The Immune by Doc Lucky Meisenheimer Reviewed by Chuck McGlawn

Sat, 05/14/2011 - 4:49pm

This is going to be the strangest opening to the review of The Immune by Doc Lucky Meisenheimer as anyone is apt to read. Because this reviewer is cursed with a tendency, by experience and training, to find flaws, faults, failings, errors, weaknesses, shortcomings, etc in everything including books. However, even with the flaws, faults and failings this reviewer found The Immune by Doc Lucky Meisenheimer an incredibly readable contribution to the book world..

As a reader that is somewhat affected by Attention Deficit Disorder, fiction had not been a priority for me since the early 1970s, I just couldn’t stay focused on the fiction I was trying to read. Out of necessity, I switched to reading the more concrete non-fiction, centered around, political, historical, Libertarian and Conservative materials. If this sounds like you as well, then quickly go on-line to http://www.theimmune.com/ and place your order for this book Hardcover Fiction.342 pages. LJS&S Publishing. $23.95 . The Immune by Doc Lucky Meisenheimer is, if nothing else, a temporary cure for “A. D. D.”. And who knows, it may bring us back to reading some fiction from time to time just for fun. With the promise of a Libertarian theme, I was motivated, as I hope you will be as well.

The first few paragraphs establish John Long as a successful doctor in the not too distant future. He has taken his “ideal woman” (Cassandra) on a Cayman Island vacation highlighted by a very romantic proposal of marriage. The author moves ahead quickly, by the middle of page two we get our first hint that Dr. Long has some libertarian leanings, as he laments, “With all of medicine’s issues, he couldn’t think of one improved by paperwork. Yet, the government’s answer to every problem was invariably another form”.

By page six, the good doctor is already postulating conspiracy theories. For the next thirty pages (the first six Chapters), the author cleverly weaves Libertarian, Conservative and Tea Party agendas into the plot development. This is the author casting a wider net over more possible readership, than he would “catch” by simply writing a very good science fiction novel, which Doc Lucky has surely done.

These Libertarian, Conservative and Tea Party ticklers include the following: Revealing how crisis are used to justify increased government power and spending. However, in life as in Dr. Meisenheimer’s writings the lion’s share of the appropriation always goes not to end the crisis but to Special Interest groups as earmarks. As one-time Obama’s Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel’s has famously said, “Never let a serious crisis go to waste”. Followed quickly by, “Every social-political cause…” is tied to the author’s crisis. There is an abrogation of the First Amendment free speech rights. The author includes the habit that power elites have of jailing members of the press for opposing their plans in print. This list would not be complete without the government declaring privately owned guns illegal and begin confiscation, along with threats to “manage” the Internet.

With the Libertarian, Conservative and Tea Party ticklers well established and in place, what follows are a few hundred pages, which will seem like half that many, filled with well-defined character development, good and evil, hated and sympathetic, human and alien. A compelling story line complete with conflict, compromise and compassion, peppered with plot twists, edge of your seat, page turning, spine tingling, narrative.

The story that unfolds as Dr. Long and Cassandra learn of a worldwide devastation that is taking place. That thousands of slow moving, lighter than air, bio-genetically created creatures named airwars have found and are filling a niche by stinging to death with long dangling multicolored tentacles and then lifting and digesting humans and other animals for food and the gasses that keep the airwars afloat. Millions suffer this fate including Dr. Long’s beloved Cassandra.

Normal defenses against these creatures are ineffective even counter productive. When killed the airwar creatures release hundreds perhaps thousands of juvenile airwars, which grow into more airwars.

A multinational organization called the Airwar Scientific Council (ASC) emerges to manage the defense efforts. It quickly expands to a shadow world government managing and controlling every aspect of life ostensibly to ameliorate damage by the airwars.

John Long and some others are immune to the airwar stings, thus the title, “The Immune.” John Long, managed by a PR guru Admiral Beckwourth, leads a cadre of these immunes named the World Immune Corps. With their immunity to the stings, they can kill airwar creatures without the release of juveniles.

Yet another plot twist reveals that an advanced, alien race (referred to as Krones) have actually created the airwars as a diversion in their plan to destroy the human race and take over the earth. The Krones elicited the support of the select group of scientist, politicians and military (the “Chosen”) in the formation of the ASC with wildly intoxicating promises of power and even immortality.

You will never know just who the good guys and who the bad guys are until the last few pages, which you will find yourself reading way sooner than you expected.

The only glaring fault I found in the book was the feeling that the Libertarian, Conservative and Tea Party agendas seem to have been an after thought added to the beginning of the book to increase sales. Nothing wrong with that, and it does not dissuade me in the slightest from recommending that you go out or go online and order the book for yourself and perhaps another as a gift.

The book is available in all major bookstores and Internet outlets as of May 13, 2011. You can even order an autographed copy through http://www.theimmune.com/. The few extra dollars that you pay for the autographed book go to the YMCA Aquatic Center in Orlando, just one of Doc Lucky’s extracurricular interests.

What is the Left Right Political Spectrum Supposed to Measure? by Chuck McGlawn 08/14/2010

What is the Left-Right Political Spectrum Supposed to Measure?

by Chuck McGlawn 08/14/2010 edited 06/08/2020

Dear Reader,

By way of introduction, I would like for you to know that I am on a quest to recapture, AND I DO MEAN RECAPTURE, the terms “Right”, “Rightist” and “Right Wing” to mean, the advocacy of less government, as the article below documents. Just as Left, Leftist, and Left Wing means the advocacy of more government. [Strangely there is not as much confusion about the meaning of Left.]

What is the Left-Right Political Spectrum Supposed to Measure?

by Chuck McGlawn 08/14/2010 edited 06/08/2020

When anyone objects to the efficacy or speak of the inadequacy of the Single-Plane Left/Right Political Spectrum, it is because they are trying to measure something that cannot be measured on a single plane spectrum, namely values, any values. Especially liberal and conservative values

A thermometer keeps you aware of the ambient temperature. The altimeter measures how high you are above sea level. The pressure gauge measures the pounds per square inch (PSI) in a compressor. A speedometer measures the speed your vehicle is traveling. All of these are examples of single plane measuring devices. All of these single-plane measuring devices have two things in common. First, each provides the user with useful information. The temperature outside so you know how to dress, the speed your car is traveling, and whether or not you are risking a speeding ticket or an accident, etc. Secondly, they provide ONLY objective information, information that is not affected by feelings or prejudice or preconceived notions. The thermometer reads 92°, there is not a place on this single plane spectrum that says, “It is getting warm”. The speedometer reads 75 MPH there is not a place on this single plane spectrum that says, “You are risking a speeding ticket”.

Conversely, when a very attractive woman enters a room, someone whispers to his friend, “A 10 if I have ever seen one”, his friend replies, “Naaa, no more than an 8.” Is either of them wrong? NO, because beauty is a subjective value, not chartable on a single plane spectrum, despite Hollywood’s attempt to the contrary with the movie “10”. Other examples of subjective values are: “He is bold.” “She is shy.” “He is gregarious.” “She is a loner.” “He is a rube.” “She is a sophisticate.” These are all subjective evaluations. The most subjective of all is, “She is liberal.” “He is conservative.” None of these values have a place on a single plane spectrum. It is simple Physics, a single person may hold both liberalists often called “leftist” and conservative often called “rightist” values at the same time, [do you know anyone that doesn’t?] but he cannot be acting to reduce the size of government and increasing the size of government with just one candidate or one issue at the same time.

It is possible, however, for one person to hold:

               Liberal Agendas

1. Favor Saving Social Security

2. Oppose a military draft

3. Favor tax-supported preschool

4. Oppose criminalization of drug use

5. Want employer-paid Family Leave      

Conservative Agendas

                        And at the same time 6. Support 2nd amendment gun rights

                                                             7. Want illegal immigration stopped

                                                             8. Want to reduce Foreign Aid

                                                             9. Want Internet sex sites blocked

                                                           10. Oppose minimum wage increases

                                                           11. Oppose same-sex marriage

12. Want to decriminalize prostitution

Using issues 1 through 6, the person is liberal on five of the six issues. Does that make him a “Leftist”? It does not, because if you evaluate this same person, using just issues 7 through 12, the person is a Conservative five of the six issues. So, does this make him a “Right-Winger? It does not.

But take a closer look reveals that every odd-numbered agenda calls for more governmental power. Additionally, every even-numbered agendas call for decreasing governmental powers.

The paramount question and solution to the prevailing confusion in the current usage of left/right is: What is the Left/Right Political Spectrum Supposed to Measure? This question is clearly answered by Murray Rothbard, in two separate articles.[And by many others that preceded and followed Rothbard.] In The Transformation of the American Right, first published in Continuum, Summer 1964, pp. 220–231. Murray Rothbard correctly observed,  

“The modern American Right began, in the 1930’s and 1940’s, as a reaction against the New Deal and the Roosevelt Revolution, and specifically as an opposition to the critical increase of statism and state intervention…” (Emphasis added)

According to Dr. Rothbard, the left/right political spectrum measures the increases in governmental power, especially the power to intervene into the daily lives of individuals and businesses.

Reinforcement of this concept is found in “Confessions of a Right-Wing Liberal” published in 1969, Rothbard further observed: “…we adopted the standard view,” (Emphasis added) let me repeat “…we adopted the Standard view”, (Emphasis added)  of the political spectrum: “left, meant socialism, or total power of the state; the further ‘right’ one went the less government one favored. Hence, we called ourselves extreme rightists." (Emphasis added) Rothbard’s  “standard view” of the left-right political Spectrum would have looked like this, I have added some of the major occupants and their relative positions on the chart. (view fullscreen)
100% government ß-----------------------------------------------------------------------------L---I --B---E--R--T--A--R--I --A-- Nà 0% government.

Left  (Totalitarian Communism Socialism Fascist Nazi)                                                                       Anarchy. Right

Note: Because different Libertarians believe in different amounts of government, we have spread Libertarianism over the right end of the chart. [There is no such thing as a left-wing Libertarian.]

Additional confirmation, farther along in the same article Rothbard said, “Originally, our historical heroes were such men as [Thomas] Jefferson, [Thomas] Paine, [John]Cobden and [Richard] Bright and [Herbert] Spencer. As our views became purer and more consistent, we eagerly embraced such near-anarchists as the voluntarist, Auberon Herbert, and the American individualist-anarchists, Lysander Spooner and Benjamin R. Tucker.”  In other words, as they became “purer” and more “consistent” in their Libertarians thinking, their heroes were chosen from men who were closer to anarchy and 0% government on the right end of the Political Spectrum, that Dr. Rothbard called the “standard view”. 

Going back to our example, when evaluated on all twelve issues our imaginary politico is liberal on six and conservative on the other six.

It would look like this:

                        These are all

Left-Wing Agendas  Liberal or Conservative

1. Favors saving Social Security Liberal

3. Favor tax-supported preschool Liberal

5. Want employer-paid family leave Liberal

7. Want illegal immigration stopped Conservative            

9. Want Internet sex sites blocked Conservative                         

11. Oppose same-sex marriage Conservative                           

These are all

Right-Wing Agendas All Libertarian

                                                                        2. Oppose military draft. Libertarian/Liberal

                                                                        4. Favor legal drugs. Libertarian/Liberal

                                                                        12 Want legal prostitution. Libertarian/Liberal

                                                                        6. Support gun rights Libertarian/Conservative

                                                                        8. Oppose Foreign Aid Libertarian/Conservative

                                                                        10. Oppose Min. Wage Libertarian/Conservative

This exact person may not exist. However, of the hundreds of issues that we face every day, it is possible, in fact likely, that one person to hold at least six liberal views and at least six conservative views at the same time. That person would not be a Leftist, he would not be a Rightist, and more importantly, this person could not even be a Centrist. Therefore, if one person can hold liberal and conservative issues at the same time then that person cannot be charted on a left/right political spectrum. Except when he is calling for more government power, [On those issues he is a right-winger] or when he is calling for more government [On those issues he is a left-winger.] 

This means the terms “Liberal and Left are no longer (as they once were) almost synonymous. This means the terms Conservative and Right are no longer (as they once were) almost synonymous.  However, it does not change the Left/Right Political Spectrum. It still measures the power of government or the degree to which government makes the decisions for individuals and businesses, or the degree to which individuals and businesses are free to make their own decisions. Just because Liberals have changed and now advocate less government on some issues does not make them left or right. Just because Conservative has changed and now advocate more government on some issues does not make them left or right.  Because of these changes, the Left/Right Political Spectrum is a more useful tool today than it ever was during the Roosevelt Administration.

Now for an eye-opening experience lets revisit the twelve issues listed above through the filter of Dr. Rothbard’s “…standard view, of the political spectrum: [where] ‘left,’ meant socialism, or total power of the state; [and where] the further ‘right’ one went the less government one favored.” You will note that every odd numbered agenda in the list, whether it was a Liberal agenda or a Conservative agenda calls for increases in governmental power, and consequently if adopted it is a move toward 100% government that is found on the left end of the Political Spectrum. Likewise, every even numbered agenda, whether it was a Liberal agenda or a Conservative agenda calls for decreases in governmental power, and happily a move toward 0% government on the Right end of the Political Spectrum

This also means that on half of the conservative issues that we are listing here the Conservatives are calling for more government, or more shockingly a move toward a communist, socialist or fascist-style totalitarian government.[Could this be a contributor to the confusion that right-wing is fascist????] Additionally with half of the liberal issues, we are listing here Liberals are calling for less government, and a move toward freedom and liberty on the right end of the political spectrum, toward “extreme rightist”. [Does this mean we incorrectly label liberals anti-liberty when they are rightist and advocates of Liberty on half of the issues???.]

It looks like this:

      Left-Wing Agendas                                               Right-Wing Agendas

         Liberal or Conservative                                          All Libertarian

1. Favors saving Social Security. Liberal                

                                                                2. Oppose a military draft. Libertarian/Liberal

3. Favor tax-supported preschool. Liberal

                                                               4. Oppose the criminalization of drugs. Libertarian/Liberal

5. Want employer-paid “Family Leave”. Liberal

                                                                6. Support gun rights. Libertarian/Conservative

7. Want illegal immigration stopped.    Conservative

                                                                8. Opposed to foreign aid. Libertarian/Conservative

9. Want internet sex sites blocked. Conservative

                                                               10.Oppose Min. wages. Libertarian/Conservative

11. Oppose same-sex marriage. Conservative   

                                                               12.Want legal prostitution. Libertarian/Liberal

This should not come as a surprise. If we were not so busy studying economics, or so deeply involved in our own special agenda, or if you were not so busy just trying to keep our head above water, if we just had the time to stop and think about it, we would have noticed a trend, that all governmental powers were at one time individual rights. If you had the right to do it then the government did not have the power to prevent it. Once the government has the power to prevent it you no longer have the right to do it. Here are some examples of it:

§        Until Feb. 3, 1913, individuals had the right to spend, save, invest or give 100%, of the money they earned, and the National Government did not have the power to take any of the money individuals earned. On that date, the 16^th amendment to the US Constitution was declared ratified. Thereafter the National Government had the power over some portion of an individual’s income, and the individual no longer had the unfettered right to spend, save, invest or give 100% of his/her income. Notice how your individual right was converted into a National Governmental power.

§        Until Jan. 16, 1920, individuals and companies had the right to manufacture, sell and transport intoxicating liquors. And the National Government did not have the power to stop individuals and companies from manufacturing, selling, and transporting intoxicating liquors. The ratification of the 18^th amendment converted the individuals and companies right to manufacture, sell, and transport intoxicating liquors into a National Governmental power to prohibit individuals and companies from manufacturing, selling and transporting intoxicating liquors. Again, an individual right becomes a National Government power.

§        Until Jan.1, 1971 cigarette companies had the right to advertise cigarettes on television and radio. And the National Government didn’t have the power to prevent cigarette companies from advertising on TV and radio. After Jan.1971, by simple legislative action cigarette companies’ right to advertise on TV and radio had been converted into a National Governmental power to dictate cigarette companies advertising privileges. (Please note, the first two examples required a Constitutional Amendment to convert the rights of the individuals or companies into powers of the National Government. However, by 1971 the American people had become so conditioned to the concept that it was government’s job to solve problems the amendment to the Constitution process was no longer necessary, and changes could be made by simple legislative action. [As of 2014 the Executive branch can simply decree changes.]

Every new power of government and the corresponding loss of an individual right is a move toward the left end of the Political Spectrum, because, at some time along that continuum all rights will be gone and the government will be all-powerful, and “Totalitarian”. That is what the left/right political spectrum was devised to track. It tracks the power of government or the degree to which government makes the decisions for individuals and businesses, or the degree to which individuals and businesses are free to make their own decisions.

Conversely, if the Liberty Movement successfully ended the IRS, then the government would lose the power over any portion of your income and you would have the right to choose how your income was to be used. If we eliminated all minimum wage laws, then the National Government would lose the power to dictate labor prices, and individuals and businesses would have the right to hire or be hired at the market price. If all national taxes that were not used by the DC Government to protect life liberty property were repealed we would have a DC Government that was functioning within it proper scope. As we successfully accomplished these individual steps, we would be moving the nation toward the right end of the spectrum. Because at some time along that continuum, [and we are not necessarily recommending it] we would arrive at Anarchy.

My slam-dunk here is when you look a little more closely at the twelve issues we covered please note, how all of the odd-numbered agendas require the initiation of force.

In conclusion, Liberals have adopted and co-opted parts of the Libertarian Platform of NOT initiating FORCE to accomplish social and political goals and Conservatives have also adopted and co-opted the other parts of the Libertarian Platform of NOT initiating FORCE to accomplish social and political goals.

But the only political party that adheres to the right-wing advocacy of less governmental power and the Philosophy of Liberty is the Libertarians.

I Believe by Chuck McGlawn 01/15/2005

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 4:19pm

     I believe that the ultimate destination for this world will be peace and prosperity. In an atmosphere of peace and prosperity, humankind is at its most creative and most productive state. I believe that less government is the road toward that destination. I believe that more responsibility is the vehicle that will get us to that destination. Additionally, I believe that the road, the vehicle, and the destination are possible only when Liberty prevails.

     I believe in America’s tradition of personal liberty, individual responsibility, respect for private property, and tolerance of others. I believe these are the time-tested traditions that have made these United States of America the greatest nation on earth. I believe these are the time-proven traditions that have made these United States of America the envy of the world, and the example to be followed by peace-loving peoples of any nation desiring to live free. I believe these traditions had us well along on the road to becoming "one people".

     Then something went wrong. We became a nation contending against itself. The last half of the 20th century saw all manner of divisions. Instead of coming together, which we had been doing very well for the first half of the 20th century, now we see black pitted against white, poor against rich, and youth against age. We even see women somehow contending against men. We see wage earners contending with welfare recipients. We now see citizens contending against immigrants and almost everyone against the Moslems. Strangely we find the Federal Government contending against US Citizens, and vice-versa.

     We seem to have lost control. "Government of the people, for the people and by the people" has, for all practical purposes vanished from our beloved Nation. No matter how we vote, the government gets bigger---more intrusive. No matter how strongly worded the candidates promised to reduce taxes, they continue to rise---and we tax more things? No matter how much more we spend education, test scores continue to drop. No matter which team is in power, the basic necessities of life get more expensive? And there is no end in sight.

     There is a better way. I believe we deserve a life of our own choosing, a life that is not micromanaged by a collection of government bureaucrats that see us as lab rats in one social experiment after another. I believe this should no longer be true, it is time to set our nation back on the road to its once recognized goals of a better life and a better world for everyone.

     I believe in you, and respect you as a competent individual. I believe you deserve more than the “one-size-fits-all” lawmaking that now prevails in the halls of Congress. Please deliver us from those government agencies that feel they can run our lives for us better than we can ourselves.

     I believe in your freedom. The freedom to live and love in your own way, I believe in your freedom to work and play in your own way. Most importantly, I believe in your freedom to dream in your own way, with the full expectation that your dreams can become a reality without government interference. All these, and much more were our clearly recognized goals just a few decades ago.

     I invite you to join in building a society that offers freedom and opportunity. I believe that without these, prosperity and peace are impossible. I believe together we can send a resounding message to all elected officials that we will not settle for anything less than a governmental system that will unleash the teachers to teach and preachers to preach, but most importantly, a system that will unleash the reachers to reach.

[I will be expecting, and; looking for your comments.]

The Primary Function of Our National Government by Chuck McGlawn

Sun, 04/03/2011 - 6:05pm, by Chuck McGlawn 07/29/2006

Wars are raging in Iraq and Afghanistan. The powder keg in the Middle East is threatening to set the world aflame. One cannot deny that US citizen security is at an all-time low. This might be the perfect time to ponder, just what was the primary function of the federal government?

Let us go to one of our basic documents the Declaration of Independence to answer this question. To paraphrase the Declaration of Independence, (which was the Mission Statement for the soon to be ratified Articles of Confederation and later the US Constitution) humankind, has the right (these are humankind’s natural rights) to LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT of HAPPINESS. The Declaration of Independence launched a whole new relationship between the people and their National Government. For the first time a National Government is created by man to secure (that is to protect) those rights of LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT of HAPPINESS. Most importantly, the Declaration of Independence stipulates that government gets it power from the governed.

Our Government is failing the citizens of the US big time. The attack on the World Trade Center was clear proof of that. While our military is off to far-away-places, with strange sounding names, involved in preemptive strikes, regime change, “democracy” spreading, setting itself up as the policemen of the world (or school-yard bully, I really cannot tell which). The job they are supposed to be doing, that being to protect our lives, our liberties and our pursuit of happiness goes unfilled.

Our Government cannot claim budgetary restrictions. In the last fifty years, the US Government has spent trillions of dollars developing an offensive military force. Much of this became obsolete before it could be used. When any fifth grader, with a proper education could tell you that our government is only empowered to develop a defensive military force.

Bring our troops home, not only from Iraq and Afghanistan, but also from the over 100 nations we now occupy. Muster-out all the troops except enough for an invincible defensive force. Half of the money required to house and pay our troops abroad returned to the taxpayer. Returning in excess of 75 Billion dollars to the taxpayers, would trigger a spending frenzy that would launch an economic upturn unprecedented in America’s history. The resulting increased Federal tax revenues returned to the taxpayers, would further fuel the skyrocketing expansion of our economy.

All of this growth would create such a shortage of labor, that US businesses would have to run full-page ads in Mexico and other Central American nations for willing laborers.

Some (just some) of the increased tax revenues accruing to State and City governments could fund State and City Police Intelligence Agencies. These agencies could then develop DEFENSIVE plans that fit the needs of the geographic area where the increased tax revenues occur. States would no longer be dependent on the failed one-size-fits-all defense measures planned by the Federal Government. The rest of the State and City tax revenues returned to taxpayers would be additional economic stimulus.

Oh, and the other half of the money being spent to house US troops abroad could be put out to private bid on National defensive weapons systems weapon systems so diverse, so cutting edge and so state of the art that another 9/11 style attack would be hugely reduced. Then, a national policy that no longer had its nose stuck into every nations business, and citizen security would be at an all time high.

The Fast-Track to Prosperity by Chuck McGlawn 03/20/2011

Thu, 03/24/2011 - 11:17am

In the US today we have approximately 160,000,000 adults, divided between men and women, divided again among 50 States, divided again between employment in the public or the private sectors, divided again between hundreds or thousands of professions, careers and duties. These millions separate themselves again by personal interest, hobbies, and different activities physical and mental. Additional diversity manifests itself by political division (Rep. Dem. Lib. Grn. ETC.) Additional diversity arises from attitudes toward each issue, (Conservative, Liberal or Libertarian).

The diversity that I have so inadequately tried to describe above does not even scratch the surface of the diversity that exists within the borders of the US. We are a nation of peoples that are so freethinking, that no two individuals have the exact same total agenda. Talk about people as snowflakes, with no two alike. Is it any wonder that with all that individuality and diversity with its accompanying multiple cross purposes that is built into our system that grass roots efforts to change or divert the bulldozer of government expansion has failed. We need a way to coral all of this individual diversity regardless of their far-flung self-interest, to somehow move in the same direction.

There are two ways to bring us this seeming impossible end. The first being, “To educate enough American voters so, that will then take an active role in legislative selection, so as to vote out the tax and spend law makers, in favor of economically conservative lawmakers.” Gentle reader that is a process that started in the 1950s. Let me ask, how that has that approach worked out for us? The answer is that, while we have been working tirelessly to reduce the size of government for sixty years, there is no indication that we have slowed the process one iota. From Liberal Presidents like Johnson, Carter, and Clinton through Moderate Presidents like Eisenhower, Ford and Daddy Bush, to Conservative Presidents like Reagan. The growth in the size and intrusiveness of government has remained unchecked. You know all about the “Continuing the same steps of the past, and expecting different results.”

The second way is IF, and it is a gigantic IF: We have been suggesting this as your mantra for the last five years.

“If we reduced the size of the Federal Government to its constitutionally limited size, it would create a vacuum in the taxing and regulating departments. (The Constitution does not grant the National Government many taxing and regulating powers.) The 50 State Governments would quickly fill these vacuums, separately. With the 50 separate States, tinkering with taxation and regulation some State would stumble onto a formula that would produce a bump upward in prosperity. Other States would see and begin to imitate the prosperous State, modifying their taxing and regulating slightly to better accommodate their unique location and their unique population which produces even better results, and so forth, and so forth, and so forth” (You have my permission to freely use that mantra, even have it printed on your business card. )

Frankly, I am not sure the second step can ever be accomplished. But, let me quickly say, it is the shorter of the only two routs toward prosperity.

Today there is no clear distinction between tax and spend Democrats. who never saw a social program they didn’t like, and the borrow and spend Republicans. who never saw a war making program that they didn’t like. Sixty years of that effort has not produced a single Administration that successfully reduced the size and reach of government. This second way is to educate enough people to somehow put the “toothpaste” of government back into the “toothpaste tube”. As impossible as that sounds, it is far easier than the first choice that we have been engaged for sixty years.

Toward being able to accomplish the second method, remember we have a road-map, to a small National Government, we have a blueprint for small National Government; we have clearly defined guidelines for a small National Government. The document to which I refer is the Declaration of Independence. Within the Declaration of Independence, in the second paragraph we have a clear description of man’s proper relationship relation to his National Government. If enough could accept this paragraph, that is just one paragraph, as the “Mission Statement” for our National Government, we could easily use that blueprint to create a National Government of a size that would fit into the Constitution.

The job of educating enough people to accept the Declaration of Independence as the Mission Statement for our National Government is infinitely smaller than trying to educate the entire voting population to choose fiscally conservative lawmakers that were not poised to bomb any nation that was causing problems in their part of the world.

In just a few paragraphs, one can show clearly, the definition of our National Government. Using the highly respected and much supported Declaration of Independence, to achieve this clarity. Direct your attention to just the first sentence of the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. This advice has been available for 233 years. A carefully thoughtful reading of that simple sentence can provide the understanding necessary to fashion a small National Government. Please remember we are only dealing with a National Government.

The Declaration of Independence says, We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness... [There is no major disagreement here, among a very large section of out population.]

What powerfully insightful words. First, it establishes that the truths are “self-evident” and confirmed by observation of natural law. Then it goes on to reveal, that man’s rights, (Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness) are “unalienable, with the dictum that these rights are granted by the Creator or nature, called natural law, or the Rule of Law, this means they cannot be taken way. Not even by the government that was soon to be created.

Looking closer, you have three and only three RIGHTS. Simply by being born you have the right to LIFE. Moreover, you have the RIGHT to do with that LIFE anything you want to do. That is LIBERTY. You have the RIGHT to plan and conduct that LIFE in a way that you think will maximize your happiness. These are all yours ostensibly without any interference from the National Government, so long as what you do does not interfere with another’s RIGHT to do what he/she wants to do with their LIFE. I make a distinction between National Government and State Government because we have a blueprint for a National Government, but not a blueprint for State Governments. State governments will be molded and modified not by a blueprint, but by “Free Market” competition. We will in effect turn our States into K-Marts and Wal-Marts competing with the other States for populations.

Next, the framers make a vitally important assertion. “That to secure these rights”, (notice here, that these are rights that we had even before we had governments to "secure" them.) “Governments are instituted among Men”. Please note exactly what is taking place here, the people of the thirteen Colonies (States) are going to engaged in a contract with our (soon to be formed) National Government to “secure” (that is to protect) our rights. It is also important to note that men make National Government, and therefore precede National Government. This means that The National Government is the agent to and servant of man, and not the reverse. A reminder is necessary here. We are talking about our National Government, State Governments are not held to this high standard. Remember the State governments were established before these criteria were laid down. Some States had State religions, other States allowed slavery. It was clear that the National Government was not brought into existence to “fix” the State Governments.

Now the framers are going to designate from where our National Government gets its just powers, and at the same time put an important limitation on that governmental power. The Declaration of Independence says, “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” There you have it. If our National Government gets its powers from the governed, it would naturally follow that man cannot create a National Government and consent to give to that government powers that man himself does not have. Let me say that again. If government gets its powers from the governed, then the government being created cannot have powers that individual man does not have.

A question or two are in order here; does man have the right to defend his own life and property? YES is the answer. Therefore, man can institute a National Government and share with that government the power to protect life and property. In fact, the ability to share these powers is the justification for a military and a judicial system.

Now, do you as an individual person, have the right to take money from others and give that money to someone else that you think needs it more? The answer is NO. Therefore, it would follow that if man does not have that right to do it as an individual, then he cannot create a National Government, and consent to give to that National Government the power to take money from others and give it to someone else that the Government thinks needs it more.

This means our National Government can have no power to extract taxes from you to educate children. Our National Government can not be empowered to educate children, no matter how badly the population may think children need educating. It means that our National Government can have no power to extract taxes from you to fund social welfare, no matter how needy the population may think some people are. It also can have no power for health care providing, business promoting, Park building. The National Government should not be involved in educational standards setting, régime changing, weather reporting, democracy spreading. The National Government should not be spending tax monies on database keeping, farmer saving, speed limit setting or toilet designing. No matter how large a budget surplus our government may have it should never spend taxes on E-Mail reading, phone tapping, corporate bailouts, or the dozens of other things that the National Government is either financing or regulating.

Let me mention just one natural result of this change. If the Declaration of Independence is adopted as the “Mission Statement” for our National Government, and if all of those broad powers, and many many more too numerous to mention, were to be removed from our National Government, would there be a need for an IRS? I think not.

By creating a National Government that is limited to the powers that individuals had before he had a National Government, would in effect divide all of that power that is exercised by our National Government among the 50 State Governments, as it was originally intended. The National Government would still have the power to maintain a DEFENSIVE military. You may be asking why I emphasized defensive? It is because DEFENSIVE is the only power YOU have to share with the National Government. The National Government would still have the power of the Judicial Branch to settle disputes between States.

This would in effect turn our States into Wal-Marts and K-Marts competing with each other for populations. The unintended consequences of this move would automatically end those dastardly “earmarks” Our National Government would not have the money (Power) to bribe or coerce States Governments into compliance with the desires of the National Government. Would we have to pass laws to stop those “Horrible” lobbyists? What would happen if you took away DCs Power Peddling? Then Corporations that had been paying the lobbyist to lobby for a corporate advantage would begin to spend that money on actual product improvement, or increase dividend payouts or paying higher wages, or perhaps a little of all three.

Right now, there are approximately 4.5 million state employees. The main concern for most of those 4.5 million is to have a job next year, that gentle reader is a formula for inefficiency. There is no real thought on the part of most of those 4.5 million State employees to deliver “Betterment” to the citizens of their respective States. There is no real eye toward efficiency in State Government. However, if States had to compete with 49 other States for populations it would convert most of those 4.5 million State employees into machines of efficiency, always seeking lower operating cost, always striving to become more efficient, always thinking of ways to deliver “betterment” to the populations of their State. The efficiency learning curve would be so steep as to astound lawmakers, and point them toward efficiency. This would turn our State lawmakers into writing and passing laws (often times repealing laws that created inefficiency) that would benefit the populations of their State. Moreover, if the lawmakers of one State were slower to move than the lawmakers of a competing State they would find their tax base dwindling. Lawmakers that were slow to move or continued to propose laws that were contrary to the wishes of the people, he would be looking for a new job after the next election. In addition, the questions about term limits would become moot.

Another unintended consequence would begin to surface would be the knowledge that the voter within a State could affect their governments through the voting process. This would make interest in governmental matters higher on an individual’s priority list, likely way ahead of knowing the scores of the last sporting event, or who the starting pitcher or quarterback will be in the big game.

PS I am very interested to know what you think about this article. Do you think it has merit. Do you have thoughts on how to recapture our liberty? If yes, please share your thoughts with us. We are specifically asking for your thoughts.