Where We Stand

Here at the B.S. Report we offer our opinions on a variety of subjects but, unlike the mainstream media, we won’t pretend to be fair, objective and even-handed. The fact is–we are biased. However, also unlike the mainstream media, we believe we have a moral obligation to our readers to explain our core beliefs. So, in the interest of full disclosure the following is our basic philosophy…

The B.S. Report is a place for us to comment–or even to vent. It didn’t originate as a “political” site, yet we readily acknowledge that, for the most part, it has become one. The reason for our change in direction is simple: We could no longer sit idly by and ignore the fact that the United States, as it was founded, is teetering on the brink of collapse. Frankly, to use this site for any purpose other than to help restore America’s founding principles struck us as remarkably trivial.

Look around, our economy is in shambles with trillions in debt piled high on innocent future generations; our government’s thirst for power is out of control and “unquenchable”; private property and individual liberty are under assault; and our Constitution is on life-support. We love this country BECAUSE OF ITS FOUNDING PRINCIPLES and we feel we have a duty to do our part, however small, to beat back the forces that wish to transform our nation.

First, a little bit about our politics: We are absolutely not Democrats–but nor are we Republicans as they exist today. To put it in a “nutshell,” as they say, we believe in our Founders’ ideas of limited government, private property rights, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution. We proudly refer to ourselves as “Constitutional Conservatives.” But it’s a conservatism that doesn’t reject change–-but does reject change for “change’s sake.” We believe there must be compelling deficiencies before a society willfully abandons the wisdom and time-honored traditions that have served as its bulwark for centuries.

The United States is a miracle–but it wasn’t an accident. It came about as the direct result of a defined set of philosophical, political, and religious ideals. To abandon these principles is to abandon the ideas that made this country an unparalleled success–and a magnet for all those people seeking freedom from tyranny. It is not our people but our founding principles that made America EXCEPTIONAL.

We believe in the power of the private citizen, largely unfettered by government intrusion. We believe in the concepts of “Natural Law,” “American Exceptionalism,” and the sanctity of private property; we believe in the quaint notion that “a man’s home is his castle.” We believe in “rugged individualism” and the “pioneer spirit” that not only built this country, but also allowed it to thrive and develop into the greatest nation in the history of the civilized world.

We regard it as our mission (and the duty of like-minded citizens) to help restore our fellow Americans’ belief in individual freedom–balanced by the inherent responsibilities that come with that freedom. We believe that, at present, there is an organized effort to destroy the basic tenets our republic was founded upon. We are fighting against that effort.

The United States is a nation of laws–that is to say, we are ruled by laws and not by men. We are not a Democracy–at least that’s not what the Founders intended. Our law is not based on majority rule. We were established as a Representative Republic and our rulebook is/was the Constitution.

Our Constitution was written in the plain English of the day and in most instances we know its meaning precisely. Therefore, and at the risk of being labeled “inflexible” or “lacking in nuance,” we believe that the Constitution actually means what is written in it–and not what some activist judges and politicians prefer was written in it.

We passionately support the “originalist” perspective of the Constitution because we hold that limited government and individual liberty can best be preserved by adhering to the true meaning and intent of the text. Today, however, we see all branches of government wildly out-of-control. Each has ignored its Constitutionally authorized responsibilities while instead venturing into areas far beyond the Framers’ intent.

The Executive Branch has turned despotic and now usurps Congressional powers by refusing to enforce laws dutifully passed through Congress, and by abusing its Executive Order privileges to enact unpopular laws without a vote–but by national decree. Law-making ability has also been illegally “outsourced” to hundreds of departments and “Czars” with huge budgets and insulated bureaucracies with vast powers that exist beyond the reach of the voting public–rendering election results to be less and less significant.

Meanwhile, Congress, instead of resisting this assault on Constitutional “separation of powers,” watches idly by as the Executive Branch grows ever more powerful, more lawless, and more disdainful towards the citizens it pretends to serve.

To make matters worse, Congress shirks its actual duties, as enumerated in the Constitution, choosing instead to focus on trivial matters such as which light bulbs we Americans should use or what they believe we should be eating. To force their enlightened worldview upon us, they use devious methods to pass bills that would never see the light of day if they were presented honestly. They “gin up” false calamities such as man-made global warming as a means to pass anti-capitalist, job-destroying bills designed to give themselves more power and control over both our personal behavior and our economic lives.

The Supreme Court, once held in high esteem, has all but abandoned its pretense to uphold Constitutional dictates and has become a disgrace and an embarrassment. Nine judges in robes “lord” over us as some sort of “super-legislature” whose decisions we must dutifully obey even when their edicts result in radical and sweeping societal changes–often in direct conflict with the will of the people who are left with little recourse from their legal salvos.

This omnipotent “pseudo legislature” represents a radical departure from the original vision of the Court as impartial arbiters. The Framers NEVER intended to grant judges a personal imprimatur from which they could engineer society according to their own musings. They believed in measured incremental change and wrote the Constitution as an effort to limit government–they feared handing politicians the power and ability to drastically alter the foundational underpinnings of our society.

But justices are doing exactly that–redesigning our society, often using the fiction of a “living and breathing” Constitution as their weapon of choice to bypass the written rule of law in order to achieve their legislative goals. We reject the idea of a “living and breathing” Constitution and dismiss it as a tactic used to circumvent the Constitution–not to faithfully interpret it. For the Constitution to possess any muscle at all its rules must be “fixed” and “definite.”

The Framers devised a deliberately cumbersome amendment process precisely because they were well aware that the Constitution would come under frequent attack. Their aim was to make it as difficult as possible for corrupt leaders to hijack the Constitution to serve their own selfish purposes.

Relying on judges to solve our problems ignores the obvious fact that they are people just like ourselves; no less immune from human weakness and temptation than the rest of us. Therefore, we believe it’s now become necessary to end lifetime appointments for judges and put in place mechanisms that would enable the citizenry to reverse unpopular and egregious court rulings.

Unfortunately, no written document can protect itself from an ignorant or immoral people, and a citizenry that no longer respects, understands or teaches its past is a sure sign of a nation in decline. It need not be so. America’s story is mostly glorious and should be taught and cherished instead of renounced and discredited–as it is today in so many of our public schools and institutions. So what can be done to turn the tide against these forces?

In our opinion the most reliable safeguard for ensuring individual liberty is to keep as much (non-Constitutional) power as possible out of governmental control and within the purview of the private citizen. We hold the distinctly American view that government derives its powers through the “consent of the governed” and we completely reject any “Government-Over-Man” philosophy. We abhor tyranny and find Socialism repugnant, as it smothers the spirit and initiative from its citizens and charts an inevitable course towards its more evil siblings: Marxism, Communism and Fascism.

We believe that America’s survival as a free nation with its focus on individual liberty is imperiled because we’ve abandoned our Founders’ noble attempt at limited government. As citizens, we have failed in our central obligation to reign in our elected leaders, many of whom view our Constitution not as the protector of our liberties–but as the OBSTACLE impeding their grand utopian schemes. Nonetheless, we will never surrender our freedom and we continue the fight in the hope that there are better days ahead.

We believe that government, even at its best, is not our “friend” and can never be trusted. Tyranny is always lurking and can only be resisted by an informed, virtuous citizenry determined to hold their public officials accountable to their oaths of office. History clearly illustrates that the theft of liberty is most likely to be achieved inch-by-inch by one’s own government–and not by some foreign adversary.

We hold the popular adage that “the government that governs least governs best.” We are strident in our call for “federalism” and the “separation of powers.” Our view is that government is always better, more responsive and efficient, the more local it remains. We urge that power that has been unjustly commandeered by the Federal Government be reclaimed by the separate states and we actively support such efforts.

We believe in a free-market open economy with limited regulation. We believe in Adam Smith’s economic theory of the “invisible hand.” And while some government regulation is necessary, we largely believe in the laissez-faire policies of the nineteenth century. It’s our belief that in almost any situation private solutions are superior to governmental “remedies.”

We believe in a unique American culture that must be transmitted from one generation to the next for it is vital to the survival of our nation. Unfortunately this transmission is not taking place because those in charge of our educational system, up to and including our elite universities, are actively in rebellion against our founding principles. These forces must be confronted and defeated.

We believe in tolerance but we also believe in standards. We believe it’s more important to stand for what’s right, and to do what’s right, in spite of the fact that you’re likely to hurt some people’s feelings. We believe that people’s feelings get hurt far more easily today than in days past.

We believe in a colorblind society with a legal and orderly immigration system. As a sovereign nation it’s our right to determine whom and how many we will allow into our country. And once admitted, it is the immigrant who owes his allegiance to his newly adopted homeland and bears the responsibility to assimilate.

It is they that must bend towards the ways of our country; we mustn’t change our ways to accommodate them. Our society has prospered because of our founding principles–-they cannot be sacrificed merely to make immigrants feel more comfortable.

We believe in peace through strength. Our freedom is not ensured by media talking heads, mealy-mouthed journalists, or big-mouthed bloggers like us.

We are keenly aware that the world is a dangerous place and we will always have enemies who wish to destroy us. It’s only through military power and our willingness to use force that prevents those who yearn to harm us from succeeding. It’s that simple. When we lower our guard and forget this basic truth we place our nation’s survival and our own individual welfare at risk.

We believe the United States of America, with all her faults, is a lighthouse of freedom and a force for good in an often dark world. We hold dear the grand “American Experiment” where a free people delegate certain powers to its citizen government to achieve particular ends, while always retaining the right to withdraw that power when it’s being abused.

We believe that many of our fellow citizens need to be reminded that freedom is not the default condition of mankind. Freedom is always the exception–it is an extraordinarily rare and precious commodity that must be treasured and fought for continuously or it erodes over time, or is stolen away by temporary politicians.

A free society cannot endure if its citizens are unwilling to stand up and defend freedom. Today our society and our institutions are under attack from within–yet we’ve become complacent and delude ourselves into believing that the America we cherish will forever survive. It is our hope that all freedom-loving Americans will soon understand the threat we are under and will rally together in an effort to save our nation–and protect our heritage!

Right now, our beloved nation is being “redefined” by people who don’t believe in lawful, limited government or a Constitution which sets boundaries on their power and authority. So instead of protecting individual liberty we are now treated as members of “groups.” This is not an American concept and, in fact, is totally alien and destructive to the freedom that defines our country–and it should be mightily opposed by all Americans.

Americans have always been a free people–not subservient peasants to be lorded over by government. Never in our history has the “Nation State” been more lawless and threatening than at this moment. They seek to control not just our personal wealth and assets–but our private behavior. And if this assault continues, America will no longer be a place where ordinary citizens have an opportunity to shape their own destinies by using their talents, persistence and creativity to achieve their highest ambitions.

Our future is bleak if we refuse to stand up against lawless government. For us the time is now to do our part to defend, preserve and restore the legacy of liberty that we inherited, so that we may pass freedom down to future generations. This requires a massive grassroots effort to educate (or re-educate) our citizens about freedom and our nation’s remarkable history.

We face a long, uphill struggle if we are to set America once again on her proper course—but it can be done! Remember, the United States was born by facing down, and defeating, so-called “insurmountable odds.”

Finally, we recognize that no society is guaranteed perpetual survival. With that in mind, we salute America’s true heroes–those men and women serving us in all branches of our armed forces. They are the guardians of liberty who have volunteered to protect our nation and serve as our first line of defense. In the end, they are the individuals responsible for our comfortable lifestyles and for the preservation and continuation of our great way of life. It is to them that we owe our thanks, our allegiance, and our never-ending gratitude.


  1. Amen, brotha!

    Just wandered upon this site. Informative and witty. Blogrolled you.

    The Jewish Republican’s Web Sanctuary

    • dana thompson

      Go do what Jon Stewart (The Daily Show) told you to do and then shut the hell up you dirty, dirty racist racists.

      • I do not know what Dana Thompson was reading when this site was called “dirty, dirty, racists, racists.” This person needs to re-read paragraphs 12 and 13. Although the Jon Stewart reference leads me to discern this persons true leanings and their inability to respect the freedom of speech we are guaranteed in the Constitution

  2. Dick Goldberg

    I completely agree with you. We need to arm ourselves and kill off all of those who threaten our way of life, from the gays to obama to the socialists at the post office.

    • Wait a second…don’t say you agree with me. You sound unhinged and hateful. I am absolutely not for the killing of gays or socialists, or anyone that hasn’t committed a capital crime–what I’m for is killing off ideas that, in my opinion, threaten the future of our nation. I have gay friends and acquaintances who are well aware that I don’t support gay marriage or gay adoption (as a first recourse) because I think that it does harm to the social fabric of the country. We disagree on that point but they understand that I’m not questioning any gay person’s individual humanity or their equal value as people.

      I’m not for abolishing government–I’m not an anarchist! I believe in the Constitution because I recognize the need for the limited government our Founders and Framers espoused. By today’s standards that makes me a right-winger–but I’m no more a radical than our Founders would be today. Those of us that cling desperately to First Principles appear radical because much of the country has either moved away from those principles or they are simply ignorant of them. The truth is that they are the radicals; they are the ones that have “radically” departed from the original vision of the United States.

      The success of the United States was a product of the Founders’ ideas–it did not happen by accident. As we depart from limited government, individualism, and private property rights we will become no different than the Socialist countries of the world. Obviously, nearly half of our country thinks that would be an improvement. I think that would be a disaster and would proclaim the end of our country as we know it. That, I believe would be a tragedy not just for those of us who live here–but for the entire world that would no longer have that one bastion of freedom to flee to.

      • cherry blosbabb

        you obviously dont have gay friends if you tell them straight up that you think their way of life is fucked. the constitution is fucked, stupid old white men made it, not god. god obviously thinks your fucked too. tell me how painful your death is….

      • Cherry,

        You’re very articulate…thanks for the comment.

    • People who think like Dick (head) should be left on one of those melting ice floats to drift into history along with slavery & segragation. We need to think like Americans first! It’s people like this that make things worse for those of us who want our country to be strong and prosperous again.

  3. Dick is right, and deep down, you and all other God-fearing Americans agree with him. Go out and buy as many guns as you can before the gay commies in the government try to take that right away from you too. You know its coming, all you can do is pray and prepare. Personally, I’m looking forward to the final confrontation.

  4. I have been looking for a forum to discuss what I label Modern American Conservative (MAC) values as opposed to the dictionary definition of conservative or the neocons as emulated by many Republican in Congress today. Basically it would be similar views held by our Founders who incorporated those views into the U.S. Constitution.

    I would hope that such discussion would not demean or bash any group by virtue of their gender, race, age, nationality, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, but I would hope that issues related to all could be discussed rationally and constructively.

    Is this such a place where that could be done?

    • Linda,
      We welcome all constructive comments on this site. We don’t believe in groups, we believe in individuals. Therefore, we don’t demean or bash groups–we do, however, bash positions. We believe in America’s traditional values–i.e., those values held by the Founders and written in the Declaration, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and Washington’s Farewell address. There is room for thoughtful disagreement on any issue but it must be reasoned and not just gratuitous ideological hatred like we see on so many other sites.

      You will see a lot of Obama bashing on this site–but, for the most part, it is not the man himself, it is his positions. He may be a wonderful guy personally (though I doubt it), but it is our view that he is the most dangerous president this country has ever had. It has nothing to do with his race and everything to do with his ideology. He has a disdain for America’s traditions and he couldn’t care less about the Founders, the Constitution, and the oath he swore to uphold it. There are, on occasion, jokes on this site, but, we don’t like it to cross too far over the line into a mean-spirited personal attack. We may fail that test on occasion–you’ll judge for yourself. We are not cheerleaders for either party on this site. We attack the Democrats far more because they are the ones causing the most harm. But we have no love affair with Republicans.

      President Obama’s goal is to change this country in a very fundamental and, in our view, a dangerous way. It is the duty of all Americans to fight back against him, and against all politicians, both Democratic and Republican, that work to undermine our basic freedoms and the values and traditions that made this country successful. We are Constitutional Conservatives and it is our goal to persuade our fellow citizens to follow that path and coerce our politicians to adhere to the Constitution and limited government. We appreciate your comments and we thank you so much for writing.

  5. Ha ha. This is just a Republican website.

    • Sheryl,
      It’s the sad state of today’s Democratic Party, and individual democrats like yourself, that you think that anyone that wishes to adhere to the principles of the Declaration and the Constitution just has to be a Republican. The fact is, we’re not necessarily Republicans, however, we are Conservatives who believe in the founding tenets of this country. I’m only sorry there are so many people like you that don’t. Anyway, thanks for writing.

  6. Robert Perker

    If I could rub the genies bottle and make a wish, it would be that all Americans could be brought to see that conservatism is the path to continued greatness. I wish nothing but success for all my fellow Americans. I am against all ideas that would lead to our demise as the glowing beacon of freedom in the world. I am totally baffled by our national media that wants to portray us as a flawed society in need of a total makeover. Where did they get that idea? I am guilty as well as most of my pears, for the state of our universities and even our high schools. Why in the world didn’t we make a fuss over liberal teachings going on for the last 40 years? We knew it was happening. We will now pay the price for our silence. My children couldn’t bother themselves enough to learn about our Presidential candidates so as to make a reasoned selection. I found totally fraudulent information about Sarah Pallin on their websites and when confronted with their promulgations of lies they were offended but not enough to search out the truth. We have all but lost our influence over our children to their professors and educators. I kick myself in the ass for not taking a more aggressive role in their education. I pray that common sense will somehow intrude, on all of their generation, in time to prevent the destruction of this great nation.

  7. I think you are on the right track but there are too many screaming liberals who think that any disagreement with their point of view is stupid and useless. Liberals are anything but…
    They claim to be for the common man but nothing could be farther from the truth.!!!
    a second point…when referring to this “site” it is not “sight” you mean.

    • David K,
      Just a silly mistake made in haste–thanks for the correction, and thanks for writing. Liberals are anything but for the common man…that’s why they want to remove our right to make most of our own decisions and hand that power over to the state.
      Thanks for your input.

  8. I completely agree with you, thanks for expressing it so well on this site.

    One question: do you believe the 17th Amendment is a major reason why the federal government has been able to make such a successful power grab?

    • Steve,
      The 17th Amendment is certainly one of several important blows to federalism. Democracy sometimes doesn’t give power to the people; in this case it takes power from the people and hands it over to the government bureaucracy. The amendment basically strips power from the states who lose their advocacy group (the Senators), because no longer can their Senators be held accountable to do their bidding by the state legislatures that used to appoint them. Steve, I’m absolutely in favor of repealing the 17th Amendment–but that would be just one “fix.” There are so many other “holes in the dike” of liberty that need repair as well. Thanks for writing.

  9. In response to the above comment, might I additionally suggest tort and welfare reform, a flat tax, and a limited bureaucracy? Oh… wait… I probably won’t live that long. Still, good to see more agreeable commentary on the internet. Keep it up, folks.

  10. I wandered in here accidentally while doing a google image search for a photo of Walter Williams. I totally agree with the opinions expressed in this post. It looks like fun here, not only because of your own sense of humor, but also because you manage to attract gibbering, mindless, slobbering, bigoted leftists. (Is that redundant?) I will link you at my humble blog so that my 4 or 5 readers will know about you, too.

  11. If I may ask a question (academic, since I ain’t a U.S. citizen): Why do you think that the “ideas” of the Constitutional Fathers are sacrosanct? Do you believe them “infallible” or some special kind of “oracles of God” instead of ordinary Joes as capable of erring as you and me? And doesn’t that beg the question: What is the proof that all of them were agreed on a common set of ideas?

    Allow me to hasten: I believe in Catholic Truth, truth as defined by the infallible Church of God, inspired and animated by the Holy Ghost, and thus far above the intellectual guidance possible with any bunch of ordinary, uninspired men.

    • Lucio,

      Nothing that man constructs is sacrosanct or infallible. But what they managed to do more effectively than any other governmental system was balance the essential needs of government while allowing the people to keep a far greater amount of personal liberty. No they didn’t all agree on every aspect–that doesn’t happen in the real world.

      In fact, many of the fears the anti-Federalists had regarding the Constitution have come to fruition. Just read the anti-Federalist papers. Many of their arguments foretold the future. My question to you Lucio is: Do you believe that our present crop of politicians have improved upon the Founders’ wisdom, or have they instead tried to undo many of the safeguards that they implemented?

      Do you see a Washington, a Jefferson, a Madison, or an Adams among our current politicos? These men had enormous egos but, nonetheless, they were often able to place the concerns of their country ahead of their own political aspirations. In short, they were statesmen. Sadly, I see very few statesmen today.

      My complaint is not that it’s impossible to come up with “meaningful” change to the Constitution–it’s doing it by the means established for by the Constitution. The amendment process allows changes to be made…but using that process is more cumbersome and difficult–it’s easier and more effective to simply disregard that process. And that’s the point, Lucio…Massive change of our system is not supposed to be easy! Thank you so much for your comment.

  12. So, you whole-heartedly support the constitution as it was originally written – does that mean then that you feel that slavery should still be legal?

    • Free “for now”

      Slavery was the biggest blight and largest evil in our country’s history–but that doesn’t make your point any more valid. Your statement is simplistic. The Founders’ ideas cannot simply be dismissed because many of them owned slaves. These men were also products of their own times. They couldn’t simply outlaw slavery–even had they wanted to. Their world was not yet ready for that step. Slavery had existed in every society from time immemorial and still exists in some areas even today.

      What they managed to do in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution was sow the seeds for ending slavery. They knew that the ideals they held in these documents were in direct conflict with the institution of slavery. Washington himself feared that a civil war over slavery was a very real possibility.

      The Constitution is far from a perfect document and it is easy to find fault with some of its elements. But the amendment process is the mechanism for changing the laws of the land. Instead, politicians have opted to circumvent the “rulebook” and instead impose their world-view on us citizens without checking with us first. Thanks for your comment.

  13. I would like to ask: Are you Catholic?

    • Lucio,

      No, but I happen to live in a “Christian” nation (not officially, of course), and I believe that component is an essential part of the American “character.” You can’t remove the “Christianity” out of the country without irreparably changing the nation. I do adhere to the Judeo-Christian traditions that helped to form this country.

      • When you speak of Judeo-Christian traditions, is that your way of acknowledging that the founders were not Christians and suggesting that they themselves were simply influenced by the culture around them? Is that then the culture, but not the religion, that immigrants must assimilate to? Or do you simply believe, like the founders did, that the only true government should be an atheist (or secular) government?

        If your intention is to “not be a racist or a bigot” as you have often stated it is, you need to explain some of these thoughts more clearly rather than make blanket statements on assimilation and rolling back to the “good times” of the founding fathers.

      • Niko Niemi,

        It’s a fact that the values of the U.S. emanate from the Judeo-Christian tradition and the Christian Bible. And yes, most of the Founders were Protestant Christians though you can debate the religiosity of individuals like Franklin, Jefferson, certainly Paine, and even Washington. All of them had “problems” with the organized religion of their day but nonetheless, they were all deists.

        However, despite their antipathy towards organized religion, each embraced certain aspects of Christianity. They believed in a secular government but not the “atheist” government (excepting, perhaps Paine) that you seem to be suggesting. Unlike many politicians today, they didn’t believe that religion had no place and no role to play in the public arena. And they would never condone the present assault on religion that has government removing such symbols as the Ten Commandments from public buildings.

        However, that being said, nobody here is arguing that one must be a Christian to be an American. That’s silly. But there is such a thing as a unique American culture that differs from all others, and one from which our traditions developed. And there is something very special about American culture and it is worth preserving.

        So Niko, I think I’m being quite clear when I say that America’s founding traditions are worth fighting to preserve. And I don’t think that I’m being the slightest bit “unfair” when I say that. Why is America, of all countries, seemingly forbidden from embracing our cultural past and demanding that those who choose to live here learn our culture and adapt to it? On the contrary, I think that those who question our right to preserve our founding ideals intentionally toss around words like “racist” and “bigot” as a technique to demonize those of us that wish to safeguard our society.

        Unfortunately, America’s traditions are under constant attack in much of our media, and our schools and universities. Our children are not being taught the foundational principles of the United States and this is a betrayal to them and to our country. Many of our citizens, young and old alike, have no idea about such truly American concepts as limited government, decentralized government (Federalism), unalienable rights from God, Liberty–man over government instead of government over man, private property rights, limited taxes, limits on majority rule and on and on. It was America’s Founders that took these ideas (they didn’t invent them) but they unleashed them in a way that no country had ever done before or since. It’s these American principles that are worth fighting to preserve.

        You smugly dismiss this as a rolling back to the “good times” of the Founding Fathers. No one here is arguing that the past was a “Utopia,” because; unlike the Left, we don’t believe in a “Utopia” on Earth. More accurately, we are fighting to retain a limited government while repelling the forces that support a government “soft tyranny.” Through efforts like the “Tea Party” movement we hope to someday return this nation to a Constitutional Republic. Niko, thanks for taking the time to write.

  14. I very much enjoyed your response. It was purposefully simplistic. My intent was to solicit an answer as if I had actually posed an open-ended question. I look forward to reading more.

  15. B.S.
    I just stumbled on this site and you have peaked my interest. I don’t know if I fully agree with you yet as I have not read all of your site. But what I have read sounds like someone who is not repeating something you read or heard someone else say(which is typical in today’s society). Much appreciated.

  16. Hi, I found your site when I did a search for Bob Hope images (LOVED that man). I totally agree with what you wrote about our military. Bless you for that.

    I love this country and am EXTREMELY proud to be an American, though I’m not much politically inclined and I tell people I’m independently Independent. And when I vote either locally or nationally, I’m all over the place Party-wise.

    I’d like to come back and revisit your blog. Looks like you have alot of interesting stuff. I see you wrote about the neighbor cannonball incident. When I read that in the papers, I totally cracked up. Doh! Take care and enjoy your mini-break.

  17. sweet jesus were all going down

  18. ……The B.S. Report-

    What an excellent title! Being that 99.9 % of what you stand for is….well, B.S.!


    • Marcinko,

      Very witty Marcinko. I get it–you don’t agree with my principles…and that’s fine. This is America and you’re allowed to have just about any views you wish. I’m not quite clear on why you think the principles of the Founders of this country are B.S. They worked pretty well for 150 years and transformed the U.S. into the greatest nation in world history–that did not happen by accident. It happened because we have a Constitution that limits government power while allowing for greater individual freedom.

      Is it just America in general that you dislike? It’s always easy for Liberals, (I assume you’re on the political Left if you disagree with 99.9% of what I believe), who basically have no standards, to make fun of those who do. It enables you to get off the hook by simply answering: “I don’t believe in anything so you can’t hold me to anything.” But Liberalism’s basic premise is immoral. It can be summed up by the following statement: “We will use the power of government to take away the private property of those who lawfully produced it and give it to those whom it does not belong.” Why does that strike you as more noble? Thanks Marcinko for your comment–and even your *smirk.*

      • I’ve very much enjoyed reading the variety of comments posted on this site. Not being an American Citizen, my interest is largely academic. I was interested to note that you believe Liberals hold no standards, and even go as far to suggest that Liberals endorse some form of Nihilism, which, if you were to do just the most miniscule amount of research, is clearly not true. Such a conflation reminds me of the tactics employed by some politicians in order to ‘scare’ people into endorsing a certain issue. Was this an intentional conflation, or merely a method to emphasise the spirit of the argument you are trying to pursue?

        A further question conerning your rejection of liberal values (I can only assume that your rejection of Liberlaism entials such a rejection); why on earth have you used a quote from J. S Mill as a header to one of your posts? J. S. Mill was a bastion of liberal thinking, and would most likely be horrified at the conservatism you endorse.

        Essentially, I was just curious to know if you actually know what it is that you are talking about? Or whether it is a position held in virtue of some unsupportable nationalism the genesis of which is attributable to ‘being a product of your own time’?

        Keep up the interesting work.

      • B.S. Report


        Thanks so much for taking the time to comment. First of all, when I’m talking about standards, I’m speaking mostly of the ability of the modern liberal (again, I’m talking about those in leadership positions) to avoid being held accountable because the media largely agrees with their positions and grants them cover. In American politics, there is a double-standard in their treatment. This occurs because the media has a knee-jerk disdain for any politician who flaunts himself as a “values” Conservative or worse, a Christian, and then fails to live up to those ideals.

        H, I do believe there is more nihilism in today’s liberal than there is in today’s conservative. But you seem to be talking about classical liberalism, as opposed to today’s liberalism. The two couldn’t be more different–in fact, they have become polar opposites. Using J. S. Mill as an example of a liberal today doesn’t hold true. He is a hero of anyone who believes in individual freedom and limiting government power.

        Mill’s Utilitarianism had much in common with “classical liberalism”–which is the antithesis of liberalism today. He was a champion of individual rights (even for women) and a strong advocate of the free market. Mill also was no fan of democracy–which is something he had in common with America’s Founders. The word “democracy” is not present in either the Declaration of Independence or the U.S. Constitution. He (and they) had a contempt for democracy realizing that it inevitably lapses into a “tyranny by the majority.” I don’t think Mill would be horrified at the conservatism I endorse–it’s the one endorsed by Jefferson, et al.

        H, my primary interest is in doing my part to help my fellow Americans rediscover the Constitution and hold our elected officials accountable to it. The Constitution was enacted to protect us citizens from an out-of-control government. We have no other way to effectively limit government without it.

        H, I’m not preaching some sort of nationalist movement–I don’t believe in the silly notion that we (Americans) are “better” than any other peoples. However, the Constitution and the unparalleled amount of freedom that the U.S. was founded upon is what made/makes our society different. That’s what many of us are trying to preserve, and yes, re-establish. Thanks again for writing, and thanks especially for the tone of your comment. All the best to you.

    • I apologise for my tone, you are right to pull me up on it.

      You are also right to note my conflation of the two types of ‘liberalism’ in my charge of hypocrisy in your use of a quite form J. S. Mill. Thank you for your clear and detailed reply.

      However, I have one further issue with your position, which I was hoping you could clarify.

      In your response to ‘free *for now*, you quite rightly suggest that the slave trade “was the biggest blight and largest evil in our country’s history”. Endorsing such a positon is indicative of a moral absolutism – slavery, and many other acts, are immoral regardless of the period in history, society or culture which those acts are commited. However, you go on to note that our judgement of the founders’ morality should allow for the fact that they were “also products of their own times”. This position seems to be suggestive of a certain moral relativism, or possibly more accurately, and incongruence between morality and the law. Does this mean that the maintenance of the slave trade was permissible, regardless of its immorality? If so, what is the criteria which undepins this permisibility? The possibility of ‘harm to the social fabric of the country’ (your reason for endosring a prohibition on homosexual marriage)?

      My point is that, whilst by no means equivalent in horror, there is a fundamental simlarity between your positon on homosexual marriage, and the position that one may have taken with repsect to the maintenance of the slave trade. A postion which history may judge harshly.

      Thanks again for your time in responding.


      • H,

        Sorry if this gets posted twice…I’m bad.

        You suggest there is a “fundamental simlarity between your positon on homosexual marriage, and the position that one may have taken with repsect to the maintenance of the slave trade”. There are no similarities between enslaving someone by removing their freedom and choosing not to advocate gay marriage. Maybe what you are looking for is vindication and validation for the gay community through marriage.

        Another point, most are not trying to subjugate homosexuality—we merely wish not to sponsor or elevate homosexuality. Why should mere mortals support homosexuality when nature fails to propagate it? If homosexuality is genetic—and I believe it is—it will go through a cycle and eventually take itself near to extinction. As homosexuals are now opting out of human reproduction by the second generation there will be a significant drop in the gay population. And as with all things that nature can’t reproduce, natural selection will prevail. Nature will not tolerate anomalies.

        Be careful what you wish for, you may have to give half of your possessions to someone you can no longer stand.


      • B.S. Report


        Thanks again for your comment. I agree with you that some evil is so egregious that it transcends the period in time in which it occurs. My point is not to excuse the Founding generation for slavery but to recognize that there were no societies on Earth that had outlawed slavery at that time. Still, there is nothing that makes the slave trade permissible for it is against a “higher” law than man’s law; it is God’s law, or moral law for non-believers.

        My point on the Founders and slavery was more of a practical matter. Nearly all of the Founding generation (even those that held slaves) recognized that slavery was evil and incompatible with the values spelled out in the Declaration and the Constitution. But they could no more have outlawed slavery at that time than they could have invented an airplane–the time hadn’t arrived yet. There wasn’t nearly enough popular support or moral suasion to do so.

        In Washington’s case, he had come full circle against slavery but felt it wouldn’t be right to simply release his slaves into the world with no ability whatsoever to take care of themselves. When he did free his slaves upon his wife’s death he had made some monetary provisions to help ease their transition into freedom. Slavery the institution was inherently evil; however, slavery in practice differed greatly from region to region or plantation to plantation. For instance, by and large, Arab society practiced a far more brutal brand of slavery than that in the U.S. That’s not cheerleading (for there is nothing to cheer about) but it is a fact.

        I see no equivalence between slavery and homosexual marriage. One can treat gays beautifully, recognizing their humanity without sanctioning their marriage for religious or moral reasons. It’s the very humanity of the slave that’s denied. It’s their personhood that isn’t recognized–that’s not the case of the homosexual. Thanks again for your comment. All the best to you.

  19. I was neither born nor raised in America…I see no reason why I should endeavor to be more American, or pro-American, for that matter 🙂

    I suppose by American standards, I’m left-wing.

    So be it 🙂

    • Marcinko,

      I’m not questioning your right to dislike America–though it’s particularly crass of individuals who willingly come here to do so. However, I do wonder why you would willingly choose to be less free? Also, there is an inherent obligation for those who choose to live here to assimilate–and not for you to bring the failed ways and policies of the country you left behind.

      The fact that you see no reason to be more American, or even pro-America! is an example of your own selfishness and one of the reasons why America is starting to look like failed Europe. Regards.

  20. ” However, I do wonder why you would willingly choose to be less free? Also, there is an inherent obligation for those who choose to live here to assimilate–and not for you to bring the failed ways and policies of the country you left behind. The fact that you see no reason to be more American, or even pro-America! is an example of your own selfishness and one of the reasons why America is starting to look like failed Europe. ”

    LOL …I see

  21. ” I completely agree with you. We need to arm ourselves and kill off all of those who threaten our way of life, from the gays to obama to the socialists at the post office. ”

    Careful what you wish for, Dick…there’s always room for more in the gas chamber….. 😉

    • Marcinko,

      Typical non sequitur by someone too intellectually ill-equipped to debate the issues responsibly. You make up your own quotes and then you debate them as if they are mine. You obviously don’t need me around to spoil your personal debate–and I don’t need to expend any more effort on you. I tried, but you’re not worth the time. Marcinko, take it easy.

  22. ” We need to arm ourselves and kill off all of those who threaten our way of life ”

    That quote came from Jew-boy (ol’ Dicky Goldberg)- just hoping to rattle his cage 😉

  23. Just came across your site for the first time. Very well done. I am going to add a link to my site to remind myself to venture back here from time to time. Its refreshing to find a site that isn’t so caught up in traditional party politics that it can’t see the real issues standing in its face.

  24. Wondeful Blog! Mine is also here on WordPress and I’d like to add yours to my links area so people can see the great work you are doing here. Judging by the angry comments from liberals, you are obviously striking a nerve. Thank you and keep it up.

    Randy at http://conservativethinkers.wordpress.com/

  25. I agree with the principles in “Where We Stand.” What I can’t understand is some of the weird comments you attract. Your site principles should be a rallying point for those of us who are a more than a bit desperate to save an America that appears all but lost.

    • Thanks George,

      I didn’t think for a moment that I was writing anything radical. I was just attempting to put into everyday language what I think the Founders basic ideals are. After all, they had a far better grasp of the dangers of an all-powerful government than we have today. It’s discouraging to think that a large percentage of our population may actually be against these principles.

      We tend to think that we’re so much smarter today simply because those guys lived 250 years ago. But let’s be honest: Where are the Franklins, Jeffersons, Madisons, Washingtons or Hamiltons of today? In fact, where are the statesmen and women who are willing to put country ahead of their own personal ambitions? I see very few in either party. That’s why the Constitution and the idea of limited government is so important. Because, to put it mildly, government is made up of human beings with all our failings. For that reason, it cannot be trusted. George, thanks for your comment and your kind words. Keep up the good fight!

  26. The Child who had no Childhood.

    nice to see that you erased a perfectly good post. For the record, when I posted it, I did check to make sure that it had been posted.

    Clearly you didn’t bother to read the entire thing. There was a liberal bash midway.

    And a well detailed one at that, which now, you shant be reading unless you saved it… but I surmise that you didn’t.

    Thanks a lot for that. At least you couldn’t bash on it.

    Just remember it, and remember that you deleted it, and recall the effort that went into it.

    Was it too long? Perhaps. But worth reading?
    I think so.

    …also thanks. I’d forgotten why I didn’t post on these sites. The bias level is over 9000, especially if you weren’t willing to read far enough to make it to the part you liked.

    Have a nice day.

    • The Child,

      I considered posting your comment for a little while but ultimately decided not to because I felt it wasn’t cohesive enough. I’m more than happy to post what you have to say, regardless of your content–but it has to be coherent so we can follow your arguments. I don’t care one iota whether you bash conservatives or liberals–but if you’re going to write a treatise you have to make it more concise.

      Was it too long–yes, it was too long, but only because it wasn’t tight enough. Listen, I’m not attacking your writing skill, your views, or you personally–I just had a few problems with the organization of this particular post. In fact, I think you had many good points to make–and yes, I did read it all. But finally I decided that instead of reducing it and then have you criticize me for editing your work–I wouldn’t post it. By the way, I still have it saved because I figured you might respond to the fact that I didn’t publish it.

      I appreciate and understand the amount of time, effort, and yes, thought that goes into writing a comment–especially one of that length. No hard feelings are meant and I am happy to publish this comment as well as your future comments. Thanks again for taking the time out of your day to contribute. I really do appreciate it. All the best.

  27. The Child who had no Childhood.

    Well, well.
    I must admit… I’m actually impressed.
    On a whim, I decided I might as well check up on this place again, and to be honest… I didn’t expect to have a response.

    I’ve come to expect the “instant dismissal” treatement from a lot of these sites after I post.
    Unfortunately, there are often relatively repetitive reasons for which posts are removed, or simply not put up.
    But that there was any acknowledgment at all that the post existed, at least reveals that this may not be the case here.

    Several sites before this, many of which held a clear and concise bias, (I’ve seen both ends of that spectrum… and it isn’t a pretty sight) immediately jettisoned such posts… but much to my amazement, you have done as I would do.

    You saved the post.
    This was perhaps the last thing I expected… but what it reveals is that you are indeed, as your claim might suggest, considerably more open to debate than many others, so to speak.

    It also reveals, that you do not dismiss posts as the previous places did, just based on the content of its information.
    Many sites, have claimed similar political “aura’s” so-to-speak, but this is now one of few that has, at the very least, the merit of trying (heck, I’d like to give you a medal, but that’s beyond my ability I’m afraid)

    …I believe I shall be coming here more often after all.
    About the post…
    (Yes, it was too long) xD True enough.
    (…disorganized…) Yes, yes it was. I suppose that’s what 4 hours of typing does to a person. It perhaps gets harder to regulate the repetition of points within the structure of an essay-like post as time passes.

    The disorganization is likely due to my lack of energy upon reviewing, and ending my post. I would apologize… but hey, for finishing at 1:00 in the morning, I think did pretty good.

    My apologies for the slight agitation I exhibited after the post disappeared. I too, saved it. However, it has become relatively rare for such sites to… listen at all. Especially given the nature of partisan-style politics that are likely happening elsewhere at this very moment.

    I think I’ll stop by this site every so often,
    for your actions exhibit traits which I believe worthy of a certain level of respect.

    Kudos to you.

    • The Child,

      Thanks for the kind words. As much as I’d like to accept the medal you’re offering, alas, I don’t deserve it. I believe I have an obligation to publish coherent views regardless of whether they conflict with my own. As for your original post, I really did feel bad for not publishing it, but I explained my reasons behind that. I look forward to reading your opinions in the future. Thanks again.

  28. Barbara O' Brien

    Dear BS Report,

    My name is Barbara O’ Brien and my blogging at The Mahablog, Crooks and Liars, AlterNet, and elsewhere on the progressive political and health blogophere has earned me the notoriety of being a panelist at the Yearly Kos Convention and a featured guest blogger at the Take Back America Conference in Washington, DC.

    I’m contacting you because I found your site in a prominent political and health reform blog search and want to tell you about my newest blogging platform —the public concern of health care and its reform. Our shared concerns include health reform, public health, safe workplaces, and asbestos contamination.

    To increase awareness on these important issues, my goal is to get a resource link on your site or even allow me to provide a guest posting. Please contact me back, I hope to hear from you soon. Drop by our site in the meantime—www.maacenter.org/blog.


    Barbara O’ Brien

    • Dear Barbara,

      Thanks for writing, but we’re not looking for any guest bloggers at this time. All the best to you.

  29. The most important thing to remember is that everything within the entirety of the universe changes. The universe came into being because of change, and continues to sustain itself due to change. Life exists because of this change. Not only does everything change, but it is constantly changing. That means that everything that exists and is “real” and “relevant” right now at this very moment has the potential to hold little or no value in moments to come because things have changed and shifted away.
    Because the universe works this way, so too does planet Earth. And not just Earth, mind you, but also the United States of America. The ideas that our country was founded upon were beautiful ideas, but the truth is that they were not sustainable and have a hard time pertaining to life today.
    Think about it: the first computer ever is no longer a functioning, usable model for the computer today. It was simply an outline upon which all models for future computers have been based. But the original model has been changed entirely in order to be the skinny, shiny little lap top I am using right now to write you.
    So, since the ideas in the Constitution, however wonderful they are, do not exactly help people today with the issues of today, then things need to be reworked a little.
    Belief in the Constitution is cool… Did you know our country was also, and entirely, based upon rebellion and revolution? A group of people, the steady climbing majority in fact, did not agree with the “old way” in which things were being run, and wanted to be out from under the rule they felt was harmful to everyone and did not cater to the immediate needs of the group (and steady climbing majority), of people at that time. This was back in the 1700’s… And feels a little reminiscent of, say, today?
    So, amen to you in believing in old ways of life and the things upon which our country was based, because freedom for ALL; not just humans or wealthy white humans but people of all colors, of all cultures, animals of all shapes sizes textures and locations, forests and rivers and mountains and oceans and deserts and jungles and tundras and air from ALL over the world; freedom for ALL is the central most important thing.
    However, we may need to give up our luxuries and comforts and “easy” way of life in order to truly live this freedom…
    The truth is that life isn’t easy; we owe our daily comforts and commodities and excess to all the starving children, all the destroyed rainforests, all the melting ice caps, and all the extinct species.
    That is not fair, that is not just, and that is not free. But isn’t our country based on those simple principles?
    And yet… it is that very constitution and way of life which has ultimately resulted in the remarkable inequality occuring everywhere around the world at this very moment.
    So, maybe, since everything changes; because I am sure our founding fathers did not foresee or ever wish that these sorts of injustices against life would ever occur; maybe it is time to change our old patterns of thinking. Because, since everything in the universe is constantly changing anyway, the change is simply inevitable.
    Nobody has any real control in the end, anyway. There is no individual; everything is connected and dependent upon and affected by eachother. We live in a universe, uni meaning one.

    • College Student,

      First of all, thanks for writing. You sound like a nice young kid and I don’t want you to view my criticisms of your post as a personal attack on you. Because it’s not. Honestly though, you sound a lot like most college kids I come in contact with: very well-meaning and idealistic, but also quite naive. I’m sure I was the same way when I was in college quite a few years ago. I’m confident though, that some day, as you get older and gather more life experience that your views will gradually evolve just as you describe the universe as ever-changing.

      You have a trust in government, in particular world government, that I don’t share. One look at organizations such as the U.N. should be enough to doubt the efficacy of this approach to world affairs. You speak of how things are changing–but human nature does not change. It is the same today as its been for time immemorial. In short, people are capable of doing good, but just as capable, perhaps more capable, of doing evil.

      College Student, our country was not based upon rebellion and revolution. It was based on protecting individual liberty and their rights as free Englishmen to make laws and govern themselves–without an oppressive government calling the shots from far away. The Founders actually made several attempts to reconcile with the King before abandoning the idea and issuing the Declaration. They truly wanted to remain a part of the empire until they believed it was no longer possible. The odds of them winning a war against the British were astoundingly long and none of them were particularly confident that they would be victorious.

      Belief in the Constitution is not, as you say, cool. The Constitution is the necessary tool that keeps our country from lapsing into tyranny. To be sure, the Constitution is an imperfect document–there is no such thing as perfection among imperfect, fallible people. But the beauty of the Constitution is that it limits the hold that government has over its citizens. It expands freedom for the individual while providing for the concept of “ordered liberty.” There are mechanisms in place to change the Constitution when necessary, and this amendment process is purposely cumbersome. It shouldn’t be easy to change established norms and traditions.

      You speak of the founding of this country as if it’s some sort of ancient history. In terms of time, it’s yesterday. We are a young nation and the ideas put forth by the Founders of our country were not just beautiful ideas–they were revolutionary ideas. And they are just as relevant today as they were then. What is more important than the belief that people are inherently free and possess “natural rights” that are above and not subject to government control? Just what is the proper role of government in our lives? These ideas are not passe. These are not the ancient, old ways of life that can simply be discarded because you view the world as evolving.

      You also speak of our responsibility to those less fortunate. What country is it that does more to feed the hungry, clothe the homeless and provide the aid to the downtrodden that you speak of? It’s the U.S., of course. We are far from perfect but we remain the engine of liberty and the beacon of freedom to much of the world. And what, College Student, makes this aid possible? It is our economic freedom that enables us to improve the standard of living for ourselves and ultimately the rest of the world. Yes, capitalism is a good thing–and we need to protect it because it’s presently under assault. You condemn us for the ease of our lifestyle, our comforts and our luxuries–while at the same time extolling the virtues of the computer you’re busy typing on. I take it you have plenty of other luxuries as well–all provided to you courtesy of that evil system called capitalism.

      The Constitution is not a limiter of rights as you espouse, but a protector of them. It’s beauty is that it attempts to ensure equal treatment and is not, as you say, responsible for gross inequality. In the real world, there will never be the equality that you dream of until we are all back working in the rice paddies–and even then we’ll be ruled by our masters. The beauty of our system is that it allows for individuals to aim high and achieve according to their own abilities.

      You say there is no individual–meaning no one person is important. I like to think that my life has value and I’m not just a “cog in the wheel” of the greater society. And fortunately, in our country, most people still believe that there is such a thing as individuals, and each and every one of us is precious. The system that you apparently are advocating has been tried countless times and always results in the squashing of the individual and the deaths of millions of people.

      Finally, College Student, I do not fear shrinking rainforests and melting ice caps nearly as much as I fear a tyrannical government. I do believe in a common sense approach to the environment but in no way do I think that the Earth is teetering on the precipice of disaster due to human activities. One of the advantages of getting older is you start to realize just how little the so-called “experts” actually know. Thanks for writing and taking the time to comment.

  30. The Earth is “teetering on the brink of disaster” only becuase of human activities. It is the truth, there is no escaping that.
    I never said the individual wasn’t important or didn’t have any value, I was speaking more of individualism being an unnecessary evil. If everybody lived a life where they did not care about others because all they did was “aim high” for personnal gain… Well, everybody does live that life, and it really sucks, if you ask me. There’s no room for compassion in a society like that… And there’s way too much room for wastefulness and absent mindedness.
    I am way more terrified of environmental damage than a “tyrannical government” because the Earth is our home, not just the US. Irreversible damage to clean water and air supply effects us all. We came out of this Earth, born of the dirt and the grass and the and the water, not of the paved city streets we have built on top of the interrconnected systems which rely on eachother to survive. A society thrives on diversity. As, too, does planet Earth. By the year 2050, 50% of all species of life will be extinct from the Earth. The human population, however, is growing at a disgusting rate.
    “What country is it that does more to feed the hungry, clothe the homeless and provide the aid to the downtrodden that you speak of? It’s the U.S., of course.”
    Famine is a result of over population in one area. We have enough food in the US to feed each one of us two times over. This means that the US has an “overproduction of food”. When there is a surplus of food in an area, this usually results in increased population. But why has the United States’ population remained relatively stable while in places that we consider “3rd World”, famine reaks havoc on the people while the population grows at an alarming rate? That’s because our food HAS to come from somewhere… There was a time when the US population exceeded the amount of resources we had here to feed that population… Instead of allowing the population to naturally go back down, we just took food from somewhere else, regardless of those “other” people… We make it easy to take from people we consider of the “3rd World” because by using a term like that, we subconsciously are able to disassociate ourselves from people who we are actually very associated with.
    I am not speaking of socialism, or communism, or any form of government. In fact, I was never speaking of government at all. I was speaking of basic principles of life that we all abide by; all the members of planet Earth, not just the US or the humans, but everything and everyone. I am speaking of realizing the interconnectedness of every single thing within this universe. And yes, I speak of change… Change of heart, change of attitude, change of world view, and specifically, a change in state of mind. Maybe our country began by trying to reconcile with the king before branching off to try and do it their own way.
    “The odds of them winning a war against the British were astoundingly long and none of them were particularly confident that they would be victorious.”
    And, if you ask me, you may be the king, and we “radical” “liberal” “activist” “children” that are stirring things up from a non violent, grass roots level have a long journey ahead of us, and it takes a lot for us all to remain confident each day in the belief that our vision of an environmentally sustainable, socially just, and spiritually fulfilling planet EARTH is not in vain.

    • College Student,

      Thanks for writing back although I don’t agree with virtually anything you’ve said and your post strikes me as another example of “feelings and emotions” over facts. Our worldview is so different that it makes me believe that we are living on a completely different planet. And while I can take the time to refute each of your statements one by one, I really don’t see the point or the need to invest the effort. Sometimes it’s just better to recognize that there is a gulf between our views that is too vast to reconcile. All the best to you and thanks for commenting.

    • Scoresofgoreswhores

      College Student,
      Don’t drink too much of that university Kool-Aid. You make the statement that “The Earth is “teetering on the brink of disaster” only becuase of human activities. It is the truth, there is no escaping that.” Absolute statements like that usually don’t hold up very well, from my experience. Man-made Global Warming, now known as Climate Change, because they figured out that it wasn’t waming, is only a theory. I don’t buy that theory and it certainly has not been proved as a “fact”. Theories are opinions, not facts. Gravity is a fact, at least here on earth. Thermodynamics is a fact, at least here on earth. That’s why we have the laws of gravity and thermodynamics and why we don’t have the laws of climate change. Anthropocentric climate change is merely a way for Al Gore to make a boatload of money trading carbon credits on an exchange he owns and operates, hence his push for carbon to be named a noxious greenhouse gas. Next thing you know, oxygen, which by the way IS a greenhouse gas as well, will be named an enemy of the people like carbon. Why not just tax and trade the entire periodic table?

  31. We believe in tolerance but we also believe in standards. We believe it’s more important to do what’s right, in spite of the fact that you’re likely to hurt some people’s feelings. We believe that people’s feelings get hurt far more easily today than they did in days past.
    ^ i love that!

  32. Yeah, I agree with you there, haha.
    I also like to live my life believing that everybody is a teacher, and everybody has something to teach me and everybody else. Everyone has something to offer. And I must admit, you have taught me a thing or two here. It is quite interesting that two people of the same country, of the same world, can occupy two entirely different views on everything. It is really fascinating, and it reminds me of the beauty of perspectives, and the amount of creativity and opportunity there is in the fact that every person has their own perspective. Makes the world a little bit richer, a little bit stronger.
    Best to you, with peace and understanding.

  33. I came across this site while looking up images of James Madison for my son’s school report. I am very impressed and pleasantly surprised to find someone who understands that when we refuse to take responsibility (making the government responsible) we give up our freedom. James Madison understood so much of what could happen. I am proud to have him in my family.

  34. Wow, one thing that screams at me loud and clear is that some people do not bother to read, truly understand and consider – weigh – the ideas being expressed here. There are some comments here full of the knee-jerk emotionalism that plagues our political system.

    I was born and raised in Texas, I have been a life-long Democrat, and as I approach my 50s I find myself reevaluating many things in my life, including my understanding of the Constitution and our political way of life.

    Much of what is written in “About BS Report” regarding the Constitution and the federal government resonates. I strongly disagree with some ideas expressed; however, I admire the honesty (e.g., gay and lesbian adoption and marriage) which separates the idea from the value of the person(s) involved. There was nothing hateful or dismissive or devaluing toward other humans here. This is exactly what the Constitution is intended to protect.

    It’s a shame that some of the comments posted are so hateful and degrading to civil discourse.

    Like many people, I happened upon your website and am interested in following along. The underlying integrity is a refreshing change from all the BS rhetoric of both sides of the fence, and I hope you’re able to maintain it.

    • Leslie,

      Thanks for your opinion and your kind words. It’s people like you who will determine whether our country survives as a “land of liberty” or morphs into just another western-socialist democracy. By people like you I mean: Former Democrats and/or Liberals that have decided to reevaluate those beliefs that they were brought up with and study the founding principles of this great country.

      Our Constitutional Republic has been so successful in making our lives comfortable that many of our citizens have taken our freedom and comfort for granted. They don’t understand how fragile these freedoms are. When we don’t teach the basics for a couple generations our system begins to erode. We are in that process right now. Most people are basically decent but they go about their business with hardly a thought as to why this country offers so much opportunity and so much liberty for so many.

      However, this indifference to our political system has consequences. Politicians are always eager to step into a vacuum and take extra power for themselves when the citizenry is no longer interested in holding their representatives to their constitutional responsibilities. It’s difficult to convince people not to vote for politicians who promise to give them things. Eighty years of liberalism and activism on the part of our courts have broken down the firewalls that have protected the Constitution (and us) from their assault on our basic liberties. We are in for quite a fight if we wish to reduce the size of government and roll back the rising tide of the “soft” tyranny that we are now living under. Thanks again Leslie for taking the time to write. All the best to you.

  35. I don’t REALLY disagree with any of the ideas promoted by the authors of this site. The problem is it just doesn’t work. Unfettered capitalist competition and unlimited individual rights leads to the huge disparities of wealth and privilige more fitting of a third world dictatorship or a feudal kingdom than a civil society. You end up with a cadre of thugs at the top of the heap holding all the economoc power and toiling peasants at the bottom.
    Nobody, including us liberals likes big government , big taxes and interference in our individual rights, NOBODY. I know you disagree so you tell me how one solves the problems of poverty, bad education, no opportunities for minorities, inequality in healthcare and extreme concentration of wealth without some regulation .

    • Bluetangent,

      This site doesn’t advocate anarchy…we do believe that government is a necessary “evil.” But it seems that you are trying to find a “fantasyland,” some kind of utopia that cannot exist and never has. Capitalism allows individuals to work as hard as they wish and to seek their own level of achievement. Not everyone will find the success they seek but most will live pretty darn comfortably. You value “equality” over liberty. Why is that moral and having disparities based on individual abilities and efforts immoral? Our system is imperfect and messy and always will be. But it is better than any other system out there–although it is being destroyed, even as we write.

      What country are you talking about when you’re writing of a “cadre of thugs at the top of the heap holding all the economic power and toiling peasants at the bottom?” We have our share of thugs that use the political process to serve themselves at the expense of others–of course we do. I’m not a fan of politicians and I realize that there is a ton of corruption in any political system. But we are not yet a third-world banana republic. The goal is to limit government power and authority and restrict their activities to certain tasks.

      And the beauty of this is we don’t have to come up with a new plan or a new system to do it. That was already done for us by the Founders. We need to force our elected officials to obey the constraints of the Constitution, the “law of the land,” our document specifically designed to limit governmental authority over our lives. We get the government we deserve–and if we allow them to take control over our lives because we’re too comfortable or too indifferent to care anymore, then so be it. But there are positive signs that many people do not want an all-powerful government making the most important decisions in their lives.

      Bluetangent, you’re also asking for some sort of panacea to solve the problems of poverty, poor education, and various other inequities of life. What society exists that has completely wiped out any of these things? We believe that these problems become more pronounced the more government gets involved in them. This is particularly true in the minority communities where we have a breakdown of the family and a government monopoly on schools. The private sector does a much better job at administering to the needy than the government does.

      Also, you seem to be unwilling to acknowledge the enormous progress that has been made over the past century in the quality of our lives. This is largely the product of capitalism. We have regressed, somewhat, over the past 50 years or so as liberal dominated efforts to tear away at some of the pillars of our civil society have been successful. Liberalism may be altruistic but it is still a misguided attempt to make “fairness” and “equality” the primary goal, instead of liberty.

      Many people classified as “poor” live remarkably comfortable lives. And there are many avenues for those that are truly needy. There would be more if we didn’t have an administration in power that is doing all they can to destroy capitalism, free enterprise and the private sector economy. That is where affluence and opportunity comes from–it does not come from the government.

      Bluetangent, we are heading in the direction of the government that you seem to want–one that runs our lives and controls economic opportunity. The problem is that they do it by making us all wards of the state and beholden to government. This government is hostile to those who work hard and manage to acquire wealth. If we continue on our present path eventually that would mean an end to personal liberty, private property and freedom of movement. In short, the end of the United States as we know it. Bluetangent, you should be happy about this development instead of bemoaning it. Thanks for writing and all the best to you.

  36. In response to Lucio Mascarenhas’s comment, questioning the inspiration of the Founders:

    It took the Founders 180 years to come up with their American formula. They made mistakes along the way, but only a few years after the Constitution was signed in 1787, Washington said, “The United States enjoy a scene of prosperity and tranquility under the new government that could hardly have been hoped for.” (Letter to Catherine Macaulay Graham, 19 July 1791; John C. Fitzpatrick, The Writings of George Washington, 39 vols.)

    The Founders also convened for four straight months, sometimes casting as many as 60-ballots before resolving an issue. They did not flippantly enter into agreements with force, compromise, or impatience. They were diligent and did not let matters lie. They talked and voted, and voted and talked, until the vast majority felt good about an issue.

    189 amendments were issued by Congress. James Madison whittled the 189 down to 12, and 10 were approved and ratified, becoming our Bill of Rights.

    Finding a Balanced Center of Power was no small task, and the Founders first attempt in the Articles of Confederation were a failure. They acknowledged that they were too far to the right, leaning too much toward anarchy.

    These men were believers in Jesus Christ and absolutely prayed for divine guidance. I would say it is not by accident, but an exact result of their efforts that America has been so successful.

    We are 5% of the world’s population, yet have created more wealth than the rest of the world combined. We are responsible for more innovation and more discoveries than any other nation. We are always the first and provide the most in relief/aid to other nations, even to our enemies. Our men and women willingly fight for our country, often knowing they will likely sacrifice their life.

    Based on results, I’d say the Founders were divinely inspired, finding the perfect balance between Tyranny and Anarchy.

    • I could sit here wasting my time tearing this mission statement of a blog (B.S. report is an awful name for this blog.) to pieces and call a bunch of people here all kinds of foul things, but where does that get anybody?
      The founders (F?) where old rich dodgy MEN. All of them criminals of the crown and a small few most likely were openly gay. They were not demi-gods or even priests. In fact they had enough of the sickening influence of “New World” dogma and various church lead exudus’ from numerous nebulous settlers to at least make an attempt at separating church and state.
      The world is a living progressing multi-dimensional space and our place in it, classically, is defined by our ability as a species, and as spiritually and physically advanced beings, to change with the times.
      Socialism can not exist under a “Money” system or even banking and all of the connected systems. Currency is like a web. Beautiful yet dangerous. What you mistake as Socialism is Tyranny. Jesus had something to say about corruption, banking and the love of money above all else.
      Stupidity is defined by the inability to understand contradiction and the repeating of known failed behaviors.

      • B.S. Report


        Yes, you’re just so “scary” brilliant. You could take the time to rip our mission statement apart (though we noticed that you didn’t) because you were blessed with such a quick, incisive mind. However, your genius certainly didn’t extend itself to this post. Anyone who reads this example of your intellectual “prowess” will likely conclude that you’re a moron. But thanks anyway for taking the time to write.

  37. free *for now*:

    By the way, slavery was one of the three issues that the Founders could not reach a general agreement about after the four months of convention! It had to be settled by compromise.

    It is a mistake to think that the rest of the Constitution is just a bunch of compromises, though. See my other comment 🙂

    (The other two were proportionate representation and the regulation of commerce.)

    • Angela,

      Well said, the Founders and Framers wrestled and debated over every sentence of the Constitution. The end result paved the way for the most free society ever constructed; the “ordered liberty” that so many of us take for granted–and are in the process of giving back bit by bit.

      As for the slavery issue, the Founders were well aware that slavery ran counter to everything written in the Declaration of Independence, as well as everything that the Founders stood for, and fought for, in the Revolution. However, they also had a problem: there was no way that the Constitution would have been ratified had they tried to resolve the slavery issue at that time. Thanks again Angela for your input. All the best to you.

  38. You have stated eloquently what most americans feel. Might I add; term limits for all politicians. They have made it into a career and a aristocracy.

    • Red Dog,

      Thanks for the kind words and although I originally was against term limits many years ago, I now agree with you on the issue.

  39. Heather Theobald

    I am attempting to locate a contact us link or comment box from someone at wordpress/thebsreport on permssion to use an image posted on their site into on of our online courses.
    Would this be the correct area for that? I have attempted to contact once before with no response.
    Thank You, Heather htheobald@flvs.net

    • Heather Theobald,

      We at the B.S. Report don’t own any of the images. We credit the owner when he/she is identifiable. But you’ll have to get permission elsewhere. Good luck.

  40. Just wondering what you think of Obama skipping the Memorial Day observances at Arlington Cemetery to go on vacation…

    Just found this site, and what I’ve read so far, I have enjoyed, thank you for your efforts to bring awareness and restoration to our country.

    • J. Atkinson

      Thanks for the kind words…There is so much to be genuinely angry at President Obama for during his brief tenure as President that we shouldn’t go overboard in criticizing him for skipping the Arlington ceremony. I think President Reagan skipped the ceremony in 4 of his 8 years in office and Obama will send his incompetent VP in his place.

      J, it’s probably just as well that Obama not show up. We all know he’s no fan of our military and just to see him there acting like he is supportive gives me a queasy feeling. But, than again, Obama is such a “transformative” President! He’s different from all the Presidents that have come before him! That is to say he’s far more comfortable insulting America’s past and traditions rather than praising them. Apologizing constantly to foreign nations for supposed grievances is his specialty–not praising the selfless efforts of the heroic men and women buried at Arlington. It’s probably better that he sit home in Chicago, eat hot dogs and watch the NBA playoffs. J, thanks again for writing.

  41. Kathy Leverett

    Wow, all that money and all those guns, and you choose to target a little girl in Bulgaria. You guys must really be big and tough. And as for “the government that governs least, governs best”, well, that’s the thinking that flushed your economy down the toilet. ‘Freedom’, ‘the pioneer spirit’ and ‘rugged individualism’ – and you have to take those phrases with a grain of salt – are alive and well and living in Australia, where we have a left-of-centre government, a better life expectancy than everyone in the world but the Japanese, a buoyant economy and a 5% unemployment rate. Oh, yes, and some of the strictest gun laws in the world.

    • Kathy Leverett,

      Your comment makes no sense. What do guns and money have to do with our comments regarding an 11-year-old having a baby? We’re not “targeting” her, we’re commenting on a story–hopefully an extremely rare occurrence! Are you coming out for pre-teen motherhood?–I must admit, that would be a pretty bold stance on your part.

      I love Australia but readily admit that I’m hardly an expert on Australian politics. I was a fan of former PM John Howard, but I don’t know the inner workings of the Aussie Parliament. But you obviously know very little about U.S. politics or economics. It is precisely government involvement that is largely responsible for “flushing” our economy down the toilet. From the birth of our nation we were taught (wisely, I believe) to distrust those in office and limit their power and authority. The fact that we’ve ignored that basic principle is responsible for many of our present troubles. You, on the other hand, seem to have a great faith in government’s ability to bring about positive change. Good for you, but most Americans don’t share that view.

      As for your claims of life-expectancy superiority, there are many different ways that countries tabulate those statistics. For instance, many countries don’t count premature death in newborns in their statistics. And many reasons for lower life expectancies have little to do with general health. Alcohol, guns, cars, genes, and other cultural mores also play a significant factor in life expectancy. Interesting to note that Asian-Americans live longer in the U.S. than they do in Japan. That may change if and when socialized medicine kicks in here.

      As for your views on guns, Americans have never been a people who depend on others to ensure our safety. The ability to protect ourselves from danger is one of our basic rights. Guns in the U.S. are used overwhelmingly to defend one’s life and property. If we followed your mandate to disarm the population there would be many more funerals held each year. Australia’s population of 22 million is 2 million less than Texas and 17 million less than California. You should be comparing your crime statistics to the Netherlands (17 million)–not the U.S. See how you fare in that comparison…Kathy, thanks for taking the time to comment.

  42. You beleive in the Constitution. Good for you. But ideas do change over time and none of you can deny that. Honestly, why can’t you just leave gay people alone?

    • Alex,

      I don’t know why you bring up gay people–nothing that we stand for has anything whatsoever to do with denying the humanity of gay people.

      As for ideas changing, of course they do. And the Constitution allows for change through the amendment process. Why would you grant politicians such enormous power as the ability to radically redesign our society without our permission? It’s wrong whether it’s done by political tyrants on the “right” or the “left.”

      The success of this country did not happen by accident–it is the result of that “silly” document that you don’t seem to believe in. What we have now is a ruling elite that is no longer held accountable to our “rule book.” Instead, they rule over us and their opinions are more important than yours or mine. Worse, without our system of “checks and balances,” they can now transform our country on a whim.

      That also goes for the men and women wearing black robes who decide that it’s their mission to legislate their feelings and opinions from the bench instead of deciding cases by adhering to the original intent of the Constitution. Alex, thanks for taking the time to comment and all the best to you.

  43. The name of your site says it all. It is BS alright.

    • Bob,

      We don’t mind when someone disagrees with the positions we take here–especially when they have such sound, reasoned arguments as you. You seem like such a brilliant guy–you must have been a debate star in college…in fact, I think I remember you from “Firing Line” debating William F. Buckley. Admit it Bob, you got nothing–but thanks for taking the time to scrawl.

  44. You know who was the scariest president ever? George W Bush. Under his watch, the Patriot Act was passed that basically did away with our Bill of Rights. It is even scarier that people think he is some kind of a patriot. Much scarier than Obama. At least most folks see through Obama’s tactics.

  45. I do not agree with your dislike of the gay lifestyle. If you are so adament about holding up the beliefs of the Framers of the Constitution, don’t you think that ‘all men are created equal’? You are a bunch of hypocrites if you fail to see that love is love, and gays are just people. I’m not sure what your striving for in our society if not equality, and this does not excule homosexuals.
    Thanks for posting BS.

  46. BS- just rediscovered this site. Nice to find conservatives who are thoughtful and will actually address issues .
    I wrote a year ago about the dangers of unfettered capitalism that you seem to support.

    Wealth disparities in this country have grown enormousley in the last 50 years.The social programs devceloped by both parties have not eradicated the huge and growing under class. Private charities which by design need to spend enormous amounts of time and money fund raising have not done so either. People die every day because they cant afford life saving medical treatments or preventative healthcare. I dont think everyone needs to have the same amount of wealth and I firmly believe in the motivating power of competition hard work and financial reward . But I believe a country like ours should do better . I believe the game is rigged or at least unfair and a modest social saftey net is appropriate.

    So once again, what do constitutionalists believe the solution to the vast and growing wealth disparities is? ( or is it just not a problem?) -BT

    • Blue Tangent,

      Thanks for returning BT…I do remember our conversation. You’re bringing up important issues and I’m not sure you’ll find my answers entirely satisfactory because there is no perfect solution to the problems you raise. There simply is no utopia. But let me attempt to address your issues point by point. First of all, we’ve never had totally “unfettered” capitalism even during our most laissez faire years of the late 19th century. Is it your opinion that our economy is struggling now because of a lack of regulation? Personally, I think that it’s the opposite–the present administration has their boots on the throats of our private sector economy, and they’re strangling us with too much regulation. And our government’s attempt at micromanaging the economy almost always does more harm than good. Furthermore, I believe that our nation’s economic structure was far better and more competitive before “world-savers” like Woodrow Wilson and FDR came to power.

      You state that wealth disparities have grown over the past 50 years. That’s probably true depending upon your area of reference. I assume you’re speaking of the so-called gap between the richest Americans and the poorest. It really doesn’t concern me if someone earns $100 billion as long as it’s done legally and ethically. What bothers me is when it’s our government that is picking economic winners and losers and forcing some to play by different rules. That’s where I agree with you when you say that the system is “rigged.” Politicians should not have the power to inject themselves into private markets to fulfill their political objectives. F.A. Hayek, the great economist and philosopher had an interesting solution for this problem: He said that if he could pass one regulation it would be a law forbidding politicians from passing legislation that favors one citizen over another. In other words, you couldn’t give one American a tax break, a special subsidy to agriculture, or grant any other sort of “perks” to unions without doing the same for every other citizen. That would be the end of political favors because it would effectively remove governmental power to buy votes. Yes, I realize all this is a pipe-dream now because the horses have long since left the barn.

      Capitalism and economic freedom are messy concepts and not altogether “fair.” However, at least the inequality that results from a free market is based on the vote of millions, even billions of people across the world who are making personal economic decisions. There are people in many countries of the world, if not most, who cannot make personal economic decisions because they live in a state of tyranny where their governments make those decisions for them. I know you can’t possibly want that. But back to your point on disparities–it’s the health of the “middle class” that concerns me most. Are those people who are actually working hard and trying to succeed able to make it in America? I share some of your concern here–I think it’s getting more difficult for the average American to live a middle class lifestyle at this moment than it has been for quite some time. We’re in a major recession and jobs are more scarce with unemployment + underemployment hovering around 20%! There are so many reasons for this that I can’t possibly go into them all here, such as government spending, an economy in a state of rapid change, a failing education system, and an ever-growing welfare state serving not just our own citizens but one that is luring immigrants–both legal and illegal, to this country without the ability to support themselves.

      However, one must be careful when defining the word “poor.” Just what is poor today? Many of our citizens are classified as poor even though they don’t go hungry, they live in furnished apartments with heat and air, own a car, many of whom have some kind of employment, and most own the electrical gadgetry of today–computers, cellphones, etc. The problem is that quite a few of these people are being supported by those many social programs you mentioned. This perpetual welfare comes with few strings attached and it propagates a permanent underclass that you correctly note is growing. Like many countries in Europe we’re breeding a dependent class that has become addicted to government handouts.

      You say we should do better. Okay, in what way? How much more wealth should we confiscate from those that are actually producing in this country? Half the population doesn’t even pay income taxes. Guess who’s paying for all those state and federal programs and sweet government union contracts with their lifelong “benefits”? And you wonder why our programs haven’t yet eradicated poverty? Remember, there is no such thing as government money–there is only taxpayer money. I believe that working people are getting a raw deal and the Democratic Party leadership should be ashamed for fomenting class warfare. There are no classes in America and we shouldn’t be demonizing people who’ve managed to make a good living, most of whom did so by working their tails off, and sacrificing tremendously to provide a better life for themselves and their families. Their work ethic should be admired and even emulated–certainly not despised and disparaged!

      You mentioned that social programs have not eradicated the huge and growing underclass. Sorry BT, they never have and they never will. They were never intended to do that. On the contrary, expanding them to their present unworkable size has only served as a beacon to indigents everywhere to come here and line up for “free” services. What started out as well-meaning social safety nets for those who were unable to work or support themselves have been expanded beyond all reasonable definitions. Politicians have made promises that are financially impossible for our nation to keep–but they keep doing it because they figure the implosion will happen when they’re safely out of office or most likely dead and buried.

      You mention that people die every day because they can’t afford life-saving medical treatment. Well, I don’t really know how to answer this complaint without sounding cold-hearted and indifferent to human suffering. So BT, what is your solution? Is it possible to give every single person in the country exactly what they need or want regarding their medical care? The reality is that health care, like all products in an economy, is a scarce resource. It’s finite–there is not an unlimited supply of medical services, staff, doctors, beds, organs, or blood to meet the needs of every single person in the U.S. or on the planet. There are ways to improve the situation–like being permitted to sell your own organs for instance, but you can never solve it completely because health care is a finite resource. Ironically, ObamaCare will do precisely what you’re complaining about–it will make a finite resource even more rare and limited by rationing it through an endlessly convoluted maze of regulations.

      Well BT, I’m with you–I believe we can do better. But it can only be achieved through personal responsibility and holding people accountable for their own actions. Constitutionalists are not against charity–in fact, we encourage it. Giving your own property to another is charity. But is it charitable for government to take the honestly earned property and wealth of someone else in order to give it to a person that it doesn’t belong? No, that’s called theft. BT, we have a great country with the most charitable people in the world living here. We have enormous resources; that is, when they are not squandered by our government. It’s taken us over 80 years to build this massive welfare state and it will probably take us longer, if ever, to deconstruct it. But that’s where we must start. We are presently living under a “soft” tyranny and if we have any hope at all to regain our freedom and return to Constitutional government than we must roll back the size and scope of government. Thanks again BT for taking the time to write. All the best to you.

  47. BS Report,

    Interesting blog, and a nice departure from the conservative “rhetoric” of organizations like Fox news, where no one seems to analyze any of the important issues substantially. The same goes for liberal television media, they’re all largely useless…which is probably why I try to avoid them.

    I’d classify myself as a liberal in a lot of “social” respects so I disagree with your stance on gay marriage (I just don’t see why its such a big deal to deny them that one right, the institution of marriage has been kind of destroyed in this country anyway). I’m also not much of a church-goer, and certainly wouldn’t classify myself as a bastion of morality (whatever that means) so I couldn’t say one way or another what standards someone should hold themselves too (except trying to be generally friendly and not doing physical harm unto others if it can be reasonably avoided, I tend to be under the belief that prisons should be built for violent offenders and that’s about it). Still, some of your points about economic freedom have certainly piqued my interest, and I’ve really enjoyed how pleasant you’ve been in responding to detractors and allies alike. Nice job keeping it relatively sane on here, and being patient with both conservative and liberal “extremists.”

    I have to say I don’t totally agree with you on the economic freedom thing, if for no other reason than I believe that completely un-regulated money making and capitalism would lead to wide spread corruption. I’m not sure its possible to make billions without a bit of corner-cutting and cheating. Still, we’re innocent until proven guilty so guys like Gates, Buffet (whom I enjoy as a person) and Jobs are good to go in my book, while people like Madoff are obviously not. Guys like Gates and Jobs contributed to so much innovation, and Buffet seems to have gotten where he is mostly through ridiculously hard work and being better than everyone else. You can’t fault them for that and they’ve done a lot of philanthropic work to help out the disenfrachised in this country. I guess I just have a huge problem with capitalism unfairly influencing the political process. By that I mean; those with representative power should be free to make those decisions based on the thoughts they were elected for and, to a certain degree, the expressed concensus of their constituencies. So long as Gates, Jobs and Buffet refrain from influencing those politicians for personal gain, I’m all good.

    Honestly, I’d love your opinion on what to do about education in this country. To me its one of the few areas in our society that genuinely deserves to be supported and funded substantially by taxpayer dollars, along with the military, police forces and firemen (both of which deserves at least some of the same reverence our military does) and some emergency medical services. What other arena is there better potential for “evening the playing field,” so to speak? If other liberals want to see people start out on relatively similar footing, the one area they should be trying to champion is an improvement in our overall level of education (especially in areas relatively unaffected by any bias such as science and math) as a country. If people are afforded the same resources and arenas to learn freely, they then have the opportunity to use that knowledge to work as hard as they like for the purposes of bettering themselves and operating in our economy (and also for forming their own opinions and ideals). What are your thoughts? In addition, do you have any thoughts on the evolution debate and some of the other areas of science that tend to cause vitriole from the two political bases?

    Thanks for taking the time to read, I know this is a long post. Thanks for putting your ideas and opinions out there, its what makes this nation a great one.

    – Reid Featherstone (aka themanbearpig)

    P.S. I blog here on wordpress at “The Neighborhood Halfwits” along with a few friends. Check it out if you have some time.

    • Themanbearpig,

      Thanks so much for your kind words and your thoughtful post. Though I generally have libertarian leanings, I’m not a “pure” Libertarian because I believe my Libertarian friends sometimes sacrifice the greater good of our country at the altar of their dogmatism. I would more accurately describe my views as “conservatarian.”

      My conflicts with Libertarians (and many Conservatives) arise in some of the social issues like drug use, abortion, gay marriage and the like. Until fairly recently, I had been against the legalization of drugs but I must admit that I’m now leaning towards decriminalization of marijuana, although I’ve not yet totally embraced the Libertarian view of legalization of all drugs. I do recognize, however, the utter ineptitude and futility of our so-called “war on drugs.” My objection to legalized drug use has never been based on protecting individuals from their own actions, but instead, protecting society from the decay that drugs inflict on the rest of us.

      On gay marriage I come down on the other side of the fence—not because I want gays to be punished, or I somehow believe them to be inferior human beings compared to heterosexuals—nothing could be further from the truth. There is no difference between the worth of a gay person and the worth of a straight person. End of story.

      However, we’re not simply talking about personal sexual behavior; we’re talking about the effects of that behavior on the health of the society at large. Of course gay couples deserve the same rights and privileges as traditional couples—with at least one exception that I will detail momentarily.

      My argument against gay marriage is not based on any biblical arguments regarding its so-called “sinfulness.” My argument is a simple one: Men and women are basically different and each sex brings elements to a marriage that is unique and cannot be duplicated by any same-sex familial arrangement. But even that wouldn’t be unacceptable to me until you factor in the possibility of those effects on children.

      It is my belief that the traditional arrangement of male-female marriage remains the best situation in which to raise a child. That’s hardly a radical idea—in fact, until the present assault on traditional marriage this has been the accepted idea for literally thousands of years. It is the supporters of gay marriage that wish to change the definition of marriage; it is they that wish to transform marriage and impose their worldview on the overwhelming majority who, for legitimate reasons, don’t share their belief that altering the most important institution of society represents a harmless, benign modification.

      This will cause many gays (though certainly not all) to feel that they are not fully accepted as equal members in America. That is both sad and unfortunate. However, it is important for those of us against gay marriage to make the case to gays that, although we hold homosexual relationships to be less conducive to raising children as traditional marriage, we are not attacking a gay person’s basic humanity–but rather we differ on what is best for society and its children. It is further painful because most of us will readily acknowledge that most gays do not choose their sexual path.

      I believe that gay unions should retain all the identical legal protections for them that marriage retains for the rest of society. I mentioned there are some exceptions. One of those areas is adoption. I believe that a married man and woman should have first call to adopt a child when there is that choice.

      Okay, on to economics. You mention that completely unregulating money and capitalism would lead to corruption. How do you explain that notion to those of us who believe that we are presently living through the most corrupt administration in recent memory, and perhaps in our nation’s history? Do we have a shortage of regulations? This is hardly an era of laissez faire. Thousands of new laws are added to civil and municipal codes every year–most of which are designed to grant more power and authority to the government over the private sector. The far larger problem is that small businesses are being suffocated by government regulation and bureaucratic red tape. We can see the many businesses that fail–but what we can’t see are the many enterprises that are abandoned, or are never created due to these obstacles.

      Have these regulations improved our economy or have they merely made private industry more subservient and beholden to government? I argue it’s the latter, and that the results have been disastrous. It falls upon us, the people, to hold our elected officials accountable when they don’t abide by their constitutional oaths and ignore the restraints placed upon them.

      Another even more dastardly problem is the creation of institutions that have been placed beyond the reach of the electorate and are making our lives increasingly intolerable. Entities such as the EPA, or the ever-growing number of unelected and unaccountable “Czars” have been granted unconstitutional power and authority yet are immune to public influence.

      Removing government money (influence) is the best antidote towards creating a healthy economy. What positive results occur when government injects itself into the private sector economy? There are few, if any (except to the receiver of those stolen goods), but there are plenty of negative results. And, by the way, are political motives somehow more pure than economic motives? Is it somehow noble for the government to confiscate (steal) one taxpayer’s money in order to give it to another taxpayer or his business enterprise? The task of government is not to favor one chosen segment of the economy while harming another competing segment. The role of government should be that of an umpire and not an active participant in the game, especially a participant that can, at a whim, use its influence and unlimited resources to decide who wins and who loses in the private sector economy.

      As for our educational system, I’m not for putting public education out of business. But it does need competition because competition removes complacency and allows people to thrive. Open up alternatives such as allowing private schools funded by vouchers and holding all schools accountable when they fail to reach a minimum standard.

      Many of our schools are failing and they are doing so as a result of political decisions far more often than for any lack of monetary resources. They don’t educate nearly as much as they indoctrinate. The unions have far too much power and it remains nearly impossible to get rid of lousy teachers. We need to go back to the basics of teaching a core curriculum that includes courses on America and our history, including in-depth Constitutional instruction designed to produce a more informed, better equipped citizenry capable of holding their elected officials accountable.

      This country will not survive (as we know it) with a population completely ignorant of its past, its Constitution, and the limitations placed on its government institutions and elected officials. We are headed for government tyranny if we abandon the basic tenets that enabled our country to enjoy unforeseen freedom, and that which has allowed this country to thrive like no other place in world history, and which has attracted untold millions to our shores to share in the bounty of opportunity that we’re presently in the process of destroying.

      Let me close here before this post turns into a novel. We became a great country precisely because of our unique set of core principles that celebrate individual liberty and protect private property rights. We are becoming less great because of our increased reliance on an all-powerful government, and by allowing its intrusion into areas it does not belong out of the mistaken belief that within government exists the solution to all problems.

      Government cannot create wealth and prosperity—but it can destroy it. We are witnessing how an out-of-control government can steal our freedom–both civil and economic, while at the same time calling that abuse “fairness.” It’s up to all of us to reverse this trend. Thanks again for taking the time and effort to post. All the best to you.

  48. B.S.,

    I applaud both your patience and clarity of thought. It is a shame (and perhaps a testament to the failings of our educational institutions) that many Americans are crippled from meaningful conversation by emotionalism. I hope their anonymous quips bring them the solace they seek for themselves, because they have no bearing on the ideas discussed.

    Virtus Tentamine Gaudet,

    • D.W.

      Thanks for your kind words and for fighting the good fight. Our nation is at a crossroads and it is indeed a challenge for those of us trying to convince our fellow citizens of the advantages of individual liberty and limited government. Thanks again for doing your part and all the best to you.

  49. Well now. It all sounds so clear when you set it up as “private citizen” versus “government.” The only problem is, you’re missing the biggest part of the picture. It’s the corporations, stupid.

    Where in your lovely little rose-colored federalist world do they fit in? Corporations didn’t even exist when this country was founded. The founders certainly didn’t intend for them to be granted free speech rights, or that they would wield vastly more political power than all the citizens combined.

    You jerks can’t see you’re utter stooges for the 1%. They’re using you now, but as soon as you achieve the dismantling of the federal government, who on earth is going to stop the total takeover (I mean the tiny bit that’s left to take over, since they control virtually everything already).

    You are soooooo fighting a straw man.

    It’s sad. The last vestiges of the federal government are all that stand between you and total corporate tyranny, and yet you “lovers of individual liberty” are slaying your own last defense.

    • Ladyfox,

      I couldn’t disagree with you more and I’ll try to tackle your points in order. First of all, I always look at America in terms of us being private (free) citizens. That’s the glory of America and what makes us different from all other societies ever created. The idea that each person has equal value (not capability) is one of America’s crowning achievements and one of the primary factors that make America “Exceptional.”

      Corporations, on the other hand, are merely legal entities formed to conduct business. As far as corporations not existing at the founding of America, check your facts. There were nearly 200 corporations in America by 1800. There are some benefits to forming a corporation—and there are some disadvantages as well.

      But simply shouting out anti-capitalist, knee-jerk hatred for corporations without recognizing that there are millions of corporations that don’t fit into your preconceived corrupt cookie-cutter mold makes you sound like a silly hysteric. No one denies that corporate corruption exists and no one is in favor of corporate corruption. So it is you that is making the “straw man” argument.

      “Big Business” is neither evil nor good. When corporations run afoul of the law the individuals responsible should be prosecuted—just like anyone else. Corporations are actually comprised of flesh and blood human beings, not some sinister cabal lurking beneath the surface. They are subject to rules and regulations set not by themselves, but by the government that you seem to adore.

      Therein lies the problem. When government is able to make special rules that favor one group over another, or one individual over another, or yes, one corporation over another, that inevitably leads to corruption. When these two entities are in bed together–funneling money and votes in exchange for favorable treatment, the marketplace is circumvented and corruption ensues.

      Government enacting regulations is one thing—government participating in the economy by picking winners and losers is quite another. Government is supposed to act as a “referee” in the marketplace—not behave as an active player. We now suffer from an overabundance of government involvement and regulation–not an absence of it as you believe.

      You rant about the 1% and the 99% when there is no such thing. We don’t have classes in America and those designations are “fluid” meaning that one year a person could be in your so-called 1% and the next year not. It’s time for you to grow up and stop looking at outside forces as a means to explain your own lack of success. All of us would be much better off with a government that cannot grant special favors to any group. So if you really want America to thrive again, let’s reduce the role of government by eliminating “crony capitalism” and subsidies, and confine their activities to their Constitutional duties.

      You seem to find great comfort in an all-powerful government nanny-state while many of your fellow citizens find that idea terrifying–and contrary to everything that the Founders believed. While I don’t necessarily trust corporations at least there is some accountability there. They do have stockholders in which they are beholden and there are laws in which they are obligated to obey. Please explain to us stupid “private citizens” how we can hold our government accountable for their criminal conduct and their unconstitutional activity. Alas, we all know that the federal bureaucracy has virtually no accountability.

      Ladyfox, you actually believe that the federal government is presently in danger of being dismantled? The “last vestiges” of the federal government! Gee, and all this time I thought that it’s growing larger by the second and, if continued, our own government could spend us into a banana republic. One of us is very wrong. You fear a “corporate tyranny” while I think that a government tyranny is the far more likely scenario. Finally Ladyfox, your blind allegiance to the federal government makes you a wonderful “useful idiot” for the State. Someday though, when our society faces imminent collapse, people like you will look to us “lovers of individual liberty” (whom you despise) to bail you out. Thanks for taking the time to write.

  50. Thank you! Keep up the great work, how you sort though the illogic presented by some is encouraging. Someone is able to think, Yay!

  51. Robert Cannon

    We are in this boat because of “free” reign in our economic system! Not government control, but lack of! When our “old” founding fathers developed the constitution, they had no clue what evil was lurking with corporate greed and lobbyist. Big Money controls America, not the government. That is why Super PACs and corporate giants back most of our politicians. Liberty is about the control being in the peoples hands. No ,longer is my house an investment, as I might as well rent. America is a selfish greedy nation that will go down in flames unless we all come together for a common goal and that is loving and caring for one another above a else. How many billions does one person need. Its like to get more to ensure my families success for the next thousand years is more important than keeping big business, oil giants and crooked politians out of the 99%’s pocket! Pay your fair share you greedy bastards and stop getting over! Did anyone take accounting in college or understand debits and credits! We need more revenue (taxes)! Expenses will always go up, and up, and up!

    • Robert Cannon,

      You’re obviously in the wrong country, Robert. The United States was founded on certain principles, all of which you seem to detest. The Founders (and ultimately, the Framers) were well aware of the evils that lurk when you grant too much power to temporary politicians. They so feared tyranny that they drafted the Constitution as a means to limit the power of government. It’s our fault that we no longer hold our politicians accountable to it.

      The Founding generation, having studied history and lived under a growing despotism, understood even better than we do today that you can’t rely on the decency of individuals or human nature to govern justly. Look at the style in which the Framers wrote the Constitution–its arguments are phrased in terms of negative rights: “Congress shall make no law” etc… This illustrates that the Founders and Framers had no trust whatsoever in human decency; their only concern was protecting the nation from a tyranny by government.

      You say that we’re in our present “boat” because of the “free reign” of our economic system. Sometimes I wonder if I’m living on the same planet as some of my fellow Americans. These are not exactly the glory days of free market capitalism. What I see is a private sector that is not “under-regulated,” but instead is being absolutely strangled by regulations.

      Robert, you sound like you’d make a first-class dictator. You don’t embrace freedom, private property rights, the free market, or capitalism itself. You’re against corruption in government, well good for you! Who isn’t? The best way to combat corruption is to limit the power politicians have over us, not grant them increased power.

      And who are you to decide when a person has made enough money or who is paying their “fair share”? We have no shortage of tax revenue in the United States. What we have is an out-of-control bloated government that is spending us (as well as our children’s children) into bankruptcy and eternal debt. That’s what happens when you become a welfare state. It seems to me, with your obvious hatred of this “greedy nation,” that you would be far more comfortable in a more “equitable” society where the citizens all have roughly the same material means…you know, like Cuba or North Korea. Thanks for writing and happy trails…

  52. Just so long as no one first
    slanders Adam Smith and
    then identifies as his opponents
    anyone who doesn’t support the
    slanderer’s monopolistic market
    controls or ability to pull the
    puppet strings of policy makers,

    • EverNewEcoN,

      My understanding of the “invisible hand” is that it’s the fluid process of the market shifting resources from less valuable uses to more valuable uses in the hope of gaining a higher return. In other words, seeking one’s own self interest.

      This in turn has the “unintentional” outcome of finally being in the public interest, as in Smith’s statement that an individual “is led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention,” and “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from regard to their own self interest.”

      EverNewEcoN, please educate me, is this viewpoint incorrect? Or am I just an Adam Smith slanderer in support of monopolies and/or doing the bidding of the policy makers pulling the puppet strings?

  53. You have published a untrue article http://www.google.com.au/amp/s/thebsreport.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/sore-loser-biker-bites-man’s-ear-off-over-who-has-the-fastest-motorcycle/amp/ that is causing me financial hardship. Please remove from your site as the original publisher did on the day they posted because they realised it was untrue. If you believe it’s your right to be a asshole and ruin someone’s life then please provide your details so I can start lega proceedings to force it’s removal.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s