Thoughts Aloud

Author Archive

For some time now I have been pondering the idea of making my own list of the 10 worst presidents in the “modern era” which, for me, starts in the late 1800’s with the advent of the progressive movement.

Let me tell you, this is no easy task as the last 100+ years have seen some of the worst presidents one can imagine. Or, looked at another way, perhaps the growth of power of the federal government and the concentration of power in the executive branch merely magnifies the effect of a bad president? I suspect a combination of both. While our federal government has grown by leaps and bounds, the people’s toleration for corruption has grown apace. I suppose corruption is like most any evil… one grows increasingly hardened to it much like hands that work hard grow callouses to help protect them from further harm. Except that, growing virtual callouses on our sense of ethics does nothing to protect us from further harm. Indeed, it has just the opposite effect.

Read the rest of this entry »

As our country continues its transition from liberty toward tyranny, we are going to have to face questions that have, traditionally, been alien to Americans. These questions will concern the extent of our loyalties, the demands for our obedience, and the extent to which we will honor these demands.

Like all Americans who have served in our military, upon induction I swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. And, I have always understood that this oath has no expiration date. By implication, this oath also requires me to support and defend the government of the United States of America. For years, I have accepted this implication. However, given the current direction of our government, I now amend my commitment to support, defend and obey the U.S. Government to be binding only to the extent that that same government acts is strict accordance with the Constitution, as written.

Stated differently, I have never sworn any oath nor do I acknowledge any loyalty to any arbitrary rule or to any “government”, legitimate or otherwise. Two basic principles are essential to the successful operation of a constitutional republic – as America was intended to be:
Read the rest of this entry »

Today, I repeat a question I have asked several times in past articles… what will it take to get the American people upset enough to demand action?

To this, I add a second question… why is our Congress, especially the GOP-controlled House of Representatives, so reluctant to investigate or challenge any of the clear violations of the constitution on the part of the Obama Administration?

Let us consider just two of the recent events that should have caused uproars:

Item 1

An article on WashingtonTimes.com (http://times247.com/articles/kuhner-obama-authorizes-himself-to-declare-martial-law) titled OBAMA AUTHORIZES HIMSELF TO DECLARE MARTIAL LAW. Quoting directly from the article:

“On March 16, the White House released an executive order, “National Defense Resources Preparedness.” The document is stunning in its audacity and a flagrant violation of the Constitution. It states that, in case of a war or national emergency, the federal government has the authority to take over almost every aspect of American society. Food, livestock, farming equipment, manufacturing, industry, energy, transportation, hospitals, health care facilities, water resources, defense and construction — all of it could fall under the full control of Mr. Obama. The order empowers the president to dispense these vast resources as he sees fit during a national crisis…”
Read the rest of this entry »

Before getting to the point of this article, please allow me to set up a bit of background:

First, Moral Hazard is a term I have borrowed from economics and whose definition I have modified slightly to mean “an unfortunate, unintended side effect of a well-meant action”.

Second, I need to pontificate about a truly dangerous trend in modern American life. That is that all of the games that currently seem to dominate our national attitude are based on the “win/lose” paradigm.

The games in question include politics, religion, sports and war.

What, you may well ask, is wrong with the “win/lose” paradigm? When it is used only in fun, there is nothing basically wrong with it. However, when we allow it to dominate our attitudes, it becomes ruinously divisive. And, as I write this, we are a nation more divided than at any time since our so-called “Civil War” (as if any war can be considered “civil”).
Read the rest of this entry »

Our Declaration of Independence reaffirms our universal right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Yet, there is more to it than that because these rights imply even more fundamental rights if they are to be real. Primary among these implied rights is the right to decide for ourselves how we will conduct our lives, assuming we do not harm others in the process.

At first thought, this seems simple enough. But, as we think more deeply, we must realize that, given the fact of human imperfection, the right to decide for ourselves must include the right to make poor or incorrect decisions. Stated differently, we have the right to be wrong.

This leads us into yet another line of thought, this concerning the proper role of government in our personal and private lives. I think we all agree that one proper role of government is to protect its citizens. But, does this include protecting them from themselves or is it limited to protecting them from malicious and intentional harm by others?

I contend that, if we truly do have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, supported by a fundamental right to decide for ourselves how we will conduct our lives, then government cannot possibly have any role in protecting us from ourselves – that is, from the effects of our own poor or incorrect decisions. Further, when government does attempt to protect us from ourselves, it can only do so by taking away fundamental rights and limiting personal liberty.
Read the rest of this entry »

In the ongoing exchange about the contraception/abortion mandate in Obamacare, most all of the participants seem to be totally “wrapped around the axle” over whether this means the end of separation of church and state, whether females have some natural right to contraception and abortion and, indeed, over whether reproduction is a form of “disease”. I suppose all these are all good items for discussion, although I will not inject my own opinions at this time. Instead, I wish to highlight an aspect of this issue that seems to be going unnoticed by all concerned…

All of the discussions (negotiations) on the government side of the issue seem to revolve around the decisions of a single person – Obama. We hear about what he is willing to do, what he is not willing to do, etc.

Are we not talking here about a healthcare law that was passed by the legislature? Where in our Constitution does it say that the executive may override the acts of the legislature at whim and without their consent (other than by veto before they become law)?
Read the rest of this entry »

In response to my article “Equality: Myth vs Reason”, BrockTownsend responded that homeschooling is a viable response to the sorry mess we call a public education system.

Naturally, Brock is absolutely right while being mostly wrong. Homeschooling is an option only for those families who possess the three critical attributes that determine virtually all success in raising children: means, ability and willingness. Families with these attributes will almost always raise their young to be good citizens whether they homeschool or not.

On a recent episode of Stossel, John Stossel opined that “Charter Schools” are another response to failing public schools. Again, absolutely right and mostly wrong. Charter Schools are not growing in number due to the resistance of both the progressive establishment and the education unions. And, getting a child into the ones that do exist requires at least ability and willingness on the part of the family because of the fierce competition to get into these schools.

A sad fact of modern American life is that far too many children are being born into “families” who lack most or all of the three critical attributes. As a result, the complete problem with our public education system is a combination of a dysfunctional system and dysfunctional students. This is proven by the fact that, however bad the system may be, a certain number of children emerge well educated despite it.

So, how do we improve the overall quality of the children being produced in this nation? That is the Ultimate Conundrum.
Read the rest of this entry »

Today I return to one of my favorite topics, that of Equality in America. In past articles, I have repeated the dictum that Equality is the opposite of Liberty (or, vice-versa if you prefer). However, this is actually true only in certain contexts of Equality. This is because, in present-day America, the notion of Equality actually presents itself in three different contexts. These are:

→ Equality Before The Law

→ Equality Of Opportunity

→ Equality Of Outcome

Let us examine each in more detail…
Read the rest of this entry »

What is a good libertarian (like yours truly) to think when two despicable organizations, both dedicated to controlling the lives of others, get into a urinating contest?

I refer, of course, to the current urinary battle between the Obama Administration and the Catholic Church. Who does one root for? Is it too much to hope that they ultimately destroy each other? Yeah, it probably is.

In all honesty, if forced to choose a side, it would be the church, not because I have any use for the organization, but because I have even less use for overreaching government.

But, it could be worse (and it has been) – the church and the government could once again merge and bring us a new dark age. Just imagine it: a flat Earth that is the center of the universe, a government mandate that we all attend the church services that we are directly taxed to fund. Oh happy day.

Where does this lust for the power to control others come from – especially in a world where so few exercise any self control?

Troy L Robinson

I cannot help but notice that the progressives and their media lackeys are inconsistent in the way they choose to express things.

For instance, a year or so ago, they were wailing about the “obscene profits” made by energy companies, in particular Exxon-Mobil. They consistently made their “case” by stating the profit in question in total dollars. Measured this way, the total (in the billions) was indeed impressive. However, when that same profit is restated as a percentage of return on equity, it turns out that the energy companies are really not all that profitable. The “obscene” profits turn out to reflect the size of the companies, in other words, the amount of dollars they are putting at risk in the conduct of their business. No bank or pharmaceutical company (for instance) could exist on the profit margins produced by the energy companies.

Now, the issue of the day is “tax fairness”. So, are the progressives consistent by measuring “fairness” by stating the issue in total dollars? No. Instead they use the nominal marginal tax rate, stated as a percentage. Stated such, we find that Mitt Robamany paid just less than 15% last year while “hard working people” might have paid as much as 35%. Clearly unfair – right? However, if we study the same issue using total dollar amounts, we find that Robamany paid over $3 million in income taxes while about 47% of workers paid $0. Clearly, Robamany (and other wealthy people) are each carrying the tax load for hundreds of people. But the progressives find nothing at all unfair about this because we all know that the wealthy need to be punished for their success.

Indeed, the basic mantra of the progressive movement is Reward Failure, Punish Success. How then can anyone be surprised that we are evolving into a nation of failures who are reduced to dependence on government?

PS: Please do not interpret anything said here as support for Robamany. What I support is truth.

Think about it.

Troy L Robinson

GOP presidential hopeful and former PA senator Rick Santorum recently upped the ante in the anti abortion discussion with the statement that he would urge his own daughter to carry to term, deliver and raise a child that resulted from her being raped. He said such a child should be considered “a gift from God”.

Please allow me to state Santorum’s position another way. He would urge his own daughter to carry to term, deliver and raise a child, half of whose DNA was that of a vicious animal who impregnated her during a vicious attack. Rather than live in fear that the child had inherited its father’s vicious tendencies, she should cherish the child as though it was the result of some manner of gift giving.

How could any rational being wish a continued state of hell on his own offspring? Most victims of violent rape never truly get over the experience. Would not the presence of the rapist’s spawn serve to intensify the victim’s ongoing agony? (Note that I use violent rape to differentiate from statutory rape which is often non-violent and consensual.)
Read the rest of this entry »

High technology is such a great thing. For instance, because we have an automated DVR attached to our DirecTV system, we can keep a backlog of recorded programs to watch when there in nothing worth watching in real time.

Last evening was just such a time – when the government used its regulating authority to intimidate all commercial broadcast TV networks to cover the so-called “State Of The Union” address.

I realize that our Constitution does task our President with reporting his/her view of the state of the nation to Congress each year. But, the Constitution says nothing about extorting commercial air time (obviously since such did not exist at the time the Constitution was written). Even more significant, it also says nothing about the report being delivered in person as part of a ceremony that has come to imitate an imperial progress.

Indeed, Thomas Jefferson delivered his annual reports by letter, with no ill effects aside from a missed opportunity for self-aggrandizement.

Were I constitutionally tasked with delivering a “State Of The Union” report, I could do so in one sentence: Disastrous and deteriorating! But, I digress.
Read the rest of this entry »

This is yet another pass at a subject I have blogged on before. It is the misuse of the so-called “clauses” in our Constitution.

In a number of writings, including some of the Federalist Papers, James Madison made abundantly clear, the fact that the powers of the new Federal Government were limited to those specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

However, especially since the rise of the progressive movement in the late 1800’s, there has been a growing (and successful) attempt to interpret the various clauses of the Constitution as granting the Federal Government whatever powers it deems necessary to “fulfill” the duties spelled out in the clauses. This is particularly true of the so-called General Welfare and Commerce clauses. This has had the effect of making the enumerated powers beside the point while granting the Federal Government unlimited powers.

Does any sane individual truly believe that this is what our Founders intended? Of course not. Why then are the so-called clauses there to begin with? My simple (and obviously correct) response is that the clauses attempt to establish the duties and responsibilities of government while the enumerated powers are the powers granted to the government to carry out those duties and responsibilities.
Read the rest of this entry »

The GOP primary “debates” have become such a sham that I did not bother to watch the most recent S.C. “debate”. However, I was pleased to see re-runs of Newt tearing into that CNN moron who opened the questioning with something totally beside the point of the debate, something totally personal and (should be) private, and worse yet, something said by an angry ex-wife.

While I still prefer Ron Paul, I do sympathize with Newt. You see, I too have an angry ex-wife. And, while she is not really a bad person, any conversation with her regarding me would likely suggest that I am the devil incarnate.

The public knows nothing of the Gingrich’s private lives in the days before the affair (and the divorce it seemed to lead to) anymore than nobody but my ex and I really know what went on between us before a similar outcome. How then can any rational person believe that a public discussion of such a thing could have any meaning? In my own case, I am not sure even I understand for sure what transpired or why.

Even more important, how can an unfortunate end to a relationship between two private individuals have any bearing on one’s qualification to hold office? I know that many will use the excuse that it speaks to character. I retort that, lacking details that will not (and should not) be made public, one can make no conclusion other than the obvious fact of an unfortunate outcome.
Read the rest of this entry »

I watched most of the debate circus last evening – with steam coming out my ears over yet another attempt to deny Ron Paul his fair share of debate time. Anyway, the constant theme of this debate, this primary, and no doubt the constant theme of the general election will be Job Creation and the race is on to see who can claim to be the best job creator.

Then, I glance at my ever-present copy of our Constitution and find not one word about job creation in the duties spelled out for the president. Nada. None. Zip.

So, why this constant wailing about job creation and, better yet, why do WTS eat this crap up?

Imagine your worst nightmare for a moment – I have been nominated by the Libertarian Party as its presidential candidate. By some even greater miracle, I have been invited to participate in a national debate, along with Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-dum. It comes my turn to field a question and that question is: “Mr. Robinson, how do you propose to create more jobs?”.
Read the rest of this entry »

I heard on the radio today that several of the GOP presidential candidates are running on “values platforms” in South Carolina in a race to see which one can pound his bible the loudest. For reasons I cannot fully explain, this puzzles me. Allow me to attempt to explain…

Gingrich, Perry and Santorum all three have long worn their Christianity on their sleeves, on billboards, indeed, anywhere and in any way they can advertise their holiness. OK, if that is what they really believe and what they really stand for, fine with me. After all, it is still an almost free country. So, why am I puzzled? Simple. I expect people who are that holy to be above reproach. Yet, all this public display of near sainthood seems to have no affect on their actual conduct. I refer particularly to two recent Romney pile-ons that were both taken so far out of context that the result could only be called dishonesty (lying if you like your accusations straight up.)

The first was when Romney said he liked being able to fire service providers who were not providing adequate service. Clearly, what he meant is that the likes the choices available in a free market. Yet, the pseudo-saints were the first to “spin” this statement to make it sound like Romney simply enjoys making people lose their jobs.
Read the rest of this entry »

There is increasing chatter in the media RE the long-talked-about, never-going-to-happen balanced budget amendment.

I have long been against all this noise because I think it is nothing but a distraction and a cheap attempt by congress to act like something it is not. Besides, until we actually return to running our government per the terms of our Constitution, what possible point could there be in amending it further?

Having said all that, what if we really did insist on a balanced budget amendment along with an even greater insistence that our Constitution be obeyed? How might such an amendment be constructed such that it would actually have meaning? Most of the proposals I read are little more than nonsense proposals with holes so large that congress would not be the least hampered in its continued fiscal insanity.

However, as you should expect for one as opinionated as myself, I have a partial solution. The problem with the “standard” proposals which are based on the “standard” budgeting process is that they are all forward looking, hence subject to the most outrageous estimates of the future (such as economic growth causing increased tax revenues). My simple proposal is a backward looking process. Rather than grossly overestimate future revenues then plan our spending based on that nonsense, we look at each year’s ACTUAL revenues then base the next year’s spending on that. I suggest that the amendment simply state that any year’s spending is absolutely limited to 90% of the previous year’s actual revenue. Sharper minds than mine can figure out how to obtain a reasonably accurate, tamper-proof figure for the previous-year revenue.

Of course, we would still be stuck with the problem that no rule is any better than the integrity of the enforcers. A problem made worse by the fact that most of WTS do not understand that WE are the only effective enforcers.

It is so very frustrating to see all that might be done, if only the citizens of this failing nation would take the responsibilities of citizenship seriously.

Think about it.

Troy L Robinson

I find myself with little comment to offer as we all watch the worldwide political circus, waiting for shoes to start dropping, yet compelled to say something.

The center ring of our circus is the GOP race for the presidential nomination, eventually to be replaced by the general election which promises even more all-star performances.

In ring 1 we have the European Union, desperately trying to find a way to avoid the inevitable collapse of socialism,

While in ring 3 we have Iran… well, being Iran.

Once again, I will try to gather my fading analytical skills and prognosticate.

→ In the United States, the selection of a GOP candidate is beside the point because Obama is going to stay in power. A sitting president, especially one who is half way toward being a dictator, simply has too many options for manipulating world events to favor his continuation in office. For sure, Jimmy Carter blew his big chance for manipulation with the Iran hostage crisis – but, while Carter was an incompetent, he was not essentially evil. That is not the case in the current situation.

→ In the European Union, they will “kick the can” down the road as long as possible. Yet, this is not an endless road. At the end of this road, the only option seems to be a wiping clean of the financial slate, an action usually accomplished by a general war.
Read the rest of this entry »

I hereby move that the entire nation heed the demands of the “establishment” and proclaim Mitt Robamaney the GOP nominee by acclimation. I make this move on the grounds that there is no good reason to destroy any more members of the human race who may once have had the audacity to think the American people should choose the nominee.

Of course, this diatribe is prompted by the recent revelation that Dr. Ron Paul is a hate-mongering anti-Semitic racist, continuing a pattern that began with the lynching of Herman Cain over his alleged womanizing and the attempted destruction of Newt Gingrich over past infidelity, being a “bad boss”, having new ideas and every other sort of “crime” one may imagine.

There is a more than clear pattern here. No matter how old or obscure one’s past foibles, real or imagined, they really matter only when one begins to challenge the anointed Mitt.

Truth is, I have no idea what Ron Paul espoused in the late 80’s to early 90’s because I was not watching and it seemed to not be newsworthy at the time. Ditto with Herman Cain and whatever clumsiness he may or may not have had in dealing with members of the opposite sex. As for Newt, the allegations are no doubt true and even more so are beside the point (even though I personally do not favor his candidacy).
Read the rest of this entry »

Just a mini-rant this time… As I write this, my life partner, Saint J9, is watching an argument between Mitt Robamaney and some war veteran on the subject of gay marriage.

Why is it so hard for the social conservatives and other bible-thumpers to understand that marriage is a bifurcated state in modern America? On the one hand, there is marriage as an institution sanctioned by the various religious organizations. Given our tradition of freedom of religion, each of these organizations should be free to sanction gay marriage – or not, in accordance with their standards and beliefs. On the other hand, marriage is a legal state, recognized by various levels of government that conveys certain legal privileges. Under our tradition of equality before the law, it should be legal for any combination of people who wish to declare themselves legally married to do exactly that. This is a point of contention that lacks any rational foundation.

Think about it.

Troy L Robinson