucks and a Smart Car.

Do you still want a smart car? Not if you are smart...

Dear Main Street,

Thought I'd get your opinion on Chris Foster's letter to his local congresswoman. Don't forget to listen in to his weekly program Fostering America above!

Jay Young

***

An open letter to Mrs. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin

Dear Mrs. Herseth Sandlin,

Thank you for taking the time to read my letter in regards to the healthcare bill that is currently being debated in the house. I am writing in the hopes that after reading my letter, you will be less inclined to vote in favor of this bill. The announcement that the Blue Dog Democrats have agreed to move this bill forward has compelled me to write this letter. Why are the Blue Dogs no longer opposed to the bill? Because the liberal wing of the Democratic party has guaranteed them one hundred million dollars in cuts to the bill. Mrs. Herseth Sandlin, how is one hundred million in cuts to a bill that will cost 1.5 Trillion dollars going to make a difference? That is not the worst of it either. It goes without saying that these programs wind up costing more than the projections. History tells us that we can at least multiply the cost by two if not three. So the Blue Dogs have settled for one hundred million in cuts so that we can spend Three Trillion dollars of taxpayer money? That may be one of the most preposterous things I have ever heard.

With all respect, have you read this bill? Are you aware of what is going to happen if this becomes law? I have to ask this because Congressman John Conyers said the other day and I quote ?What good is reading the bill if it's a thousand pages and you don't have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you've read the bill??. That quote puts you and every other elected official in dangerous territory. It lends aid to those who fear that the federal government has grown far too large for its own good ? and more importantly for the good of the people. That is who you were sent to Washington to serve. Not Nancy Pelosi, not Rahm Emanuel nor any other group, but the people of South Dakota. The people of South Dakota expect you to stand up for our rights as individuals, not acquiesce to making us part of a collective, for should this healthcare bill pass we will be more of a collective than we ever have been.

The terrible destructiveness of this bill cannot be hidden now. It?s 1,000 plus pages have been laid bare for all who will look to see. Reading this bill, you cannot deny that it will create a single payer system owned and controlled by the federal government. We - the people you serve ? will lose our individual health plans. You cannot deny that it will take away our rights as individuals to choose our own doctors and when we need to see them. You cannot deny that every adult regardless of age will be required to purchase health insurance or face being fined thousands of dollars per year by the IRS. We ? the people you serve ? will also lose the right to buy high premium insurance, the kind that would cover us only for the most catastrophic of emergencies while at the same time being relatively inexpensive.

If that is not alarmingly bad enough, this bill will destroy healthcare for seniors. It is widely known that seniors use the largest sum of the healthcare system. It stands to reason because of their age. Right now the health system keeps our valued seniors alive. If someone who is 88 needs triple bypass surgery now, can they get it? Yes. If that same person in the national healthcare system needs said surgery, will they get it? The answer is no. President Obama said it himself while addressing a woman who?s 105 year old mother was given a pacemaker at the age of 100. This woman pointed out that her 100 year old mother was very spry, had a full sense of her faculties and was still very much a virile person. She asked him if under government health care there would be any consideration taken for a person?s spirit or if age would be the sole determining factor. He said and I quote ?At least we can let doctors know and your mom know that, you know what, maybe this (pacemaker) isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery but taking the painkiller.? The President is hinting at what is in store for seniors. More pain pills to help them die without pain and less procedural medicine to keep them alive. This is what is called healthcare rationing. In a single payer, government run system, healthcare rationing is an undeniable truth. The cost of the procedure or the therapy or the pacemaker will be weighed against that citizen?s ability to contribute tax dollars back to the government. Since most seniors have fixed incomes and do not work, the likelihood of them becoming victims of healthcare rationing is very likely. They will be given pain pills instead of surgeries and then be allowed to die before their time.

Another question that I have for you is this? How do you expect physicians to look at themselves in the mirror everyday knowing that they are violating the Hippocratic oath they took when the first became doctors? In part it says ?I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.? How can a doctor look at a patient who is dying, knowing that a certain procedure will prolong their life, and then have to tell them that they can?t have the procedure because the government says no? It is undeniable that these things and more horrors await the people of South Dakota ? the people you serve ? should this bill become law. As such for the good of those people I am asking you not to vote for passage of this bill. Beyond that I am asking you to encourage any of your congressional allies not to vote for this bill ? for one person alone cannot save us from this monstrosity.

Last but not least, let me challenge you with something. If you really believe that this is a good bill and that this program is the way to go for all South Dakotans - if you really believe that, then put your money where your mouth is and opt out of your healthcare plan and sign up for this one. After all, we South Dakotans ? the people you serve ? will be required to.

Best regards,

Christopher J. Foster

Mitchell, South Dakota

    Posted 7/20/09

    Dear Main Street,

    I'm in the middle of writing a book that should be on sale by the holiday season. I just wanted to float a couple chapters and bits of pieces of it now and then on Dear Main Street to see what you all think.

    Best,

    -Jay Young

    We’ll start this off with a big pet peeve of mine—labeling. In this book, you won’t read about left or right, nor will you find mentions of stereotypes such as conservative, moderate, and liberal. These terms, aside from their convenience, serve only as characterizations that tear people down based on inaccurate generalizations. To put it bluntly, labels suck. But can we fight the use of labeling, or is it human nature?

    Everything has a label, and I mean everything. It’s what we call a name. Just look around you and start naming objects, people, et cetera. The names assigned to them are known as labels, and I’m perfectly fine with that. It’s how you recognize a Big Mac from a Whopper. Names are necessary, or else how would you ask for Suzie rather than Sally?

    But we’re not talking about that kind of labeling. No, we are not talking about names—we are talking about name-calling. Hang in there, it’s really a simple concept once you recognize it. This kind of labeling is taking people’s ideas and beliefs and smacking a label on them, a generalization that ignores the merit of their values. Normally labels are used out of convenience, laziness, or sometimes even out of hate. But how do you label in a single group a set of intangible, abstract ideas, beliefs, and values, ones that change with time and differ across cultures? Labels like conservative and liberal are based on the faulty horizontal political spectrum and are thus not accurate descriptions or measurements of a person’s belief system. They are misleading and put people into ideological boxes from which there is no escape, a sort of political black hole.

    Mark Skousen, an American economist and a proponent of the Austrian school of economic theory, explains why labels should be avoided:

    The three main reasons why labels are best avoided in political discussions are: (1) Labels are often an inaccurate description of a person's or group's views. (2) Labels often become pejorative terms used in character assassination (3) Labels put people into political boxes and keep them there, preventing individuals from objectively considering alternative opinions and changing their minds.

    Another reason to dump labels and to add to the confusion they cause is the fact that they are relative and pertain only to a particular society and time and can have completely different meanings and contexts in other times and places. A modern American ‘conservative’ would not be considered a  ‘conservative’ back in the thirteen colonies during the revolutionary war. The loyalists, that is, the people loyal to Great Britain and the King, were dubbed conservatives since they wanted to preserve, or conserve, the colonies and their ties to Britain, a label which still sticks to them to this day. The founding fathers were deemed ‘liberals’ since they wanted to change the status quo, though today they are most similar to modern conservatives who value the free market system, individual liberties, limited government, and personal responsibility.

    Labels also ignore other key aspects of a person, such as their character and moral fiber. When considering a candidate for office, not only should you take into account their views but also their ethical values and integrity. Labels encourage you to support the candidate who is more “conservative” or “liberal” than the other, regardless of their character.

    The modern horizontal political spectrum dates back to the French Revolution (1789-1799). Says Skousen:

    In the French National Assembly, the  liberals  sat to the left of the president's chair, the  moderates  in the center, and the  conservatives  to the right. Those on the left were designated  liberals  and  radicals  because they wanted to make major reforms in politics and the economy. Their opponents on the right became  conservatives  and   reactionaries  because they were aristocratic nationalists who wanted to return to the status quo of the ancien régime. Those in the center were the  moderates  who were looking for a compromise. This political spectrum has often been used in describing the signers of our Declaration of Independence. Still, though Thomas Jefferson has often been called a classical liberal, calling him a left-winger seems out of place.

    Skousen also goes on to explain a little about the inaccuracy of the horizontal political spectrum and the popular misconception (or ‘liberal’ myth) that the fascist Nazi’s were far right-wingers.

    Marxists, Communists and other international collectivists became the  radical left,  while the Fascists of the 1930s in Italy and Nazi Germany were designated  right wingers  simply because they opposed the  Reds.  But the only difference in their politics was nationalism vs. internationalism. The fascists were every bit as collectivist as Stalin.

    Myth busted.

    Not only do labels change over time, but they also differ across cultures. A modern American conservative most resembles an Iranian liberal, who is pro-democracy, pro-reform, pro-western, and pro-limited government rather than the traditional Iranian conservative who supports Ahmadenejhad’s regime and the rule of the Supreme Leader (the Ayatollah) who heads both the state and the state-backed Moslem church. Confused yet?

    Skousen summarizes the issue of labeling:

    It's time to make a change in our political lexicon...When someone's philosophy is labeled and compartmentalized, thinking stops and name-calling begins. Once an economist is labeled a Marxist, only the Marxists listen. When a political analyst writes a column called  On the Right,  no one except the  right-wing  faithful reads it. Dividing ideology into camps on two sides of the political spectrum tends to elevate both sides to an equal status, as if both policies hold equal sway and are equally justifiable. Then the moderates whisper,  Perhaps we should compromise    We are left with the erroneous impression that  the extreme left is just as bad as the extreme right.  Categorizing philosophies leads toward political nihilism and away from the desire to find the truth.

    In short, it is high time that political pundits and the national media put away their cold-war mentality and endorse a new standard where each person stands on individual merit and not in some political box.

    How could I put it any better than that?

    Michael Skousen instead offers up a new political spectrum, which is a giant leap above the inaccurate horizontal political spectrum. It’s a vertical political spectrum, or “totem pole,” where those systems advocating the highest level of political and economic freedom are placed at the top, where law and order and democracy reign. The more government control, the less liberty, the more tyranny, the lower the system on the totem pole. It’s a breakthrough in political philosophy, to be sure, but yet is simple and self-explanatory. Beware, however, the thin line at the top between freedom and anarchy. If there is no government whatsoever, there is no law and order and the system of government once again falls to the bottom of the totem pole, since chaos is no better than tyranny.

    The diagram below shows the totem pole with three men, each advocating different systems of government. The man who advocated for the greatest amount of freedom is placed at the top, Adam Smith. The man in the middle who advocated a system between tyranny and freedom is John Maynard Keynes, and the man at the bottom who advocated the least bit of freedom is Karl Marx.