1. The Constitution:

 We have observed many examples of people (including some in government who should know better) treating the Constitution as a set of laws and rules that control citizens. Wrong! The purpose of the Constitution is to decree what the government must, may, and may not do, by making it a short list of  'enumerated powers'. Congress (the Legislature) makes the laws! That's one of the reasons the 18th amendment (alcohol prohibition) was wrong, it put restrictions on the people. The same applies to a proposed amendment for abortion. Such issues should be passed as laws at the state level, or not at all (if unconstitutional, or none of the government’s business, as is true of most things). It is the job of us citizens, and our elected 'leaders', to maintain those limits and keep the government (at ALL levels) on a short leash. The intent was, 'if it is not on the list, the government can't do it!' Many Founders, led by George Mason, balked even at this restraint. They didn't trust the government (and its power-seeking elected members) to stay within the limits, so they wouldn't support ratification until a 'Bill of Rights' (the first ten amendments) to protect the rights of the people and States was included. They were right! The Constitution has been abused to gain power for Federal politicians and their friends. Today, more than half of laws and spending are unconstitutional. Abuse of the 'implied powers', 'general welfare', and 'interstate commerce' provisions account for most deviations. A further misunderstanding is that we are a Democracy. Wrong. In a Democracy the citizens vote directly to make laws, and tyranny of the majority soon rules. We are a Constitutional Republic, where we vote for Representatives who in turn are restricted by the Constitution.

 A 'short leash' is required on government power at all levels (city, county, state, federal) because we grant them 'police powers' (legal use of force by police and military) which is easily abused. The current 'War on Terror' and 'Patriot Act' are good examples of abuse. 

2. Dave’s Core Principle:  Most elected officials take positions based on their feelings, personal preferences, and pressure from the special interest groups who give them money or votes. All of my positions are based on an objective principle, which is:  "The proper role of government is to PROTECT the personal and property rights of its citizens, as INDIVIDUALS, from violation or threat by OTHERS."  With this approach, government ownership and control is minimized, and human interaction is more peaceful and voluntary (it pays to get along!), and has a proven track record of producing more liberty, peace, prosperity, morality, and justice, proportional to the extent it is employed.  If so, why do people support 'more-government' systems known as Progressive, Liberal, or Socialist? The key is they hope to fund their projects with 'other people's money' by 'tax the rich' schemes. While popular (most people like to have others pay for their benefits), these systems use inherently immoral and coercive 'gang theft by vote' taxation, which results in declining peace, productivity, and justice, if you count all the side-effects (including robbing 'the rich' by forced payment of their so-called 'fair share'). Liberals-Progressives purposely ignore that the top 10 percent of income earners pay about 70 percent of all federal income taxes though they earn only 43 percent of all income. Isn’t that enough?? The bottom 50 percent pay only 2 percent of income taxes but earn 13 percent of total income. About half of tax filers paid no federal income tax at all. Note it is ‘dollars’ that count, not ‘percentages’! A society that broadly accepts this type of immoral funding is in decline, as shown by falling morality in all parts of US activity since the 1950s. Sad! Key points to understanding and using my Core Principle are: a) Our Federal and State governments were created by, and are still controlled by, 'we the people' to protect our rights (a short list of 'natural rights' you are born with, which does not include subsidized or free health care, education, etc.). Thus, the government is our servant, not our owner, manager, funder, or nanny. To implement this protection (enforce the laws), we grant the government 'police powers' (the right to use force), and thus we need to be ever on guard to avoid abuse, including use of laws beyond their intended purpose (RICO, FISA, etc.). For individuals, the flip side of this is; "A person should never initiate force except in self-defense", or " Persons can do whatever they want to, short of violating the equal rights of others".  In a personal (not legal) context, I suggest that each person has a moral obligation to be a beneficial presence in the world, and not offensive to others. This starts with being honest, kind, courteous and clean. Personal rights are freedom of religion, speech, etc. Some of these are listed in the Constitution, but in fact all are 'natural' at birth, and not bestowed by the government (which can only protect or abuse them; not create, except for contrived 'legislated' rights). Our Founders debated if any should be listed (to avoid exclusion of some not listed), hence they included Amendment IX. Note that only a human individual has personal rights. Notice that 1. Words like ‘manage our money, social system, and economy’, ‘mother’, and ‘police the world’ are not included in the Principle, and 2. We are not ‘created equal’ as to mind, body and circumstances, but all citizens have equal rights under the law. Property includes tangibles, and intellectual property owned by a person or legal organization (corporation, etc.). Except for government restrictions (often unconstitutional), a property right is; " The right to use and dispose of your property (use, sell, loan, lease, give, etc.) however you see fit, short of violating the equal rights of others."Property rights need to be treated as superior to personal rights in order to avoid conflicts. For example, if you enter someone’s property without permission (trespassing) and start to give a sermon, your freedom of speech and religion are not being violated if you are made to leave. b) The government needs police, courts, and military for national DEFENSE to do its job, all used within the limits of the Constitution. But note that the military must not be used to enforce or solve political or economic issues abroad, when there is no threat to our homeland (such as the Vietnam, Iraq, Afghan and Libyan wars). c) There are no group rights (by sex, race, age, etc.). Every citizen has the same rights. We should not create 'preferred minorities' with special privileges, which are easily abused. There should be no subjective versions of laws, such as a 'Hate Crimes'. Theft is theft, murder, is murder. d) Nothing can be a right if you expect someone else to pay for even part of it (such as health, education, etc.). Insurance is a method to share risks and expenses, but must be voluntary, or if run as a 'single payer' by the government, have equal benefits to all, based on terms and payments, and not include a 'welfare' aspect where some members pay less for the same coverage. For example, using property tax to pay for public schools is a rip-off of owners since there is no connection to whether the payer has kids in school (but it is convenient politically!).  e) Your body is your property. If you hurt yourself, or put yourself at risk, it is none of the government's business. Note that the Core principle above ends in 'by others'. f) The same principle of 'protection' applies to the property rights of business and other legal entities. g) As with people, the government has no authorization to be the 'owner, manager, funder, or nanny' of the 'national economy'. Free enterprise does a great job of supplying goods and services, while government interference (controls, subsidies, etc.) always do more harm than good, if all the side-effects (including inflation and depressions) are counted. h) Provision of 'essential services' conflicts with the principle of only 'protecting rights', and is a constant threat to limiting the size of government at all levels (city, county, state, and federal). This is where the federal 'General Welfare' clause is most abused. While most should be 'privatized', to the extent these projects (such as education, sewer, water, roads, public health, parks, mass transit, etc.) are unfortunately approved, they should at least be;   1. Charged to users at compensatory rates (user fees, tuition, no subsidies). Again, voluntary private charity can help the truly needy.   2. Built and operated by contractors on a competitive-bid basis. . The main reason the Federal government has become huge, and involved in running or financing so many unconstitutional state and city projects, is that unlike the States and cities, it never runs out of money, thanks to the Federal Reserve piggy-bank of fake money! i) The above Core Principle refers to 'violation or threat by OTHERS'.  The government only has a role to act when such violations or threats are imposed on someone, and they have no choice to avoid it. For example, non-smokers can avoid privately-owned places that allow smoking (bars, etc; just don't go there!), so it would be a violation of the owner's property rights to impose a non-smoking ordinance, but not City Hall (there is only one, and there are times when you are required to go there; no choice), or other government sites. However, while it is improper to use the legal system to impose your personal preferences on others (smoking, religion, zoning, etc.), there is the viable alternative of 'voluntary negotiation.'  This means you (or a group you form) approach the bar owners, or your neighbors, and try to make a deal that serves your wants and needs. Bar owners want customers; maybe they will create a non-smoking room. This applies to any situation. It is peaceful and proper, and no 'tyranny of the majority' is employed. j) The government cannot do things that are illegal or immoral if done by citizens. Sadly, unethical practices (which should be illegal) such as 'progressive' taxation ('tax the rich' at a higher rate) are justified as 'needed' and a method of charging 'fair share', while in fact it is simply 'gang-theft-by-vote'. Why not have the government rob banks, or give guns to the Red Cross and United Way, for fund raising? This violation of rights is 'tyranny of the majority' and cannot be justified because it is 'the will of the people', 'the American way', and done by the government. There are many other examples (military draft, subsidies, legislative favors, etc.). The maze of 'social engineering' laws that tell us how to live and work do much more harm than good when all the side effects (unintended consequences) are considered. My approach emphasizes liberty, personal responsibility, and limited government, which is consistent with our American heritage and Constitution, and history shows it results in maximum liberty, peace, prosperity, ethics, and justice.Look at the conditions in countries around the world with ‘big government’ (Progressive, Socialism, or Dictatorships) and judge for yourself. Start with N. Korea, Cuba, and the several '.xxstans' (former Soviet Republics). 

3. Debt, Taxes and Spending:  These demons of government abuse all tie together! One needs, or feeds, the other. The citizens lose. See my ‘Save the USA’ plan in Chapter 5 for more details. A. Debt: Domestic and foreign debts are at record levels, for both persons and businesses. With a ‘national’ (or ‘public’) debt of over $16 trillion, the U.S. government is the world’s biggest debtor (and this doesn't count the over $121 trillions of unfunded Social Security and Medicare obligations, P.36). Former Chairman Greenspan of the Federal Reserve Bank (Fed) kept interest rates artificially low (not market-driven) from 2000 to 2006 so mortgages were cheap, to ‘stimulate’ the economy. It is just like taking heroin, and has withdrawal pains when the economy gets ‘sick’ from mal-investment (too much money chasing deals). People and business borrowed and spent too much of this cheap money, and then the Fed changed policy, so in 2008 we got; 1. A credit 'crunch' (banks have less money to loan), and 2. Increased interest rates that drove-up ARM (adjustable rate) mortgages. This is what caused foreclosures as home 'owners' couldn’t meet their increased payments. Alan Greenspan (Fed Chm. from 1987 to 2006) knew he was creating this monster, but did it to keep his job by pleasing his political bosses. I say he should be indicted for malfeasance and fraud! Instead, he is treated like a sage by his accomplices in Congress and Think Tanks. Ben Bernanke (Fed Chm. from 2006 to present) has used ‘Quantitative Easing’ (Fed-speak for flooding the economy with new money) called QE-1, 2, and 3-Forever as a ‘stimulus’, but as any Austrian (see Glossary, P. 148) economist would predict, it isn’t working! The money we send abroad to buy imports comes back to buy government debt or U.S. assets (Treasury Notes, T-Bills, golf courses, part of Morgan-Stanley, etc.), but that can’t go on forever. The US Dollar (USD) is at risk of collapse due to excess creation of new money by the Fed (called ‘monetary inflation’, an increase in the money supply, like a balloon; which reduces the purchasing power of all USD). B. Taxes: Taxes divert money to the government so people and firms can’t use it to spend or invest. History shows that the government uses it unwisely, so the economy and standard of living suffer. We must reduce taxes and spending of all types, and abolish most taxes. I say start by cutting tax rates by 50% or more (the Laffer Curve says revenues might drop less). I recommend ‘user fees’ (school tuition, toll roads, some ‘public services’, etc.) whenever feasible, and a 'sales' tax (Not a ‘Value Added Tax, VAT, which hides the layers involved) to replace the ‘Big Six’ of income (personal and corporate), property, interest, capital gains, and inheritance taxes. All of these six taxes amount to a ‘penalty on success’ and targeted gang-theft, plus a double-tax for inheritance. The sales tax is non-intrusive to personal affairs, less 'progressive' (zero or less ‘penalty on success’; except that big spenders pay more), has no disincentive to work and earn, and is easy to manage. Again, Liberals-Progressives like to tax ‘the rich’ to make them pay their ‘fair share’, but purposely ignore that the top 10 percent of income earners pay about 70 percent of all federal income taxes though they earn only 43 percent of all income. Isn’t that enough?? C. Spending   The U.S. economy and dollar are in trouble, and while our DC 'Leaders' are very worried about it, but won't admit it to us regular folks. They start wars to gain control of oil and other nations instead. Federal spending is out of control. All the elected folks in DC are on a 'feel-good', 'vote-for-me' binge of unconstitutional and excess projects including wars, empire building, pork-barrel earmarks, and projects that should be handled by States, or eliminated. I say; 'Cut spending by at least 50%, or more.  

4.  911 and the War on Terror The facts and logic (means and motive) related to the 911 tragedy build a strong case that it was planned by USA and Israeli leaders to create justification for the forever ‘War on Terror’ and our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq (for starters).  Never forget that; 1) 15 of the 19 bombers who planned and executed 911 were Saudis, and 2) A group of Saudi Royals were allowed to fly out of the US on Sep. 12 even though there was a stop on all flights. Why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia and do a 'regime change' on the despotic royal family? (Hint: We already had a good oil deal with them). The Saudi Royals, old family friends of the Bushes, are hated by their people, and have paid-off their dominant Wahhabi clerics (a militant sect of Islam and operators of radical anti-American/Christian/Jew mosques and Madrasah schools worldwide; these are the guys who like to lash women because they have been raped) with oil money over the years to avoid a revolution. Ignoring Saudi Arabia is your first clue that Bush and his team had a hidden agenda for the War on Terror! 

Many well informed, well educated, and sincere people have concluded that the government at least 'facilitated' the 911 attack as a 'trigger' for their plans to invade
                           Iraq and expand 'Empire-USA'. Israeli and DC both wanted an excuse to invade Iraq and Iran. How else does one explain
                           the series of events such as; 1) FBI inputs on pilot training by Arabs were ignored, 2) NORAD planes were not launched, 3) The
                           towers and building 7 fell straight down at free-fall speed (this can only happen by controlled demolition !), plus the towers
                           were a ‘tube’ design with large vertical exterior I-beams as the main structure. These beams were cut (severed!)
                           at each floor as the towers fell; HOW??, 4) A demolition company was at the tower site the next morning to haul away debris
                           to a restricted site, then ship it overseas for scrap. (this prevented analysis of how the tower exterior I-beams were
                           cut, and was a massive violation of the crime scene), and 5) the debris and damage at the Pentagon were more consistent
                           with a missile than an airliner crash. The list of suspicious events goes on and on. A further dimension is that the WTC owner,
                           L. Silverstein, faced a huge expense in ridding the towers of asbestos, and had put a big insurance policy on the buildings
                           (with an extra-cost terrorist clause) a few months before 911. For more info, see www.scholarsfor911truth.org, and Dr. Paul Craig Roberts Sep-2011 article: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=26520. The case is not closed!! The 'official'
                           911 report is full of errors, bias, poor research, and voids. Calling the citizen investigators 'kooks'
                           working on 'conspiracy theories' will not stop discovery of the truth. This contrived justification for the disastrous War on Terror must be exposed
                           so that the War can be stopped.

 If you find it hard to believe that our leaders would lie to start a war, and allow our troops to be killed and maimed for political and economic reasons (not for defense), then review my column 'Wars, and The Lies that Start Them' (published on Sep-2007) in Appendix 2 The Bush team of ‘neocons’ (former Liberals such as Wolfowitz, Perle, Kristol, Abrams, and Feith who became ‘new conservatives’ to seek their personal goals; for more information reference the article "My Alma Mater is a Moral Cesspool" on the Counterpunch.org website) took advantage of the atmosphere of crisis generated by 911 to create the ‘War on Terror’ as a general-purpose, and forever, project to implement their plan to use force to gain control of oil and politics worldwide. The result has been an immoral, illegal and counterproductive crusade. The documented information below traces how Bush and his team got us into this mess and why it will be costly, or impossible, to correct it. All information is verifiable from multiple sources.

The purpose of Clinton’s Balkans war was; 1. To gain control of the Balkans region so we could build oil pipelines through it, 2. Build huge Camp Bondsteel as a regional supply center and airbase, and 3. To evict China from Eastern Europe and its oil, including the Caspian area. Remember the ‘accidental’ bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade? Why was NATO involved when no NATO member had been attacked? Bush’s invasion and occupation of Afghanistan was primarily to get access to build an oil/gas pipeline from Turkmenistan and  Uzbekistan to a warm water port near Karachi, Pakistan (the same reason the Russians invaded in the 1980’s; Google 'Afghanistan, Unocal'). This project had been delayed for many years but was suddenly approved in Dec-2001. On June 22, 2008, Eric Margolis, Mid East expert, and former Toronto Sun journalist (ericmargolis.com), issued the article: ‘These wars are about Oil, not Democracy‘ which tied together the various political, economic, and oil/gas issues as follows (excerpts): “PARIS -- The ugly truth behind the Iraq and Afghanistan wars finally has emerged. Four major western oil companies, Exxon Mobil, Shell, BP and Total are about to sign U.S.-brokered no-bid contracts to begin exploiting Iraq's oil fields. Saddam Hussein had kicked these firms out three decades ago when he nationalized Iraq's oil industry. The U.S.-installed Baghdad regime is welcoming them back.  Iraq is getting back the same oil companies that used to exploit it when it was a British colony.  As former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan recently admitted, the Iraq war was all about oil. The invasion was about SUV's, not democracy.  Afghanistan just signed a major deal to launch a long-planned, 1,680-km pipeline project expected to cost $8 billion. If completed, the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline (TAPI) will export gas and later oil from the Caspian basin (Turkmenistan) to Pakistan's Arabian Sea coast where tankers will transport it to the West.  The Caspian basin located under the Central Asian states of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakkstan, holds an estimated 300 trillion cubic feet of gas and 100-200 billion barrels of oil. Securing the world's last remaining known energy El Dorado is a strategic priority for the western powers.  But there are only two practical ways to get gas and oil out of land-locked Central Asia to the sea: Through Iran, or through Afghanistan to Pakistan. Iran is taboo for Washington. That leaves Pakistan, but to get there, the planned pipeline must cross western Afghanistan, including the cities of Herat and Kandahar.  PIPELINE DEAL: In 1998, the Afghan anti-Communist movement Taliban and a western oil consortium led by the U.S. firm Unocal signed a major pipeline deal. Unocal lavished money and attention on the Taliban, flew a senior delegation to Texas, and hired a minor Afghan official, Hamid Karzai.  Enter Osama bin Laden. He advised the unworldly Taliban leaders to reject the U.S. deal and got them to accept a better offer from an Argentine consortium. Washington was furious and, according to some accounts, threatened the Taliban with war. In early 2001, six or seven months before 911, Washington made the decision to invade Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban, and install a client regime that would build the energy pipelines. But Washington still kept sending money to the Taliban until four months before 911 in an effort to keep it "on side" for possible use in a war against China.  The 911 attacks, about which the Taliban knew nothing, supplied the pretext to invade Afghanistan. The initial U.S. operation had the legitimate objective of wiping out Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida. But after its 300 members fled to Pakistan, the U.S. stayed on, built bases -- which just happened to be adjacent to the planned pipeline route -- and installed former Unocal "consultant" Hamid Karzai as leader.  Washington disguised its energy geopolitics by claiming the Afghan occupation was to fight "Islamic terrorism," liberate women, build schools and promote democracy. Ironically, the Soviets made exactly the same claims when they occupied Afghanistan from 1979-1989. The Iraq cover story was weapons of mass destruction and democracy.  Work will begin on the TAPI once Taliban forces are cleared from the pipeline route by U.S., Canadian and NATO forces. As American analyst Kevin Phillips writes, the U.S. military and its allies have become an "energy protection force."  Margolis also gave us early warning with his March 2, 2003 article ‘Bush's War is Not About Democracy’, which said, in part: “Bush's war is not about democracy, weapons of mass destruction, human rights, or terrorism. It has two main motivations. First, the Manifest Destiny crowd in Washington, led by VP Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. The terrible events of 911 have seemed to produce an almost psychotic reaction in these good, patriotic Americans, transforming them into 19th century imperialists. Their intention is perfectly clear: 1) prevent any nation ever challenging U.S. global hegemony; 2) dominate oil. The aggression against Iraq is not about oil per se, it is about control of oil. Before the Iraq crisis, the U.S. imported about $18 billion of crude oil annually from the Mideast, but spent $31 billion keeping military forces there. Why? Control of Mideast oil gives the U.S. domination over Europe and Japan, which draw most of their oil from the region. Domination of the Mideast and Caspian Sea oil will assure the U.S. a permanent stranglehold over China and India, as well as Europe and Japan. The second driving force is Israel's far-right Likud government, many of whose ideas have come to dominate Bush administration policy and U.S. media commentary on the Mideast. The Clinton administration was close to Israel's moderate Labour Party; Bush's camp is totally aligned with Israel's aggressive far right and mirrors its views and policies to a remarkable, unprecedented degree. Likud and its powerful American supporters want the U.S. to crush Iraq into pieces. The principal beneficiary of the war against Iraq will be Israel. ADDED BENEFIT: From Washington's viewpoint, the TAPI deal has the added benefit of scuttling another proposed pipeline project that would have delivered Iranian gas and oil to Pakistan and India.  India's energy needs are expected to triple over the next decade. Delhi, which has its own designs on Afghanistan, is cock-a-hoop over the new pipeline plan. Russia, by contrast, is grumpy, having hoped to monopolize Central Asian energy exports.  Energy is more important than blood in our modern world. The U.S. is a great power with massive energy needs. Domination of oil is a pillar of America's world power. Let's be realistic. Afghanistan and Iraq are about oil, nothing else."  Too bad the US citizens and Congress didn’t pay more attention to Margolis’ prescient words. On May 13, 2009, Pepe Escobar wrote a fine piece tying together all the pipeline activity and war-politics in the greater Mid east with his: ‘Pipeline-Istan: Everything You Need to Know About Oil, Gas, Russia, China, Iran, Afghanistan and Obama’ (see www.alternet.org/story/139983). It shows how oil dominates all the major military and political activity there, including the USA invasions and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This again confirms that the War on Terror is mostly a false-front to justify invading and controlling greater Mid East countries (from the xxstans to N. Africa; Libya, Mali next?) to get their oil. Iraq never threatened the US and Saddam was not a cohort of Osama. As stated by former US Treasurer Paul O’Neill, Bush and his team had been planning to invade Iraq well before 911. Bush fired him for his lack of 'loyalty', as discussed in O’neill's book 'The Price of Loyalty'. For further insight on Iraq, visit the ‘A War in Search of a Reason’ column by Ivan Eland. Thus, they started building a case for preemptive war by fabricating phony reasons such as WMDs and branded Iraq as a part of 911.In his ‘Letter to the American People’ in Nov-2002 (see guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver), Osama bin Laden stated that his reasons for opposing the USA were; 1) US bases in Saudi Arabia, 2) extreme US support of Israel, 3) bombing of Iraq for ten years, since 1991, and 4) support of the corrupt Saudi royal family and sale of oil at low prices, denominated only in US dollars (Petrodollars, a deal made by FDR in 1945, and Nixon in 1973). Here is the Sept. 28, 2001 interview in which bin Laden states his was not involved with the 911 attack; ummatpublication.com/2012/11/25/ ). As shown in the Margolis quote starting on P. 50 above, Osama was our ‘friend’ until in 1999 he helped Argentina get the pipeline deal through Afghanistan, so became our enemy! By early 2011 we had decided to invade Afghanistan and ‘take’ the pipeline deal. Hence our quick invasion on Oct. 7, 2001, 26 days after 911 ! Such a major military action required many months of planning! A study done by Prof. W. Pape at the University of Chicago, and part of his book ‘Dying to Win’, shows that the primary reason driving suicide terrorists is opposition to occupying troops in their homeland (not religion), which we had done for many years in Saudi Arabia. Yet Bush pushes the fabrication that ‘they hate our way of life’ as a diversion from the truth. On Dec. 30, 2005 Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, Assistant Secretary of Treasury under Reagan, wrote, "Bush claims that his war crimes are justified because they are committed in the name of 'freedom and democracy'. The entire world rejects this excuse. Sooner or later even Bush’s remaining Republican supporters will turn away in shame from the dishonor Bush has brought to America." On Jan. 16, 2006, in his excellent essay on how our Executive branch is becoming dictatorial (http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts139.html), Dr. Roberts wrote, " It is paradoxical that American democracy is the likely casualty of a "war on terror" that is being justified in the name of the expansion of democracy."

The TRUE REASONS Bush invaded Iraq are: 1) Control of oil (a step to control the greater Mid East), 2) Defense of Israel (plus access to water, oil, and more land for them), 3) Land for permanent bases (hence they had no ‘exit strategy’; we built a huge embassy, plus four large airbases and many smaller ones), and 4) Defense of the U.S. dollar (Saddam had converted to selling oil in Euros; we reversed that the day after our invasion). Also, the Christian Right has a religious reason for insuring the special treatment of Israel, since they believe Israel must exist in order to allow the second coming of Christ. Faith-based persons of influence who favor special treatment of Israel in US policy are Bush, Tom DeLay, John Ashcroft and various church leaders from whom Bush wants support.  In Jan-2006 the sabers started rattling to justify bombing Iran, and are getting louder today in Jan-2013. The 'official' reasons may be different, but the Real Reasons will be the same as three of the above for IRAQ (oil, Israel and defense of the US Dollar). Iran has announced plans to sell oil in Euros. Israel bought 100 'bunker-buster' bombs from us in Nov-2004 (just after the election), and is ready to use them. The vast  ‘War on Terror’ was created primarily as a cover to give U.S. empire builders the authority to increase their control by meddling in the affairs of other nations worldwide (which just creates new enemies), and restrict objections at home. The ‘USA Patriot Act’ gives the government excess authority, which is easily abused. Under it, even US citizens tend to be viewed by authorities as 'guilty until proven innocent', and are at risk of being secretly spied upon, or arrested, as terror suspects if they criticize government conduct and policies. All these programs continue with no end, or net benefit, in sight.  A better solution is to stop interfering in the internal affairs of other nations so that we don’t create enemies.  As noted above, the primary cause of suicide terrorist attacks is the presence of occupying troops. We should  withdraw from our immoral, illegal, and counterproductive ventures in Afghan and Iraq, and most of our bases in over 130 countries worldwide. Bush and his team don't want to withdraw from anywhere because they want to control these places, thus control more oil (and deny it to China), and continue building an Empire worldwide. I believe in strong defense, but not costly and useless wars that can be avoided with no harm to us.  

5. How Oil, War, 911, and the US Dollar are Tied  There is a cause-and-effect connection between oil, value of the US Dollar, and 911. The two huge problems, shown in A. and B. below, were known by the Bush Team when they entered office in Jan-2001. They had a warfare plan to control oil and politics worldwide, but 911 gave them cover to get started sooner and bigger.A. Risk of Collapse of the U.S. Dollar (USD): The value of the USD is now propped-up in part by the fact that most oil sales (to any buyer) are denominated in the USD. The market value (purchasing power) of all fiat currencies (just paper; no gold or silver content or redeemability) depends on the willingness of others to use it (market demand), and hold it as savings, or for a nation, as foreign exchange reserves (typically in the form of US government bonds). All transactions are part of demand, but oil purchases are one of the largest and most visible. A major shift to use of another currency, such as the Euro, would cause a drop in USD value, and could trigger a panic to get rid of USD holdings (cash, bonds, real estate) by foreign persons and nations to avoid major loss of value (30 to 50 percent, or more). China has already started, and S. Korea has hinted. Japan could be next. These three countries are the biggest holders of USD denominated assets. A USD collapse would cause a major US depression, and affect others worldwide.  A shift to the Euro (or any other non-USD currency) by other countries for; 1) Oil purchases, 2) Investments (bonds, businesses anywhere, etc.), or 3) Foreign currency reserves, would reduce support for the USD and is a nightmare scenario for the US. In Nov-2002 Saddam converted to Euros, which we reversed just after the Mar-2003 invasion. Venezuela is threatening to convert. Iran started its own 'Bourse' trading exchange in early 2007 to compete with existing US and British exchanges, and trades in multiple currencies, including the USD, Euro, and Yen. The shift to Euros puts these countries on top of the list for intervention by the US. The CIA plot to unseat Venezuela's Pres. Chavez in Apr-2002 didn't work, but he is on notice.My Solution: The USD is vulnerable because of; 1) Excess expansion of the money supply ('Inflation', to pay government bills), and 2) Excess spending and debt by the government. Reversal of these errors will bring strength.  B. Loss of Oil and Gas Control to Russia, China and India: The oil industry agrees that within about 20 years the earth will reach 'peak oil' production. This means the wells for cheap oil (easy to reach, pump, and refine) will start producing less ('peak oil'). There will be lots of oil left (tar sands, shale, etc.), but it will be very expensive to acquire and refine. The US is competing with other countries (mostly China and India; Russia has its own) for control of the remaining cheap oil. They are traveling the world together to negotiate long term contracts (China announced one with Saudi Arabia in Jan-2006). The U.S. is invading oil producers on false pretenses to gain control. Russia's long dispute/war in Chechnya is mostly about control of oil, gas, and pipelines in the Caspian region where Russia seeks broad control. India and China face oil shortages in the future so they are cooperating in deals to gain control of oil in the MidEast, Africa and SE Asia. This threatens US availability and price of over 80% of the world's proven 'cheap' reserves. These are key reasons for the US wars in the Balkans, Afghanistan, and Iraq, and threats to Iran. The stakes could not be higher, including risk of broad and long wars, and economic depression, for all nations involved. Rather than seeking military and political control of oil-producing nations (a costly and immoral method), the US should negotiate long-term contracts for supply. Big customers have clout! This approach will also end creating enemies by meddling in the affairs of other countries.With the Iraq war not going well, Bush collaborated with the former enemy Sunnis (Cheney's Jan-2006 trip around the region) on a deal to reduce the anti-US attacks inside Iraq so the US can declare victory and get out 'with honor'. Of course the original plan was to stay forever in order to; a) Control Iraq oil, b) Use permanent bases in Iraq to control the Mid East, c) Defend Israel, and d) Keep Iraq oil sales in US Dollars.Bush’s failure to capture Osama bin Laden was no accident. Having him at large helped keep him (and now Obama) as 'War Presidents' so the above issues could be pursued as part of the forever War on Terror. The same applies to onerous checking and restrictions by the TSA on carry-on luggage for air travel, while the checked baggage is barely inspected. This keeps 'the people' on edge about terror, so they will not object to loss of liberties. The illegal and desperate measures (domestic spying, torture, etc.) taken by Bush showed his concern about avoiding new attacks on US soil, which are made even more likely by his ongoing intervention for the above issues in the Mid East.FLASH - The so-called ‘Killing of Osama’ in May-2011 by a Navy Seal raid was a staged event to boost Obama’s popularity. All insiders believe he died from kidney disease years before. The ultra-phony picture of Hillary, Gates and others watching the raid on TV was a bad joke. The quick dumping of the body at sea, and the convenient death of all the Seals in a later accident??, are two of the many other well-documented reasons to show the whole event was fake. I support a strong defense, and wars entered for valid reasons approved by Congress. In their effort to solve the above problems and gain power worldwide, I say the Bush Team operated as an Imperial Presidency, with excess use of force and secrecy, which conflicts with stated USA and  Republican principles. They are using: 1) foreign aid, intervention, and war in a plan to control the world’s politics and oil, and 2) high spending, funded by debt, to pacify the folks at home. The first version of the warfare plan was secretly issued in Sep-2000 by the ‘Project for a New American Century’ team (PNAC, a DC think tank) which started in 1997. The plan called for increased military force worldwide to promote control of oil and their special-interest politics. When Bush was elected in Nov-2000, many of the authors (including Rumsfeld, Perle, Kagan, Feith, Abrams, and Wolfowitz: Cheney was a cofounder) joined the Bush team. For details, refer to the 25Feb03 essay, ‘The Project for the New American Century’, by William Pitt and Scott Ritter (former UN Inspector for Iraq weapons). As shown by the demise of all previous empires in history, this approach never works. It is a path to military, economic, and ethical failure. Perhaps due to the bad reputation they got from the failed Iraq adventure, the PNAC gang regrouped in May-2009 as ‘The Foreign Policy Initiative’ (foreignpolicyi.org) to pursue the same war-based policies. 

6. American Independence and Sovereignty The U.S. has become entangled in a host of international agreements and memberships that threaten our sovereignty, and could oblige us to go to war to protect other nations. The UN, NATO, and International Criminal Court (ICC) are old ones, but more recently we have joined GATT, NAFTA, CAFTA, and WTO. A looming (and largely secret) threat is the North American Union (NAU), which some say would essentially merge Mexico and Canada with us (can you say oil?). It involves building a highway from Mexico to Canada, with ‘free-wheeling’ rights for Mexican trucks and drivers to operate in the U.S. We should withdraw from any deal or orgs that infringe upon the freedom or independence of the USA. A major threat is the anti-American "Law of the Sea" Treaty (LOST), or UNCLOS, was deferred again in July-2012 due to lack of votes, but the supporters keep trying. The LOST convention's purpose is to benefit Third World countries by fining and punishing the wealth and technological advantages of the industrialized West. The convention would subject our governmental, military and business operations to mandatory dispute resolution. Any disputes would be decided by the U.N. International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, a 21-member body representing 155 countries envious of American ingenuity and prosperity. The United States would have only one vote with which to protect American investment, and the transfer of sensitive, militarily useful and proprietary private technologies, and forced compliance with the Kyoto Protocol.

The LOST convention would be an open invitation to activist judges to interpret the convention's intentionally vague provisions against our national security and economic interests. In point of fact, were our Senate to approve the LOST convention, the odds are roughly 155 to 1 that the LOST tribunal would vote to cede U.S. claims to the North Pole and its oil riches to the Russians.U.S. adherence to this treaty would entail history's biggest and most unwarranted voluntary transfer of wealth AND surrender of sovereignty. LOST, which was a product of the Left/Soviet/non-aligned movement agenda of the 1960s and 1970s, created the International Seabed Authority (ISA). ISA is a new supranational organization with unprecedented powers to regulate all ‘sea’ activity! 

7. Restitution and Compensation: ‘The law of restitution is the law of gains-based recovery. It is to be contrasted with the law of compensation, which is the law of loss-based recovery. When a court orders restitution it orders the defendant to give up his gains to the claimant. When a court orders compensation it orders the defendant to compensate the claimant for his or her loss.’ These are both litigation situations. (en.wikipedia.org) When the government is the claimant and collects a fine from a lawbreaker, the money is usually kept by the government (another money grab!). I suggest that whenever feasible (the victims are living and known), the victims of the crime should receive the money as restitution or compensation, shared in proportion to the damage they suffered. 

8. Health Care  Liberals/Progressives/Socialists strive for ‘free’ government-provided health care as a right. Of course, any health care program is unconstitutional, but that means nothing to most Congresspersons and voters. 'Universal Health Care' is another attempt to get ‘the rich’, or at least ‘someone else’, to pay for everything they want. I have lived in Canada and experienced the fact that when doctor’s training, and then salaries, are paid by the government, 1. There are fewer doctors per 1,000 citizens, 2. Importation of cheaper foreign-trained doctors increases, and 3. The patient becomes ‘more work’ rather than a client they want to nurture and keep, and the level of care, caring, and courtesy declines accordingly. Most Canadians value their English roots and view the government akin to 'Mother', thus are patient with her faults, and proud (sometimes with vanity) of their traditions and Royal Family. Many view 'Americans' as relative ruffians, and self-centered , dog-eat-dog predators who don't care for each other. Hence their pride in, and patience with, their health system.  Of course, government budgets are a huge issue as to which and how much services and medicines are available, and to whom (rationing). The medical specialists and equipment for expensive services such as organ transplants are limited, and people wait for years (and sometimes die) waiting. It’s the same kind of rationed care you’ll find in nations like France and the England, where waiting lists for lifesaving procedures are sometimes years-long, and the death rates from breast and prostate cancer are twice to three times higher than in the United States. You can’t see a specialist (ear, eye, skin, etc.) without referral by a family doctor. Old people are sometimes deemed ‘not worth it’ for expensive treatments and drugs. It has been illegal in Canada to open a private ‘for fee’ clinic, since that is deemed unfair to those who can’t afford it, but that is changing. Canadian health managers now admit that their system is financially 'unsustainable' (same in France and others), and that formerly illegal 'private services' (non-government doctors who charge a fee) and private insurance will be needed to avoid collapse. Some provinces already allow certain private services, and even pay private hospitals to take care of 'public' patients. At the extreme (Russia, etc.), corruption sets in, and doctors and staff demand bribes for access to services.  In the face of all of the above, Liberals keep pushing for ‘universal health care’, and they have a friend in Obama. His plan will be announced soon, and is expected to cost billions to taxpayers, with ‘the rich’ and employers targeted for most of the cost. This source of funding is a ripoff, but upsets fewer voters. The cost of routine care has skyrocketed since Medicare and Medicaid were started. Health-care spending has increased from 5% to 16% of gross domestic product (GDP). Cost of these programs was the major reason, but part of the price increase is due to; 1. Loss of US Dollar value, 2. The 1986 'Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act' (EMTALA) rules that hospitals must give the poor free 'exam and stabilization' service in their Emergency Centers (under the extortive threat of losing their Medicare business), and these unpaid bills are added to those who do pay, 3. Excess payments for malpractice lawsuits (reform of our tort laws is needed), and 4. Collusive price-fixing (minimum rates) set by the state-level American Medical Association (AMA) chapters and their member doctors. Further, the AMA prohibits members from advertising their rates (or skills, and track record of results). If a doctor violates the AMA rules, he/she loses their license to practice, or is harassed out of business (no referrals, etc.)! The federal government would normally attack this practice under anti-trust laws for 'collusion in restraint of trade', but the AMA has political influence, and gets a pass, which we all pay for! Also, as technology and medicines improve, people are living longer, so there are more years of illness and expenses, which often require high cost intensive care and thus higher expenses for each illness. Even young and middle-aged people may incur high expenses if costly new technology and medicines are needed. Un-funded federal mandates for free emergency service at hospitals (the Feds demand compliance or threaten to drop the hospital as an 'authorized' Medicare provider; this is an extortionist violation of rights) is often abused by illegal immigrants, or those that choose to not have insurance, and this causes higher per-day rates (to make up for non-payers) for those persons and insurance firms that do pay their bills.  My  Position: I suggest a twelve-part plan aimed at getting the government OUT of patient-doctor-hospital control and funding so that positive free-market incentives guide the patients and doctors:  1) Phase-out Medicare and Medicaid as the lower costs of free-market care become available (as described below, and vouchers in item 12), and start with having higher co-pays on Medicare and Medicaid to give incentive to avoid unhealthy life styles and non-essential visits to, and treatments and tests by, the doctor, 2) Reduce costs by greater use of Physician Assistants (PAs) so a doctor’s time is not wasted on routine work the assistant can perform (including clinics run by PAs; see Item 9 below),  3) Use the FDA only to determine and disclose possible side-effects and viability of drugs, but not restrict use of them (or their potency) until there are virtually no side-effects: Let doctor judgment and CONSUMER CHOICE rule!,  4) Bring the lower price and higher quality benefits of competition, and consumer choice into health care by busting the medical pricing cartel and allowing doctors to advertise their rates (web sites ads, etc.), training and results records (see Items 2 and 9; the American Medical Assoc.-AMA- prevents this; same as ABA for lawyers) and practice as members of private, non-government sanctioned groups, rather than just the monopoly AMA; OK there are a few Osteopaths too) and state licensing boards, with all required to disclose their training and record of results,  5) Eliminate dependency on insurance provided by employers. This is a holdover from WW2 when labor was scarce, wages were limited by law, and employers used benefits to attract workers. There is no reason employers should be expected, much less required by law, to provide health insurance (see item 12 below), any more than they should provide food or clothing, to employees. It is just another way to avoid raising taxes (same as free EMTALA hospital service above),  6) Reform our tort laws to reduce excess payments for malpractice lawsuits that doctors must add to their fees. Perhaps a special court system for torts is needed (similar to bankruptcy),  7) Repeal laws that, a. Force (mandate) insurance companies to offer a long list of covered issues (let people choose the combination of coverages they want), 'community rating' and 'guaranteed issue', regardless of prexisting conditions, age, etc., and b. Limit operations to a single state. Mandating benefits is like saying to someone in the market for a new car, "If you can't afford a Cadillac loaded with options, you have to walk."  The huge price increases for insurance in MA and NY show the counterproductice results of mandates. 8) Make personal payments for health insurance (but not co-pays or non-insured items) fully tax deductible,  9) Make government medical licenses optional, so we can have a wide range of private practices and clinics, staffed by 'alternate medicine' folks, Physician Assistants, retired or part-time MDs, etc., to see patients for minor problems, including issuing prescriptions for medicine. Prices will drop as the AMA cartel gets some much-needed competition.  This new approach will foster more personal responsibility by citizens (less abuse of the system; less smoking and obesity, etc.), and will give us hospitals, clinics and private practice offices offering; 'Type A' (full service, lots of equipment and specialists), Type B (moderate skills and equipment), and Type C (low cost, run by PAs and volunteer MDs, etc.; they refer cases to Type A and B as needed). This will allow people to check-out their prices, skills and record and make a choice !!  With price competition, and no 'mandated coverage' plans, prices will drop, and health and access for all will improve.  If you prefer a government-licensed doctor, fine, go to one and pay more. I now hear rumors that the AMA lobby is pushing to require that PAs have a Ph.D. in nursing in order to offer the above services. YUK!; More restriction to protect the incumbent 'Cadillac' system and MDs. 10) Promote creation of private plans, such as: a) Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), funded by the person/owner or employer, which would pay for routine care and insurance for major illness. Deposits would be tax-deductible, and interest on them tax free. Each person would own theirs so no loss if they change jobs or retire, and b) Fixed payment plans (a monthly fee, no government subsidies) run by private clinics, under their own rules, that will take care of all 'basic' illnesses. Both approaches; a) have positive financial incentives for all parties (stingy spending, shop for rates, healthy life style, etc.), b) take the government and insurance companies out of 90% of the sessions with a doctor, and c) subscribers would buy high deductible ($10,000 to $50,000) private insurance for major illnesses. (Note; This is similar to the voucher system in Part 12 below, but privately financed),  11) Make all State and Federal elected officials and employees (in any agency or department) subject to the same health care choices as the citizens. No special plans for health or pensions!!, and 12) To the extent that government stays involved in health care, it should; a) Be run and funded by each State, with zero Federal control and funding, b) The programs should not pay doctors and control prices, but should, c) Issue quarterly vouchers (useable only for health expenses and insurance) to 'well' citizens and permanent residents (same amount to all), but not to illegal aliens, and let them shop for the privately provided services they need, including both direct payment for routine care and insurance for major illnesses, and d) To help people caught in transition from the old system, issue special vouchers to those with major 'existing conditions' that preclude their purchasing insurance, with payments continuing until the end of their illness, or death. The value of the vouchers would be owned by each person, and could be transferred; a) to their account in another State if they move, b) as a gift, or by a will upon death, to other qualified people, in any State. Having the programs funded and controlled at the State level has two benefits: a) It cannot be funded by fake money created out of thin air by the Federal Reserve, thus forcing fiscal sanity on the tax-funded program, and b) Having control distributed over fifty states reduces the size of the administrative bureaucracy each citizen must deal with, and makes States compete as to soundness (including sustainable funding) of their program. To the extent that employers stay involved they can fund a 'health savings account' that the employee would own and spend (similar to a voucher). History at firms such as Whole Foods shows that employees are stingy with their account (save for future needs) and tend to care for themselves better (more diet, exercise, etc., and less smoking, alcohol, drugs, etc.) to avoid medical expenses. Private charity (including free services by doctors and hospitals; like the old days!) will take care of the poor. This will work because with taxes and fees reduced by the above reforms there will be: a. More donations to charities, and b. Fewer people (about a 90% reduction) who can’t afford health care. In conclusion, note that none of the above suggestions depend on government rules or control of medical fees or practices. It is an ethical plan because all funding is voluntary and does not use mandatory fees, forced purchases of insurance, or coercive taxing (gang-theft-by-vote). Thus it is a fair, responsible, and sustainable plan.                                            *********For more info on health care plans, see: 1) www.pacificresearch.org. Their CEO, Sally Pipes, is from Canada and knows their problems well,2) An essay from The Independent Institute: www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=7403) A collection of articles from The Cato Institute: www.healthcare.cato.org4) ‘A Four-Step Health-Care Solution’ written by Hans-Hermann Hoppe in 1993 (http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=279)5) A list of essays on health at Downsize DC, a think tank for 'less government': http://www.downsizedc.org/bySubject/health6) An analysis of state health programs

‘The Lesson of State Health-Care Reforms’ on Oct. 6, 2009 by Peter Suderman of www.Reason.com . Go to http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703298004574455560453947646

9. Employee Unions: Unions serve a needed function when they protect members from fraud or abuse (long hours, unsafe conditions, etc.) by the employer. However, once these basic goals are met, the union managers usually try to keep or enhance their jobs (more pay and power) by seeking more concessions in the form of ever higher pay, health and pension benefits, work rules that reduce productivity, etc. As union membership declined in the 1980s, union organizers focused on government workers such as teachers, fire and policemen, prison guards, staffers, etc. (see SEIU.org and AFT.org). Refer to Stephen Greenhut’s book ‘Plunder!, How Public
Employee
Unions
are
Raiding Treasuries, Controlling
Our
Lives
and
Bankrupting
the Nation’.As noted in Issue # 10 Pensions below, “In many cases, benefits became excessive when self-serving managers ‘gave away the store’ to avoid a strike…” Thus, there is self-serving abuse by both employer and union managers that lead to excessive costs that hurt profits and growth of the employer, or cause bankruptcy, both of which cost jobs! The US steel and auto industries are examples. The solution is; 1) The government should not give or allow special privileges to unions to boost their income and membership (check-off system for dues, forced union membership when hired –union shop-, guaranteed job after strike, ‘prevailing wage’ laws, minimum wage, etc.), but 2) Should fulfill its proper role of protecting the rights of citizens (see Issue #2, P. 41), including suits by unions due to abuse of workers by employers. 

10. Employer Pensions

An employer has the option of offering a pension plan to employees or not. If offered, there should be written disclosure (dated and signed hard copy) of the rules (co-payments, benefits, age and years of service to retire, restitution of equity upon termination of employment or of the plan, disclosure of fund investments, etc.), and whether the rules can be changed or the plan terminated. Just as with an insurance policy, it is the personal responsibility of the prospective employee to read and understand the plan and decide if he/she wants to work there. In recent years many plans have been changed or terminated (sometimes as part of bankruptcy) by firms in financial trouble. The government created the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. (PBGC) to protect workers from loss of pensions. Like most government plans it doesn’t work very well. Further, it creates the perverse incentive, or ‘moral hazard’, of temping firms to take advantage of PBBC. The PBGC disclosed in its annual financial report that as of Sept. 30, 05 it had $56.5 billion in assets to cover $79.2 billion in pension liabilities. There has been an explosion in recent years in the number of big, ailing companies - especially in labor-heavy industries like airlines and steel - transferring their pension liabilities to the PBGC. With billions of dollars flying out of the agency's door, concern has been mounting over its financial footing. In many cases, benefits became excessive when self-serving managers ‘gave away the store’ to avoid a strike that would; 1) In the private sector, cause loss of profits that would hurt their next bonus, and 2) In government, cause loss of campaign donations and votes. Steve Greenhut tells the story in his book, ‘Plunder! How Public Employee Unions Are Raiding Treasuries, Controlling Our Lives And Bankrupting The Nation!’ (more on P. 126 and SEIU.org) My  Position: A company need not offer a pension plan, but if it does, the rules must be published when an employee joins, and not changed without negotiation. Anything less would be fraud, and breach of contract. The government’s only role should be to require full disclosure of the rules noted above, and ongoing disclosure to confirm that the plan is properly funded. The absence of these two forms of disclosure is what has led to the painful loss of pensions by many employees.  

11. Social SecurityThis was 20% of the FY 2011 Federal budget (started Oct-2010), thus $727 bn, and growing yearly. The present system is a welfare program for seniors, paid to them by current workers. Seniors have no equity (ownership) of the amounts they have paid-in to FICA in their working years (and contributions by their employers) and the government can stop paybacks (checks from the government) to seniors at any time. It is a devious plan and must be reformed before it fails (goes broke due to more recipients than payers) and hurts many people who are planning for it, or already dependent on it. My transition plan is to; 1) Keep the present plan in force for people age 55 or older, make paybacks proportional to amounts paid in (now immigrants get nearly full pay, with a low history of pay-ins), extend start date of payback to age 70, and grant equity ownership for pay-ins made, 2) Reduce payback amounts as needed (due to reduced program income), with five years advance notice, 3) End ‘contributions’ by employers, and 4) Allow people age 18 to 55 to join the new plan or go ‘on their own’. Either way, they will get credit/payment for their prior pay-ins, and interest. The current program is immoral because it depends on robbing the younger generation for ‘contributions’ (pay-ins) sent directly to current ‘recipients’ of paybacks (there is no ‘fund’, just bonds, –IOUs-), and is unsustainable because costs are rising while ‘contributors’ are declining in number and income.  My proposed new program below, ‘Redick’s Private Pension Plan’, is similar to the plan in Chile since the hugely successful new version started in 1981 (see; http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/pr-ja-jp.html, by José Piñera, who as Chile's Minister of Labor privatized the state pension system, is President of the International Center for Pension Reform and co-chairman of the Cato Institute's ‘Project on Social Security Privatization’; Cato.org). My Plan is optional (individuals join if they wish) where citizen contributions would be invested by private investment fund firms chosen by the citizen, and the citizen would own the account equity. Growth in value would be tax free. A government regulatory body would set some broad investment diversification rules, to avoid high-risk or politicized investments by the fund managers. The contribution amount (weekly or monthly; a percent of pretax pay, or other personal funds) would be chosen by the citizen based on his choice of retirement age. This would encourage middle-class and low income people to start an account, which they would normally view as ‘only for the rich’. This program has proven very popular in Chile (90% of workers joined!) due to the ownership aspect, which fosters personal responsibility. There are many side benefits such as increasing capital available for investment (by the pension fund firms) which reduces unemployment, plus better social and economic conditions in Chile. Go to the Cato.org link above for more details. The ‘private’ and ‘personal’ aspects of my Plan will lead to more personal responsibility in our society, including more work, saving and good relations with the family and friends who will help care for the aged. Poverty cases can be served by private charity. The attitude of ‘the government owes us everything’ and ‘it’s OK to take others people’s money to pay for my benefits’ will fade. Thus, my plan is both moral and sustainable.  

12. States’ Rights (Federalism): The 'Articles of Confederation' were considered too weak on national defense and other matters, so a convention was called to strengthen them. This evolved to writing an entire new Constitution, which was completed in 1787. At first the States were sovereign and dominate and the new nation was referred to as 'These United States'. This soon evolved to 'The United States of America' and States’ Rights kept getting weaker, especially when the federal government got control of the monetary system in 1913 with creation of the Federal Reserve System (more below). Our constitution grants enumerated powers (a list; if it’s not there, you can’t do it) to the Federal government (hereafter ‘DC’), and by the 10th amendment, all other powers to the States, or people. Over the years, Congress, the President and courts have twisted the ‘general welfare’ and ‘commerce’ clauses of the Constitution, and invented the 'implied powers' concept, to grant enormous powers to DC, including overriding existing state laws. The Founders knew it was good to have differences between states so citizens could ‘vote with their feet’ if laws and taxes got oppressive. This is why U.S. Senators were to be appointed by their state legislatures, so they would better represent the interests of the states in DC (ended by the 17 th Amendment). Part of the reason the DC involvement has grown is that they control the monetary system (run by the Federal Reserve Bank, 'Fed') and, since leaving the gold standard in 1971, can create money out of thin air! The size of the DC piggy bank is only limited by politics in the short run, and hyperinflation and bankruptcy in the long term, and this why states become dependent on DC money for education, health, police, and many other functions normally paid by the people or state. States love getting this money, and Congressmen love taking credit for them (it’s called ‘pork’ to get votes and campaign donations), but it comes with strings attached (‘You must do X or we will stop sending money for Y’). Thus, DC feels free to impose unfunded mandates such as free emergency health care, and immigrants/refugees, on the states, and activate the National Guard (originally State Militia), without the Governor’s permission. Now the Dept. of Homeland Security is sending equipment and money to local police so they can do their dirty work. The police love the new money and power! My position: Federal power and spending must be pushed back. The Fed’s have no business in education, overriding state laws, drugs, abortion, police, and a long list of other state and local issues ! The Federal government should not be involved in an issue, unless empowered by the Constitution. See Issues 29, 30, and 31 below for my positions on Nullification, Secession, and Referendum. 

13.  Privacy and Personal Liberty A. National ID Card: Support for a national ID card (with the same info imbedded in drivers licenses) is growing and must be stopped. Abuse is inevitable in this type of federal system.  B. Wiretapping: Tell your representative to protect Fourth Amendment guarantees against warrantless searches:Repeal the Protect America Act. The PAA legalizes warrantless wiretapping of U.S. residents, which the Bush Administration secretly began in 2001, and violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the Fourth Amendment. (H.R. 3773 and 3782 would repeal the PAA.) Restore the requirement for individualized warrants for wiretapping of U.S. communications and email. U.S. Intelligence agencies cannot oversee themselves. The judicial branch has a necessary role in preventing abuses of power. (H.R. 3782 would restore individualized warrants for any wiretap of U.S. calls or emails, whereas H.R. 3773 would permit the wiretapping of some international calls and emails of Americans without individual warrants.) No immunity for telecommunications companies that broke the law by permitting the government to conduct surveillance of their customers' phone and email records. To grant those companies retroactive immunity condones presidents and private industry collaborating to ransack the public trust. (Neither H.R. 3782 nor H.R. 3773 currently grants immunity, but administration allies may introduce amendments that do so.) Let the public see the text of Congress's bills BEFORE they are passed. Fourth Amendment rights to privacy are among our fundamental and inalienable rights. The specific text of any bill that may affect these rights must go before the American people for comment.  

14. Separation of Church and State

Persons of faith sometimes complain that their right to engage in religious activities is unfairly restricted. They say our Founders were Christians, so the USA is a Christian nation. Well, they were also white males; does that make us a white male nation? Solutions are usually sought in the 'Establishment Clause' of the First Amendment, or 'Freedom of Speech'. I say this is the wrong approach since these clauses are only about the government; 1) Not naming and supporting a certain religion (as had been done in Europe and some states), and 2) 'The free exercise' of the religion chosen by an individual. As shown in 'Dave's Core Principle' (item 2 above), property rights need to be superior to personal rights (such as religion) to avoid conflicts. This applies to many subjects and situations.  

My position: I recommend a property rights approach. While it is compulsory to abide by the laws of the government where you live, religion is an optional and personal choice of each individual. Laws and rights of others must not be violated in the practice of religion. Our constitution protects us from tyranny of the majority. Thus, religious groups should not attempt to mix government and religion, even when in a majority (or active minority), since it imposes (by force of law for coins, pledge), or insertion into government events and places, owned by all (schools, buildings, prayers at events) their option on others. The U.S. has complete freedom of religion so people can engage in their religion as much as they like on their own time, events, and property. However, just as it would be trespassing for a preacher to enter a private home or event to conduct a service, no religious group can use or adorn property, objects, procedures, or events owned in part by others (such as the government) without the permission of ALL owners (not just a majority), or their authorized agent. This applies to coins, the Pledge of Allegiance, public schools, non-church meetings, displays in government buildings, prayers at public meetings, even if attendance to such events or displays is optional.  A similar issue of trespassing would apply to Islamic mosques using loudspeakers for 'call to prayers' if they create unwanted noise in the neighborhood.  The noise should be stopped on the basis of violating the neighbor’s property rights ('quiet enjoyment' laws and precedents). Bush-43’s 'faith based' subsidies to religious groups are an obvious unconstitutional ploy to promote religion, and should be stopped. Further, it harms religious work by making such groups dependent on government handouts, and subject to its rules (strings attached). Religion obviously should not be part of our relations with other countries as to special treatment abroad, or with their lobbies in the U.S. (can you say Israel  and AIPAC?).

15. Education

Today’s K-12 government schools offer essentially only one flavor of education. In some districts parents can choose a school, but this offers minimal variation. They all preach 'government approved' mush that promotes government as the source of 'good and nice' things, and hide the many lies, and unconstitutional, criminal acts of the government, at all levels. Administrators have a perverse incentive to promote poorly educated kids to keep them enrolled so the state and federal money keeps coming. Our students test lower than students in European and Asian schools under similar circumstances. A big part of the difference is the poor work ethic we engender in our kids due to lack of discipline, including almost no risk of expulsion for causing trouble.  

My  position: Education of children is the responsibility of parents as to amount and type. The same benefits we enjoy from a free market in food, cars, etc. (as to variety of types, and cost) would apply if schools were all private (for profit or non-). By paying tuition, parents would instantly ‘be involved’ to be sure they were getting their money’s worth. School administrators would treat students and parents as customers who seek a good service, and can shop around for it! Good teachers would get raises the same way an engineer does (ask if you feel you deserve it, or quit and go to a competitor). They now risk loss of accrued pension benefits, but this would not apply under my plan in item 10 above. Good teachers attract customers. Parents would monitor curriculum content and teacher quality and negotiate for changes, or leave. Poor quality schools would be exposed by independent testing services or college entrance exams. This would reduce incentive for administrators to engage in grade inflation, because they would get caught. I say we should, 1) Allow creation of private nonprofit schools without government license or controls (except fraud, a proper government issue), 2) Phase-out property taxes as a source of revenue for government schools (payments have no relationship to having kids in school), and replace with tuition, 3) Terminate the federal 'No Child Left Behind' program as too costly, mostly counterproductive, and an unconstitutional violation of states rights, 4) Eliminate the federal Dept. of Education, and 5) Write tax laws that encourage donors to create scholarships and endowments to provide affordable access to these private nonprofit schools for needy students. All these changes will allow parents to choose the school that best fits their children’s needs (including religion) instead of pouring more tax dollars into the present failing system. 'Do-gooders' will complain that the above approach does not guarantee a certain level (to 9th or 12th grade?) for every child due to negligent or poor parents. They prefer equal mediocrity for all. However, history shows that incentive, parents, and liberty produce much better results than government schools, while private charity helps those in need. 

16. EnvironmentIt is important to not cause excess pollution, erosion, floods, noise, odors, or other changes to the natural state that creates hazards or violate property rights, or threats thereto. Remember, your property not only includes land, buildings, cars, etc., but also your body, thus health hazards are included.  My  position: Most problems can be handled from a property rights perspective by suing the source for restitution (not just a fine paid to the government). For example, toxic smoke, underground or surface liquid toxics that enter your body, land or other property can be litigated as property damage. Nuisance items such as odors and noise that come upon your property are the same. For non-owned items such as wild animals, protective legislation can be passed, but it is important to not violate other property and personal rights (such as farmers) in the process. 

17.  Immigration, and Border Security Problems: Having a 'Work Permit' (green card), becoming a 'permanent resident' or citizen of the US is a privilege that should include a set of rules and obligations. You must apply, be accepted, and follow the rules, or don't come. Our country was built by immigrants who came here to work, be free, adopt the USA as their new homeland, and become Americans (use our language and laws), and that is still desirable. But now, in addition to jobs and freedom, free health, education and other benefits are part of the attraction, and most immigrants (legal and illegal) have no intention of assimilating as Americans. Many citizens, legislators, and foreign governments, want to use immigration as a 'social refuge system' which allows the poor and displaced of other nations to come here and be taken care of (welfare, etc.), rather than work to cure the problems in their homeland. Thus, the Federal government deposits hundreds of Somalis, Hmong, Russian Jews, etc. in communities, without permission of the State government or community. More federal unfunded mandates, arrogance and loss of States’ Rights! Thus the US has become a ‘salad bowl’ instead of a 'melting pot' and many immigrants become a burden on our benefits system. They often replace citizens working in low-paying jobs, adding to welfare costs and cultural stress, especially for blacks. Many unskilled citizens have lost their jobs to illegal immigrants. The 'illegal aliens' (a term often replaced by 'undocumented', as if they are victims or otherwise legal) are a further risk because they bypass checks on health and criminal records.  Illegal aliens take advantage of our freedoms by getting bolder and publicly demanding 'immigrant rights' (in-state tuition to college, health/welfare benefits, free K-12 school, etc.) even though they are trespassers in our land. The Mar-2006 mass demonstrations in many US cities are a good example. They were timed to occur a week before Congress started debate on new laws. Minimum wage laws are a big part of this problem. Most laws require pay of $7 per hour or more, and many jobs don't justify this pay (i.e., employer can't make a profit), so employers look for other solutions. Cheap immigration labor is one alternative because they will work for cash at under $7 hour (this saves FICA payment for the employer also). It is said that Americans won't take the below minimum wage jobs, so immigrants are needed in order to get unskilled work done. WRONG! Americans will do the work, but minimum wage laws prevent them being offered at low rates. If the competitive market doesn't support the prices needed to cover the high minimum wage, the jobs disappear, or are secretly given to illegals. When displaced by cheap illegal immigrant workers, our unskilled citizens may just go on welfare, leading to cultural problems and higher government expenses. Illegal immigration is not the answer to achieving price reductions! Most politicians ignore illegal immigration because: 1) cheap labor is sought by their campaign donors, or 2) immigrants are likely to vote for politicians who hand out the free services (in most states it is easy to just get the ID needed to register from a trash bin). Illegal immigration is increasing because of: 1) the ease of walking over the border, 2) the corruption and restrictions that inhibit creation of jobs in their homeland, and 3) lax enforcement by the INS at the border and in the US.  The government of Mexico lobbies against US immigration reform because it wants the $20 billion dollars per year their people in the US send home (known as 'remittances'). After oil, this repatriated money is the second biggest source of income for Mexico.  The Mexican government also encourages illegal immigration because it relieves pressure to reform the government socialism and corruption that reduces job creation in Mexico. Their Ambassador refuses to use the term 'illegal' in reference to those who sneak over the border when interviewed on TV, and they published a booklet to assist illegal entry. Few people know that Mexico has many restrictions on Americans who live there. Americans cannot own property, or get citizen-style health and education benefits, such as they demand here. While the Mexican government not only requests, but claims special rights for ‘their people’ in the U.S., it is a FELONY to be an illegal immigrant in Mexico, subject to fines, imprisonment and deportation. What dishonesty and chutzpa !! What a bizarre one-way deal they are demanding!! Our proud and historic tradition as a 'melting pot' is being abused. There are lumps and islands in the pot made of people who are here illegally, or refuse to assimilate.  My  Solution:  1) Employers should be required to verify legal status of all current employees and then all new hires, of any ethnic group (hence, there would be no charges of profiling), and have the government ship the illegal persons home. Once the word is out that deporting is being done, many would leave on their own. 2) Border restrictions, and temporary resident permits, should be enforced.  Laws against harboring criminals and abetting illegal acts should be enforced. This will stop the work of bleeding-heart liberals and misguided religious folks from encouraging and performing illegal acts.3) The 14 th Amendment should be revised or interpreted, so 'birthright citizenship' does not apply to children of illegal aliens. Since the loosened rules in the Immigration Act of 1965 a flood of immigrants, then their relatives, have come to the US primarily for jobs, and benefits, and most have no intention of learning English or assimilating (i.e., becoming ‘Americans’). 4) Proficiency in English should be a requirement for citizenship. The U.S. should adopt English as an official language for all government documents and discussions, including voting info. This will reduce costs, and encourage assimilation.  Having public documents (by both business and government) issued in multiple languages, and so-called ‘multiculturalism’, creates a trend toward cultural disintegration in any country. The 2006 riots in France, Germany, Australia, and England are examples of the results. 5) Immigrants must agree to follow U.S. laws. If you want to live under Islamic 'Sharia', don't come! Religious activity, such as Islamic calls to prayer on loudspeakers which cover a neighborhood, must be treated as a violation of the neighbor's property rights. 6) The concept of 'hyphenated Americans' (such as 'Mexican-, and African-American') should be discouraged (but not made illegal), since it tends to slow assimilation and create separate sub-cultures. This hyphenation is a sign of resistance to assimilation (a desire to keep your group separate). There should be an oath (spoken, written, witnessed, and signed) upon becoming a citizen that the person will adopt the USA as their new homeland, and give it their first loyalty above their religion and former homeland.7) Enforce the fact that illegal immigrants have no 'rights' except humane treatment while they are being deported! In March-2006 there were huge demonstrations in many U.S. cities by immigrants (legal and illegal) demanding there self-made 'rights' that they claim are about the same as U.S. citizens!  One of the best solutions is to improve the legal immigration process. Excessive delays (years), and rude staff (both are typical problems in government programs), cause many otherwise honest immigrants to sneak in. 

18. Private Property and Eminent Domain Private property rights are the foundation of a just and prosperous nation. History, and the world today, shows that justice and prosperity are reduced by lack of such rights. ‘Partial Takings’ abound due to down-zoning of property by the government at all levels (Federal to city). An example is when they rule that, to maintain ‘open space’, a farmer can’t lease a patch of his ground along a road to a billboard firm. At the very least, he should be compensated for loss of income, and land value. The examples are legion. If the ‘community’ wants open-space, let them pay for it! The same logic applies for abuse of eminent domain, where ‘public use’ is applied to taking (owner is forced to sell at an appraised price) someone’s home so a business that sells to the ‘public’ can use the land for a store, condos, etc. Liberals like to take money from ‘the rich’ using ‘gang theft by vote’ to fund their projects, so it is only a small step to use eminent domain to take land! I will fight to stop this abuse. 

19. Gun Ownership: Activist groups have attempted to limit private gun ownership by citing the threat of accidents in the home and killings (single or mass) by crazed or criminal people. They attempt to eliminate damage by deviates and criminals by restricting everyone! The Dec-2012 Newtown, CT killings prompted Pres. Obama and other to seek prohibition, and other restrictions, on a long list of guns. 
My  Position: The second amendment to the Constitution is usually cited as the legal basis to own a gun, but this is related to state militias (why else mention it). In fact, gun ownership is an inherent right, the same as owning a potentially lethal device such as a car, knife or ball bat, and it is only improper use that should be subject to public concern or government regulation. Concern over gun abuse is more emotional than real. The record shows that most gun-owners are very safety conscious. Crooks do whatever they want to, and can get a gun easily! Since the 1930s the population has more than doubled, the number of guns in the US has quintupled, yet firearm accidents have been cut in half. A 2002 study in Maryland shows firearms average 0.8% of unintentional deaths in over the 18-year span. As to hazards to children in the home and family life, drownings take more lives of children under 14 than firearms by a factor of 18 over the period. Even knives, bees, and scissors take more children’s lives than firearms. More children suffocate (e.g., choke on solid food) by a factor of 16 than die from firearms. Here are some key causes of gun abuse:1. As to killings by criminals, the government’s war on drugs has created drug dealer turf wars that account for over 90% of deaths by guns in the U.S. These killers can get guns no matter what restrictions are put on purchases! 2. In some cases in the last ten years, the crazed killer may have been affected by medicines that control depression, anxiety, etc., as discussed in this link http://lewrockwell.com/rappoport/rappoport13.1.html . 3. Video games and movies often show violence and killing as part of the fun kids have. 4. Another stimulant may be to copy the immoral and illegal ‘justified’ killings that our government does when they invade nations for political (control) and economic (oil) reasons. Killing becomes viewed as ‘normal’ and ‘routine’. 5. There is a high correlation between culture and gun abuse. Chicago and DC have some of the toughest gun laws, but are on top of the abuse list. A high population of black people applies to both (and Detroit, Baltimore, New Orleans, etc.). See this link by W. Williams Ph.D. (a black man); http://lewrockwell.com/williams-w/w-williams156.html .
All the above issues and facts are ignored by the gun grabbers! In England, Canada, and Australia where gun ownership is highly restricted, burglaries and muggings (even daylight home robberies) have increased because criminals feel safe. The deterrent effect that your target person may have a gun is gone. In states where concealed-carry is allowed, muggings and armed-robberies decrease because criminals are afraid their targets may be armed. The same applies to schools where the principal or a guard may be armed. I say activists should focus on real causes and leave responsible gun owners alone. 

20.  Social Programs; Welfare and Culture

Our vast social programs, preferred minorities, and uncontrolled immigration, are destroying our culture. We are at the 'tipping point' in many areas where benefit recipients and new (often illegal) immigrants control the vote. Government has become Mother and Boss, and people become dependent and demand handouts and other special treatment as 'rights', rather than working for their own success. Ethics are in decline because one's reputation matters less when a person is shielded by Mother's laws. Law breaking and misconduct thrive. 

I want all levels of government to 'back off' and let people manage their own affairs and interaction. Private welfare and counseling (such as Red Cross, Salvation Army, Goodwill, churches, private orgs, etc.) will serve the truly needy well. Further, private groups require less than half as much money to do the job due to better efficiency, and reduced overhead, fraud and abuse. The end of the 'entitlement' attitude and laws will cause people to manage their lives better. There will be fewer self-made 'victims', and more 'responsible citizens'. Incentives rule !! Humans thrive in an environment where they are comfortable with the region's personal value system, laws, religious attitudes, etc. This gives the feeling of 'home'. A common language has a lot to do with this bonding. Today, a high percentage of immigrants (legal and illegal) have no intention of assimilating. They are only here for jobs and benefits. This will lead to strife for all. History and logic show that my 'less government intervention' approach not only yields more liberty, but more peace, justice, prosperity and better ethics. This approach rewards personal responsibility and work, and private charity cares well for the needy (and there are about 80% fewer cases due to reduced abuse, reduced perverse incentives-i.e., 'career' welfare users-, lower costs due to use of volunteers, and no 'entitlements').  The 'more government' systems, such as pushed by Progressives, Liberals, and Socialists, have the opposite effect, and do more harm than good (counting side-effects)  When people become dependent on government, they care less about support from, and relationships with, friends and family. As these relationships whither, other social problems such as crime, broken homes, and laziness grow. 

21. Gay, Ethnic, and Hate Laws There are many conflicts in the law as to what gays (homosexual persons) can do. Marriage and adoption are active now. Most churches view gay conduct as a sin (i.e., wrong even if you are not violating or threatening another's rights; see issue 2, 'Core Principle' above). Of course, those who consider it a sin (or on any subject; abortion, gambling, etc.) are free to peacefully promote their views, short of violating the rights of the so-called 'sinners', by ;1) Setting an example by their conduct, and 2) Lobbying  the government for passage of  laws to impose  their views on others by force. I  view these conflicts as examples of why the government should 'back off' and abolish laws that control our lives by favors and restrictions (i.e., social engineering). Marriage is a personal matter and none of the government's business. Favorable tax laws for married persons should be abolished. A 'marriage contract' will handle inheritance, etc., and should be used by all; gay and straight. Adoption should be controlled by the birth parents and private orgs (if parents died together, gave-up rights, etc.).  Laws giving any group special rights and preferential treatment (which creates a 'preferred minority') should be abolished also.  Such laws are easily abused by ethnic persons or groups. For example, 1. In Oct-2007, the former football coach of a major U.S. university won a $2 million judgment claiming the school fired him because of his race (black), not his 6-27 won-loss record, and 2. A minority person now feels free to park illegally (including at the front door!) of a shopping center, or post office, etc., since usually no one will challenge them for fear of a lawsuit, or being attacked! ‘Hate Crime’ laws are another example. There should be no 'special' penalties; murder is murder. All citizens should have the same rights, with no special rights or privileges for gays, or any other group, as to race, sex, economic or social status, religion, etc. (see 'Core Principle' in Issue # 2 above). People should be able to associate with (or avoid) whomever they want without fear of lawsuit for violation of special 'civil rights', and the same applies to clubs, employers, etc. as to membership, hiring, and firing (short of violating a person's legal rights). This approach leads to a just and harmonious society, where people learn to 'get along' without government coercion. Restrictions and favors do more harm than good as to improving social, and economic success of minority groups. Special rights and subsidies reduce incentive for self-improvement, and create the opportunity to abuse such rights. Intrusion in people's lives is unconstitutional and none of the government's business.   

22. The Drug War Our legal system for drugs is antiquated and distorted with hypocrisy and inconsistencies. 'Drugs' such as nicotine and caffeine (stimulants, uppers) and alcohol (a depressant, downer) are legal to use and available anywhere. They are both damaging to health, but are legal for political reasons (voter demand, campaign contributions)), and because the government wants the tax revenue. Other uppers and downers are illegal. Extracts of marijuana with proven medicinal uses are illegal, while morphine (made from otherwise illegal opium) is used by doctors for pain suppression. Why is one OK and not the other? Changes are needed. While excess use of 'sporting' drugs is a serious medical and social problem, only fools and ignorant youths do it. However, I say criminalization of such stupid activity only makes it worse (our experience with alcohol prohibition is a good comparison). Further, such use is none of the government's business unless the user violates or threatens someone else's rights (see Dave's 'Core Principle' in issue  # 2 above). The FDA and our 'War on Drugs' do much more harm than good. Users can get drugs easily even after years of the Drug War (but they cost more now), and the violent 'turf wars' of pushers and gangs, plus burglaries and muggings by users to support their habit, are worse than ever. It also corrupts police; 1) With the easy abuse of 'asset forfeiture' laws. They can be imposed as 'civil' arrests on just 'suspects'; no profit on illegal acts; they can confiscate – and own – any asset that was ‘associated’ with a ‘suspected’ crime. This includes local police taking title to, and selling (their department keeps the money!), cars, boats, planes, ranches, etc. without trial. The owner can sue for return, but this takes time and money and may not work, and 2) By the funding and excitement from SWAT Team 'combat' style attitudes and raiding equipment. My solution is to treat drugs like alcohol and nicotine (tax it and control age of buyer and offer optional control on purity of product), and handle abusers as; a) A mental and medical problem, or b) Illegal if a user threatens others, such as driving a car while high. Abuse and violence will soon subside, just as with alcohol, after the end of prohibition. The fact that many drugs are more potent than alcohol makes it even more urgent to get such business out of the hands of criminals.  

23. Energy

Problem: Energy costs and consumption are going up worldwide, while oil reserves and production (barrels per day, B/D) from exising wells are going down. The world’s daily production averaged 83 million B/D in 2004, and the USA consumed about 25% of it (with only 4% of the world’s population). Production of ‘cheap oil’ (cheap to find, pump and refine) is forecast to decline to 39 mill. B/D by 2030 while consumption increases to 118 ! This is the 'peak oil' concept, where wells in liquid oil pools start to produce less per day. The difference will have to be made up by coal, natural gas, tar-sands, shale-oil and gas (by ‘fracking’), nuclear, wind, solar, and bio-fuel, algae farms, etc., plus reduced consumption and more CONSERVATION !! Each fuel has its own economic, technical, and enviro issues. Oil has been cheap to get, and convenient to use, so has been the first choice so far. As the price of oil goes up, these alternate fuels will become more attractive, especially if renewable and/or sustainable.

Consumption by China and India is growing faster than any other country. They are shopping for long-term OIL DEALS, big time! This ties-in with why Bush invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, and Obama is threatening Iran (as I write in Jan-2013); namely to control the Greater Mid East oil producers (including Uzbekistan, other ‘xxstans’, the Caspian area, and North Africa) before other countries make deals for it. An underlyimg reason is to prevent access by China, thus limiting their growth. USA leaders want it ALL!

Solution: I recommend; 1. End the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, and engage in peaceful oil-supply negotiations with all producers worldwide (we are a big customer, and they need us!), 2. Allow eco-friendly oil drilling in all parts of the USA. Note that the Audubon Society has done this in their preserves, 3. Encourage development of alternate fuels and methods (such as electricity from new-generation engines, solar, hydro and nuclear, but no subsidies; end the counterproductive corn ethanol program), and 4. Allow gas and oil prices to rise to their free-market levels, without subsidies or control, but with appropriate anti-pollution laws based on property-rights (protect your body, water, air, and land) for those people and places at present or future risk. The past errors, distortions and fears of nuclear energy need to be updated and corrected so the new and safe methods for generation of electricity can be employed. Safer thorium could replace uranium.

 These four changes will give incentive for conservation and production of alternate energy. The free market is very good at responding to demand. Government bureaucrats always spend more and accomplish less than people using their own money, and their projects usually do more harm than good. For example, consider the politically-driven scandal of subsidies for ethanol, which is toxic, expensive, causes land misuse by excess corn production, is bad for the environment, and increases food prices, etc. BOO !  Algea farms for bio-fuel, using flooded ponds, have good potential because they; use minimal fertilizer; can use areas with bad soil; and can use saltwater. New 'external combustion' engines are more efficient, and can burn low grade fuels. For a comprehensive list of energy choices, see www.peswiki.com.

24. Traits of Capitalism and Corporations

Liberals, Socialists, and Progressives like to attack 'Capitalism' and label it as a 'social system', and 'corporations' as bastions of greed and abuse. However, Capitalism is properly defined in my 1953 and 1961 dictionaries as an 'economic system' based on private ownership and free enterprise. It is also a moral system because all conduct is voluntary. Current dictionaries have crept toward defining it as a 'social system' as Liberal editors take control; very convenient, but false. A Corporation is just a legal structure to allow shared ownership and financing. Liberals like to say that corps are a way to avoid personal responsibility. These definitions were invented by Liberals as straw men to avoid their own complicity in corrupt and unconstitutional government. It is bad 'people' (as usual; same for churches and governments), bad laws, corrupt government (including legal 'favors', subsidies, etc.), and perverse incentives that cause the trouble. Liberals avoid criticizing government because they want it to keep giving the legal favors and welfare, but only to their projects. What a pile of ignorance and hypocrisy! For example, the June 26, 2002 main editorial in the Wall Street Journal, by Dr. Henry Manne (George Mason Univ., Univ. of Chicago, etc.), made a great point that the Williams Act of 1968 (now rules 13d and 14d of the 1934 Securities Act) was the birth of the Boardroom and Officer fraud and self-dealing we have been seeing since the '80s (it took a few years to set in). The new law required takeover groups to announce their intent once they had 5 % of the target stock, which gave warning so officers could protect themselves. This allowed officers of many firms to get lazy and corrupt without risk of getting booted-out. Remember, corporations become takeover targets only because their profits, and return on assets, are low, usually due to bad management. In takeovers, the shareholders win, but bad managers lose! Thus, at-risk bad managers whine to the government for protection (can you say 'campaign donation'?). Many states have passed laws to ‘protect’ their local firms from ‘outsiders’, and the ’poison pill’ was born to fend-off the takeover groups! It wasn't long (and quite predictable) that biased 'Buddy' Directors were selected by Officers (a ‘slate’; a reverse of the proper order). The self-dealing started, and the combined 'Chairman and CEO' position was born (an inherent conflict) ! These hot-shot CEOs plundered their firms with huge salaries and stock options, while trying to set a glorious, resume-enhancing, growth record with short-term, unsustainable, profit enhancements (reduce staff, announce grand plans, etc.), and excess debt, spending and risk They often got themselves and their firms in business or legal trouble, but left with ‘golden handshakes’ or hung around a while with ‘retention bonuses’. There are hundreds of examples! Why should a low-performing, or corrupt, CEO get a multi-million dollar bonus when fired?? It is white-collar theft!

Solution: I say the solution is to repeal the Williams Act, and other distortions of the free market, not pass a slew of new regulations. Let the free market do its work; Then shareholders will wake-up and vote for honest, competent Directors that select and monitor the officers.  

25. Origins of 2008 Crash and Effect of Bailouts

The rush of home loan defaults and bank problems started in late 2007, and peaked in Sep-2008, and is continuing, but less, at this writing in Jan-2013. The underlying cause was Fake Money, as described in Chapter 3. This excess supply of money, delivered to lenders by the Fed and its pals at FreddieMac and FannieMae, was the ‘mother’s milk’ of market distortion. A trigger was the 4.25% increase (from 1% to 5,25%) in interest set by Greenspan when he ended his Fed term in Jan-2006.

A major facilitator was the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), a 1977 federal law that requires banks and thrifts to offer credit throughout their entire market area and prohibits them from targeting only wealthier neighborhoods with their services, a practice known as "redlining." The purpose of the CRA is to provide (force?) credit, including home ownership opportunities, to ‘underserved’ (unqualified?) populations and commercial loans to small businesses. OK, getting their votes may be part of it! The CRA was passed into law by the U.S. Congress in 1977 as a result of national grassroots pressure for affordable housing, and despite considerable opposition from the mainstream banking community. The CRA mandates that each banking institution be evaluated to determine if it has met the credit needs of its entire community. In 1995, as a result of interest from President Clinton's administration, the implementing regulations for the CRA were strengthened by focusing the financial regulators' attention on institutions' performance in helping to meet community credit needs. These changes were very controversial and as a result, the regulators agreed to revisit the rule after it had been fully implemented for five years. Thus in 2002, the regulators opened up the regulation for review and potential revision. The Clinton Administration's regulatory revisions with an effective starting date of January 31, 1995 were credited with substantially increasing the number and aggregate amount of loans to small businesses and to low- and moderate-income borrowers for home loans. Part of the increase in home loans was due to increased efficiency and the genesis of lenders, like Countrywide (set up as an ‘off brand’ by Bank of America), that was aggressive and did not mitigate loan risk with savings deposits (ie, borrowers must have deposits) as did traditional banks using the new subprime authorization. This is known as the secondary market for mortgage loans (high risk for banks). The revisions allowed the securitization (packaging, with insurance, and called AAA; FRAUD!!) of CRA loans containing subprime mortgages. The first public securitization of CRA loans started in 1997 by Bear Stearns, and it helped break them in Sep-2008!. The number of CRA mortgage loans increased by 39 percent between 1993 and 1998, while other loans increased by only 17 percent ( a flood of money into high risk).  In the 1980s, groups such as the activists at ACORN (‘Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now’, www.acorn.org; an Obama favorite!) began pushing charges of "redlining" - claims that banks discriminated against minorities in mortgage lending. In 1989, sympathetic members of Congress got the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act amended to force banks to collect racial data on mortgage applicants; this allowed various studies to be ginned up that seemed to validate the original accusation.  In fact, minority mortgage applications were rejected more frequently than other applications - but the overwhelming reason wasn't racial discrimination, but simply that minorities tend to have weaker finances. A study in 1992 proved that bias was not the problem. Yet the harm was done and banks loosened their rules to avoid lawsuits.  A good example is an article on the government’s takeover of Chrysler as written by Peter Schiff (see P. 124) on May 5, 2009 and quoted in part here: “…A real bankruptcy is the only solution. In it, current shareholders get wiped out, current contracts and obligations are voided, which creates the opportunity for new management, with private capital, to scrap out-of-date business practices, and produce cars cheaply and profitably. Under the guise of ‘saving jobs’, the Administration has disrupted this process.”  Illegally giving control of Chrysler and GM to the UAW and the government in 2009 enshrined a culture of failure and sealed Detroit's fate. Both companies have become government-sponsored entities, not too dissimilar from Amtrak or the Post Office, forever relying on taxpayer funds to create products of dubious quality.”  Sure enough, Detroit is now full of decay and crime. The police have given-up on serving some neighborhoods! The statist approach of Obama’s ‘government intervention and control’ will make the economic recovery worse and longer. His re-election in Nov-2012 adds to the potential amount of economic and cultural damage!

26. Occupational and Business Licenses:

Problem: Licenses are touted as a way to protect citizens from faulty or fraudulent services, but in fact usually limit choices to the citizens and give ‘cartel or monopoly’ status to the license holders. This applies to lawyers, doctors, plumbers, beauticians, restaurants, contractors, etc. where the licensing is often abused by; 1. The government, and incumbent licensees, to restrict new entrants in order to protect themselves and friends from competition, and 2. By associations (unions, medical, legal, etc.) to impose rules such as minimum fees to clients, controlled or no advertising of rates, etc. The government has threatened cancellation of a license to force ‘cooperation’, such as making phone companies give them private usage data, or radio and TV treat them ‘nice’. Another category is when the citizen is subject to, or can be threatened by, the service provider without initiating choice. An example is a truck driver or airline pilot, where one can be run into, or be in a crash, if an unqualified person is providing the service. These should be licensed to PROTECT the citizen, a proper function of government.

Solution: I recommend that licenses be optional when the citizen can initiate choice of the service provider. This would; 1. Allow individuals and firms to offer services, and set and advertise prices, without permission from the government or a 'professional society' or union (let the buyer beware, and decide), 2. Allow groups to form 'professional societies' or unions that set their own standards of quality, disclosure of member skills and performance records, and membership requirements, and advertise them, without government control, and 3. Bring the benefits of competition (better quality, lower prices) to the trade groups (yes, doctors and lawyers are a trade group). Buyers who prefer a government-licensed provider, could use one; but all buyers (patients, clients, etc.) would have a CHOICE of licensed or unlicensed. Of course, it follows that the chooser would be responsible for the results and could not sue a vendor for being incompetent if unlicensed.

27. Limits on Terms and Benefits for Congress

Problem: One cause of corruption in DC is that officials will do almost anything to keep their prestigious and profitable jobs (pork to voters; favors to campaign donors, etc.). Furthermore, they vote themselves pension, health and other benefits that far exceed what they bestow on their constituents. Examples are; a) Better pensions and health care than Social Security and Medicare, b) Their children can include student loan debt in a bankruptcy, c) Any campaign funds existing when they retire can be used by them for non-personal spending (but they often benefit). Can you say 'Privileged Upper Class'?

Solution: I recommend that: 1. No U.S. Representative may serve more than four terms (8 years), two terms (12 years) for a Senator, or a combined fourteen years if they have worked in both jobs (based on a combined life total), 2. All elected officials get the same pension (Social Security) and health (Medicare) benefits as the 'common' citizens, and with the same rules for calculating fees, and reimbursement of claims, and 3. End any other special treatment that is found.

28. Eliminate 'Earmark' Pork Funding Most Congresspersons like to 'bring home the pork' to fund state projects and win votes. These 'earmarks' are hidden, unconstitutional, add-ons to other funding bills such as transportation, and 'Omnibus Appropriations Bills' (5 or 10 funding bills combined), and are not discussed in the normal approval process, yet add-up to billions of dollars per year. Even worse, the omnibus bills are usually many hundreds of pages and few Congresspersons read any part of them! Since the government is already 'in the red', this spending is a serious add-on to our national debt problem! I will promote a bill to make earmarks and Omnibus Appropriation Bills (and sneaky 'Minibus' bills) illegal for all Congresspersons. This will eliminate cries by some voters of; 'We're not getting our share of pork'. Of course we will also fight for reductions and elimination of improper grants and subsidies. Unfortunately, in May-2009, Pres. Obama blessed earmarks by saying; ‘The local Congressperson knows best what his/her District needs.’ Another campaign pledge trashed! 

29. Nullification of Federal Laws by States: In general, nullification is refusal to enforce a law deemed unconstitutional or otherwise illegal. It originates in the concern of government becoming too strong or abusive, and ignoring the Constitution and laws. Key applications are;  1) Refusal of States to enforce Federal laws; State sovereignty over the Federal government is the basis. Recent examples are state nullifications of all, or portions of, the REAL ID Act of 2005, medical marijuana laws, Cap and Trade, and the Second Amendment restrictions 2) Refusal of a jury to enforce charges imposed by a law or the court; This relates to sovereignty of the citizens over all levels of government. On this basis, juries can refuse to impose the penalties decided upon by the court. Over the years, judges and lawyers have made it illegal, confirming the original concern; They want more power! My position is that nullification is necessary as a check on excess and immoral use of power by the government. Tom Woods Ph.D. explains it well in his book; ‘Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century’. 

30. Secession by States from the USA: The USA was created by secession of the colonies from England. The new ‘states’ were sovereign entities that created a Federal government, limited in scope by a Constitution. It was a voluntary association that could be ended by the members.Early examples of ‘creeping federal dominance’ that violate our freedoms and States’ Rights were: 1) The Civil War (actually a war of aggression by the North; the South just wanted to leave, not take-over the government) established the Federal government as superior in power to the States based on ‘might-is-right’, and 2) The Pledge of Allegiance, written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy (a socialist Baptist minister who was fired for his socialist sermons) which included the word ‘indivisible’. In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the catholic Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God', making the Pledge both a patriotic oath and a public prayer. Both terms are improper because; a) our allegiance should be to the nation (the land and people), not the government, and b) ‘under God’ violates separation of church and state (inserting religion into a text, place, etc. that is used, and owned, by all).Recent Federal mandates (Obama’s health care, ‘No Child Left Behind’, TSA, drug laws, etc., etc.) have awakened interest in secession because they violate the Constitution, States’ Rights, and our fundamental rights of self-government, and voluntary association. Groups in many States have sent secession petitions to the White House! Secession is a proper reaction to abusive and illegal acts by the federal government. As a first step, secession petitions can be a tool to alert Congress and the President to the need for changes. Opponents cite the Article 6 ‘Supremacy Clause’ in the Constitution (which can be argued only applies to laws that are Constitutional). The Swiss use their Referendum process to change laws and terminate the jobs of politicians. We should do the same. In the absence of corrections from DC, full secession can be employed (similar to referendum in #31 below).

31. Constitutional Amendments:
a. Referendum Laws : The Swiss have a system of 26 cantons which have comprised the federal state since 1848. The citizens have been very successful in controlling government abuses and excesses by use of their referendum laws which allow them to; 1) Remove legislators from office (recall), 2) Pass laws that they want but can’t get the self-serving legislators to pass, and 3) Repeal laws that they don’t like. This keeps the legislators alert to comply with the voter’s wishes, and gives voters incentive to be active (awake) in managing their country (rather than whining as ‘victims’). In the U.S., ‘States’ Rights’ would be strengthened by this approach (see #12 above), and
 b. A Balanced Budget amendment will give us a powerful tool to limit spending. Politicians will like it because they can claim; ‘We want to give you more, but our hands are tied!’

32. Abortion

Problem: There will always be abortions. The legality and conditions are what vary. Roe v Wade, and government payments in many cases, have made abortion so cheap and convenient it is often treated as a means of contraception. Carelessness and irresponsibility are rampant.  

Solution:  I am personally opposed to abortion except to protect the mother's life, and say in no case should the government pay the costs. I further oppose abortion after the first trimester (3 months is plenty of time to make up your mind), and all partial-birth abortions. However, one should not seek laws to force others to comply with one's own value system. Again, The 'Core Principle' applies (see Item 1b above). The question is. 'When does the fetus become a separate person with rights?'  Many people take the position that abortion is a moral or religious issue, and assert that ‘life begins upon conception’ and the fetus is an 'unborn child', just as they righteously assert their dogma about deities, angels, virgin births, Heaven, Hell, etc. in the absence of supporting logic or fact. These are sincere positions, but do not negate the fact that the fetus is not a separate person with rights until born. It is a living part of the mother's body, like her arm, but not a 'person' with rights.As to the law, a woman's body is her property, and does not belong to the government, her doctor, or her church. Thus, it is a woman’s right to make an informed choice on what happens to her body. In fact, for a responsible woman there are a series of three choices involved. Whether to;1) Have sex, 2) Use protection, and if pregnant,3) Deliver a baby, or have an abortion. The Roe vs Wade ruling is invalid because the Federal government has no constitutional authority in this area. Thus it is a State issue. In summary: 1. Opponents of abortion should not attempt to impose their personal views or religious beliefs on others by force of law. That would be immoral and unconstitutional. They should peacefully oppose abortion without using force or threat to the pregnant woman, or her doctors and staff and their facilities.2. Proponents should exercise their right without expecting others (including via the government) to pay for it, and they should observe the three choices above.  FLASH:  This Jan. 26, 2013 article (//coloradoindependent.com/126827/catholic-schooling )  tells us that Jeremy Stodghill, of Canon City, CO, is suing St. Thomas More Hospital there for malpractice in the 2006 death of his wife and twin unborn sons. The hospital lawyers argue that his twin boys, who were seven months in the womb, don’t qualify as people. ”, despite church directives to caregivers to “witness the sanctity of human life from the moment of conception until death” and always to “defend the unborn.”   I call this an example of ’situational ethics’ , where you change your principles as needed! 

33. End of Life Choices: Modern technology allows terminally ill people to live longer, but usually at great expense and suffering (a socially mandated form of torture). To avoid this harm, our laws and societal standards need to be revised as follows. Current law gives four choices for the patient and family; 1. Increasing pain medication (for comfort), 2.  Terminal sedation (keep the patient completely unconscious until death occurs), 3.  Withdrawing treatments and life-support, and 4. Advance authorization to doctors and family filed by the patient while healthy as a ‘living will’ and/or ‘power of attorney’. Self-inflicted, and patient-approved ‘assisted suicide’ are illegal (remember Dr. Kervorkian?), but this ignores that in a free society you own your life and body (the government and church don’t). It is none of the government’s business what you do to yourself, thus should be legal. ‘Mercy killing’ (no patient approval), is illegal due to possible misuse, but should be made legal with adequate controls. Moral and religious issues are optional personal choices. .

Part B:                 **************************

A. Recommended Authors, Books, and Sources:
1. Paul Craig Roberts, Ph.D., Economist and author of eight books and many articles on economics and politics; all non-PC, based on fact and logic, and seeking the truth. He holds a Ph.D. from the University of Virginia, and was a post-graduate at the University of California, Berkeley, and Oxford University where he was a member of Merton College. He is Chairman of the Institute for Political Economy and a Research Fellow at the Independent Institute, a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, former contributing editor for National Review, a former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury, and John M. Olin Fellow at the Institute for Political Economy and Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. See his full story at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Craig_Roberts.
2. James Quinn, is Senior Director of Strategic Planning for a major university, and author of a series of essays on world financial affairs. See: 'WHAT HAPPENED TO THE AMERICAN DREAM', Dec. 24, 2008' at http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/quinn/2008/1224.html, and 'The Law of Unintended Consequences: 20th Century and Beyond' Jan. 5, 2009. For more, go to http://seekingalpha.com/author/james-quinn , http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/quinn/2009/0218.html, and his main site; http://www.theburningplatform.com/ .  
3. Donald W. Miller, Jr., M.D. is a cardiac surgeon and Professor of Surgery at the University of Washington in Seattle. He is a member of Doctors for Disaster Preparedness and writes on politics, health and medicine. For a start, see his excellent ‘A Fourteen Point Plan for a Post-Wilsonian America‘ at  http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/miller2.html, and his archives at www.lewrockwell.com. His web site is www.donaldmiller.com, which includes his CV and bio.

4. Michael Edwards: Michael is a Principal of ActivistPost.com which publishes articles on the Internet which are compatible with the theme of this web site. See the archives there.

5. Peter Schiff is President of Euro Pacific Capital and author of ‘The Little Book of Bull Moves in Bear Markets’ and ‘Crash Proof: How to Profit from the Coming Economic Collapse’. See his http://www.europac.net/, and archives at http://www.lewrockwell.com/schiff/schiff-arch.html

6. Murray Rothbard Ph.D., Libertarian economist, Professor, and  prolific author. See 'What has the Government Done to our Money?' and  http://www.mises.org/money.asp     
7. F. A. Hayek, Nobel Laureate. See;  'Denationalisation of Money: The Argument Refined', 1976, which puts forth the case to; 1) end the government monopoly on money creation, 2) let anyone create money, and 3) let the free market determine which type of money is used.  
8. For more on money, visit  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply, http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=483,  http://www.history.com/minisites/money/viewPage?pageId=52498.
9. Rep. Ron Paul M.D. (R-TX), 'End the Fed', Sep. 2009, a direct assault on the unconsitutional secrecy of the Federal Reserve System, supported by Rep. Paul's HR-1207 which has over 250 co-signers as of Oct-09, and may soon come to a vote. Similar support is building in the Senate for SR-604, and 'The Revolution: A Manifesto', April 2008,  Republican candidate for President in 2008. Dr. Paul says we have been lied to, robbed and used by our own government; the people we elected into office, and that we should be able to trust. He offers new approaches on foreign policy (non-intervention abroad, but strong on defense at home), economic freedom, personal responsibility, and the proper role of government. 'Manifesto' made the Wall Street Journal 'Best Sellers' list in its first week in print. This speaks for the importance of Dr. Paul's message.
10. Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), 'America: The Next Chapter: Tough Questions and Straight Answers', March-08, by a collection of practical-and nonpartisan-policy prescriptions on issues as diverse as healthcare and the Middle East.  Published by HarperCollins imprint Ecco.
11. The Cato Institute: ‘Cato Handbook on Policy’ and ‘Downsizing the Federal Government’.(www.cato.org)
12. The Ludwig von Mises Institute: 1. M. Rothbard, ‘What has the Government done to our Money?' (www.mises.org), 2. Nobel Laureate F. A. Hayek's 'Denationalization of Money: The Argument Refined', 1976, which puts forth the case to; a) end the government monopoly on money creation, b) let anyone create money, and c) let the free market determine which type of money is used,  and 3. their daily essays at www.LewRockwell.com.
13. The Independent Institute: 'Resurgence of the Warfare State.'    (www.independent.org)        
14. Reason Foundation: A monthly magazine plus studies and essays on the benefits of less government, and more freedom. ( www.reason.org )
15.  'Republican Liberty Caucus': A group of Republicans that promote limited government and adherence to the Constitution. ( www.RLC.org )
16.  'Empire of Debt', a 2006 book by W. Bonner and A. Wiggins. It addresses how of excess national debt and spending can drastically reduce the value of the U.S. Dollar, and cause a major depression.
17. ‘The Blowback Triology’, three books by Chalmers Johnson (Blowback-2000, Sorrows of Empire-2004, Nemesis-2007). Johnson shows how our meddling, and expensive, foreign policy does more harm than good.
18.  'The True Believer', by Eric Hoffer, 1951, a book which shows how people join a group or mass movement (nationalist, social, political, religious, 'Global Warming', etc.) to bring a sense of security, power, righteousness, or income to themselves.
19. 'The Price of Loyalty', 2004. by Paul O'Neill, former Sec. of Treasury. This book describes the attitudes of the Bush cabal and how they discussed plans to invade Iraq long before 9-11.
20. 'The Fall of the House of Bush', by Craig Unger, 2007 (also 'House of Bush, House of Saud); A journalist, he describes; 1. The true story of how the Bush cabal schemed to control the world for religion and money, and 2. The rise and collusion of the neoconservative and christian-right influences in Republican party politics.
21. 'A Nation of Sheep', by William Lederer, 1961 (also 'The Ugly American'), is about how Americans accept abuse by the government without complaint or curiosity, as long as the 'good times roll'.
22. 'A Nation of Sheep', 2007, by Andrew Napolitano, (also 'Constitutional Chaos'), is about how Americans accept abuse by the government without complaint or curiosity, as long as the 'good times roll'.
23. ‘Index of Economic Freedom’, annual since 1994, The Heritage Foundation, charts economic success vs freedom; www.heritage.org/research/features/index/
24. 'The Israel Lobby', Mar-06, the London Review of Books, an essay by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, Professors at the University of Chicago, followed in 2007 by their book ‘Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy'. An analysis of the scandalous illegal and covert operations of Israel's U.S. lobby 'American-Israel Public Affairs Committee' (AIPAC) and how it impacts votes in Congress and election of Congresspersons.
25. 'Broken Government', 2007, by John Dean (attorney to R. Nixon). How the Bush administration has damaged the structure and functioning of government. (Also 'Worse Than Watergate', 2004; and 'Conservatives Without a Conscience', 2006; both also about misconduct by the Bush-43 team)
26. 'The Genius of Impeachment', 2006, by John Nichols. He states the threat of impeachment has worked to temper presidential excesses and to reassert democratic values in times of national drift. The book also makes clear that we sorely need such a movement today, and that both the president and vice president (Bush-Cheney) deserve impeachment.
27. 'U.S. vs Bush', 2006, by Elizabeth de la Vega. A former Federal Prosecuter, she has written a fictional case for grand jury indictment of George Bush and his gang on charges of conspiracy and fraud against the USA. It shows the grounds for impeachment.
28.  'The Great Reckoning: How the world will change in the depression of the 1990s', 1991, by J. Davidson and Lord R. Mogg. They warn of economic collapse of the USA due to overspending and Empire-style foreign policy.
29. 'Day of Reckoning: How Hubris, Ideology, and Greed Are Tearing America Apart", 2006, by Patrick Buchanan. Pat says that America is facing a crisis from which it may not survive.  He argues that the effects of mass immigration, ineffective foreign policy, an overextended military, and the worship of "free trade" are leading the country on a path of destruction. Also read other fine books by Pat, including 'The Unnecessary War', 'A Republic Not An Empire', and 'The Death of the West'.

30. 'How Would a Patriot Act? Defending American Values from a President Run Amok', 2006 by Glenn Greenwald. A constitutional lawyer, he critiques; a. The Bush administration's use, and abuse, of executive power, and b. Bushie's rampant and arrogant expansion of power while Democrats, who control Congress, do nothing to resist (they hope to inherit it!). 

31. 'Money Meltdown', 1994, by Judy Shelton. Ms. Shelton discusses some history of money, the problems of manipulation by governments, and the benefits of privately issued gold-backed currency and private banking, with no government monopoly, Federal Reserve System, or legal tender laws.

B. Older Books that Gave Warning and Good Advice. 
  1. ‘The Law’, 1850, by F. Bastiat. With his perspective of the French Revolution, he explains the fallacies of Socialism and how it must degenerate into Communism.
  2. ‘War is a Racket’, 1935, by Smedley Butler, Maj. General, US Marines. He charges that war profiteers are behind our wars and they are all crimes.
  3. ‘Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal’, 1967, by Ayn Rand. Discusses both the productive and moral aspects of Capitalism. Comments by Alan Greenspan (before he joined the Fed banksters in DC)
  4. ‘Truth and Untruth’, 1972, by Rep. Paul N. ‘Pete’ McCloskey Jr. (R, CA-11, 1967). Pete warned us about Nixon’s lies concerning Vietnam, and the broader scope of dishonesty in government. Pete was my Congressman, and I helped in his first election campaign in 1967.
  5. ‘A Time for Truth’, 1979, by William Simon. Bill warned us of the damage being caused by excess spending, taxes, and the debasement of our currency.
  6. ‘An American Renaissance’, 1979, by Rep. Jack Kemp. Jack sent an upbeat message on how less government spending and lower taxes would produce more growth, all based on his support of Austrian economics.
  7. ‘Restoring the American Dream’, 1979, by Robert Ringer. Robert warned us of a trend in the USA to expect a ‘free lunch’, and how we can reverse the trend with more personal responsibility and less government
 8. ‘Balanced Budgets, Fiscal Responsibility and the Constitution’, 1980, by R. Wagner and R. Tollison with the Cato Institute (Monograph # 1). Discusses how  government ‘stimulus’ spending does more harm than good.
  9. ‘The Supply-Side Revolution’, 1984, by Paul Craig Roberts. This is an insider’s account of how the Reagan administration pursued tax cuts rather than increased spending to boost the economy.

C. Authors and 'Info and Articles' Web Sites:  
 1. Authors: All the writings of (in alpha order): Pat Buchanan, Ivan Eland and Robert Higgs (Independent.org), James Grant (GrantsPub.com), Eric Margolis (www.ericmargolis.com), Gary North (www.garynorth.com), Cong. Ron Paul, Justin Raimondo (Antiwar.com), and Paul Craig Roberts (PaulCraigRoberts.org) and click on 'articles'. Apologies to many other good authors not shown

 2. Web Sites: See a daily flow of essays from; www.LewRockwell.com, www.Antiwar.com, www.FFF.org, www.Truthdig.com, www.VDare.com, www.Alternet.org, www.Salon.com, www.Truthout.org, www.reason.org, www.pacificreasearch.org, www.independent.org, pacificlegal.org, http://www.garynorth.com/public/department79.cfm, http://clicks.dailyreckoning.com//t/AQ/G1Q/HvA/DMQ/AQ/AWiI7Q/y8Rj, and ‘Information Clearing House’, join ICH list at     http://visitor.constantcontact.com/email.jsp?m=1101581137416 .