FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – new version of America announced! Sources say it will be leaner and meaner than the current version eliminating some of the extra programs that slowed it down. Release date unknown, but stockholders are frantically moving the new version forward, making drastic changes to the organization in the meantime.

As you know, America 1.0 was one of the most successful product launches in history, defying all analysts’ predictions with innovative liberty and wealth building features. That original version came with rights built in and quite literally re-defined the world we knew at the time making users and stockholders one in the same.

Widely considered one of the most innovative products the world has ever seen, it changed the way we viewed ourselves and those around us. It gave unprecedented powers to the user and possessed the capability to expand its effectiveness at an exponential rate.

Sometime around the start of the 20^th century, programmers started tweaking America 1.0, looking for some upgrades and new features, rolling out America 1.1. While the initial changes were thought to be good ideas at the time, we have since learned the code was seriously flawed, forcing the creation of various other add-ons not previously needed in 1.0.

America 1.1 had some fundamental changes including a unique centralized database. This slowed productivity and forced too many procedures through a central location. With this consolidation of features running through a central location, we really saw a loss of user friendly options.

Still, most experts preferred America 1.1 to the Marx based operating systems being launched in Europe at the same time.

As a result of some serious programming errors in 1.1, in 1929 the system was infected with a virus and completely crashed. Most users were effected and caused some serious problems for the programmers. A few years later, America hired a new programmer who they thought could rewrite the software and put the system back on track.

Unfortunately, when the new programmer released America 1.2, he completely over-engineered the design. Programs were overbuilt, overused and code was written into the system which created most of the significant problems we see today.

1.2 was particularly susceptible to viruses causing the need to create features like administrator functions not previously needed in 1.0. While 1.2 can be credited with getting us through the great marketplace battle with Fascism 5.4, it’s widely accepted the functions remaining from 1.0 did most of the work.

1.2 was temporarily well received after the battle with Fascism 5.4 because the users were running lean in the marketplace. Significant credit should be given to the original code written in 1.0. But, soon enough the problems with 1.2 resumed and clearly called for necessary changes to save the organization.

America 1.5 was launched in 1964 by a programmer who was abruptly promoted after the unexpected death of his predecessor. This new version resembled 1.2, but greatly expanded the number of programs and functions the users were expected to purchase and understand. The code created under 1.5 was awkward, slow and moved into a completely different platform than the original 1.0. Over the course of about 15 years, users became disgusted with the organization and entertained scrapping the system in lieu of some other more Marxed based European versions.

But, in 1980 a new programmer was hired and focused on simplifying the programming and getting closer to the original performance settings. It worked.

1.8 was launched with many features similar to 1.0. Users loved the new format, and we saw incredible market expansion both in the country and abroad. 1.8 was hailed as saving the nation. But despite all the successes of 1.8, it couldn’t address all of the code and programming issues hardwired into 1.1, 1.2 and 1.5.

Programmers for the next few years tweaked 1.8, adding and subtracting. We saw 1.8 v2 and 1.8 v3. Neither of which was very effective. Shortly after, we even saw some crazy security features added after some creators of Jihad 3.0 hacked the system.

In response to problems created by 1.8 v2 and v3, 1.9 was launched and included a reduction in code, but also added some truly cumbersome programs filled with memory hogs and expansion to the centralized processing feature. With all the investment into the centralized feature and new programs, 1.9 was a flop.

In 2009, the new programmer opted to scrap the American platform and move to a Marx based operating system. While most of the programming is still in debate, the new code for the system is frightening. It takes away tons of user autonomy and choices. Many of the interfaces are completely eliminated, while at the same time adding features and programs to be completely centralized with the administrator rights only.

In response to the potential problems with the new Marx based system, users/stockholders have decided they do not want a Marx based system and begun the process of purging the departments with focus on R+D.

I am told that the R+D shows the stockholders are determined to stay on the American based operating system and scrap most of the department heads, code and programming responsible for most of the operating problems in previous versions.

While only rumor at this point, America 2.0 will be very close to America 1.0 with special emphasis on de-centralizing features, a market optimization tool and a ton of open architecture so the users will no longer have to deal with administrator rights issues.

I have also been told America 2.0 will cost significantly less than previous versions and literally trillions less than the newly proposed Marx based operating system. With this new combination of user freedoms and cost cutting, I see no reason America 2.0 won’t be a tremendous success.

It’s an uphill battle for the stockholders, but a new found determination to preserve the American based operating system has united the group at an alarming rate. With extra effort and determination from the stockholders, I think we’ll see the return to the American operating system we all know and love.

Stockholders are in the process of purging departments right now, so expect to see a gradual roll out in test markets starting in 2010.

By Dan Lillback, www.americanjunto.org

A recent law signed into being by the President last week has sent the same companies that were recently bailed out as a result of bad credit decisions, reeling with concerns over their ability to continue to operate. The new credit laws are being billed as good for consumers, but some have said that the new law will create more unintended consequences for specific groups.

The most recent credit laws that have been passed such as UDAP, which stands for Unfair and Deceptive Acts or Practices, and the new law which was signed this month by President Obama was designed to “protect” consumers from the unfair practices of the credit card they are using. 

Some of the highlights of the recent bills include the opportunity to understand how long it will take to pay off a balance when paying minimum payments, eliminating delinquent and sub prime interest rate increases, and assuring that customers have a minimum of 21 days to pay balances on credit transaction when they receive their bills. 

So all of that sounds nice, but remember the business model for credit card companies is based on interest rates, fees, risk, and payment patterns. Consumers that are more risky receive a lower credit limit, higher interest rate and a regular credit scoring review to assure that they are still able to meet their obligations to the credit card company. Within the high risk group, there are defaults and delinquencies, some of which are paid. This group remains profitable for most credit card companies based on their risk modeling and the law of large numbers. Without the ability to profit, what would be the purpose of operating in the unsecured credit business? 

This in turn is exactly what credit card companies will begin to say. As a result of the caps on interest rates and potentially the increase in fees, could the law of large numbers, be replaced by the law of unintended consequences? The unintended consequences begin when low income and high credit risk individuals have less access to credit. The credit card companies will in turn charge higher fees for low credit risk customers, simply as a way to combat the loss of revenue from the higher risk segment. 

A credit pinch will result to the higher risk populations which include, as mentioned in a 2003 Federal Reserve Board report to Congress, “Black Americans and Hispanics, on average, who have lower credit scores than non-Hispanic whites and Asians." So this population will have less access to credit, which over time will be less inclined to be approved for lower rate business loans and mortgages.

Additional impacts to driving lower credit risk customers to cash or debit products, will further impact the spending policies relied upon by the current and past administrations as a result of the Keynesian policies that have led to the current expansion and subsequent contraction of the GDP. If credit is the oil lubricating the economy, these policies seem like a departure from that concept as well.

So while President Obama marked his 100^th day in office by stating that, “the economic stimulus plan approved by Congress will tend to help the nation's vulnerable communities the most, and that blacks and Hispanic people tend to be over-represented in those groups.” It appears from this analysis that the “help that is on the way”, may have missed the mark this time.

www.americanjunto.org

"We in America do not have a government by the majority. We have a government by the majority who participate"

By Joel Poff, www.americanjunto.org

If you had a crystal ball to see the future of a nation outspending itself, what would it look like? How about a window into the past instead?

With America currently in the middle of a financial crisis, it is important to note that ours is not a unique problem in the course of world history. The down side of financial crisis is - the effected country rarely escapes without significant changes in its political structure. In the case of pre revolutionary France it would be hard to find a country in greater economic disrepair, or a country more enslaved by mismanaged and frivolous spending.

The major problem for the Bourbon government at the time was the practice of venality, loosely defined as the selling of offices. The practice was very popular for both sides; for the financially strapped monarch it offered some much needed cash in hand, and for the purchaser it gave them income, status, and exemption from certain taxes. It continued for centuries despite its long term financial consequences, and its popularity led to venality becoming a French addiction.

Venality never slowed down it only gained momentum through successive rulers in the Bourbon dynasty. One hundred years prior to the French Revolution there were around 40,000 created offices at the dawn of the revolution there were more than 70,000 offices on the books that the French treasury were accountable to make payments for.

A conservative estimate shows that the government paid out four times the amount that they brought in from selling offices and the practice continued for generations. It goes without saying that a government with considerable expenses involved in non-productive investment will have severe long-term effects on its treasury.

Along with the long-term effects their frivolous spending had on their economy, it also had a significant impact on eroding the trust of the taxpayers living in France. Venality raised money for the crown to pay back national debt, extravagant building projects, colonial adventures, and continental wars ultimately to be passed on to the French taxpayer. The crown was stuck in an interest deficit spiral. They could only service the current debt by raising more loans to pay for it, bankruptcy was inevitable.

Although the government made efforts to pull back some of the spending the perception that the taxpayers would have to take on the burden of the governments excesses was what eventually brought an end to the Bourbon government.

Does any of this sound familiar?

Sacrificing the future for temporary pacification is a recipe for disaster. Let us learn from the mistakes of the past.

All the good intentions in the world – creating jobs, keeping people employed, strengthening the economy – don’t amount to anything if the future is mortgaged out of existence. Only a return to fiscal responsibility and promotion of the free market can avert a long term disaster.

www.americanjunto.org

"We in America do not have a government by the majority. We have a government by the majority who participate"

By Chris Littleton, www.americanjunto.org

It is approximately 15 minutes after midnight, and I’m just sitting down to read and write for the day.

Do I work second shift? No.

Am I a night owl? Not particularly.

So why do I bother to catch up on the news, stay up with current events and write articles like this one so late every night?

Because… I have no other choice.

I was reminded of this necessity almost two weeks ago as I sat down with a group Cincinnati Tea Party Members to help with some very basic data entry. Our little “get to together” didn’t start until around 8pm. As we realized it was close to midnight, we each began to share stories of meetings, presentations or travel with our jobs the next day.

Once again, we had no other choice but to start our project late and work into the night. Why don’t we have a choice?

Because we have real responsibilities.

Not a person among us could be considered “wealthy,” so we all had work in the morning (some of us at 6:30am). Most of us had obligations to children and family that took priority as well. In fact, most of us had dropped children with a baby sitter or family member just to be there for the evening.

Many of the grass roots movements that are developing around the country are in a word – incredible.

I can’t speak for every organization like this in the country, but the groups which I am involved with (Cincinnati Tea Party and American Junto) are not well funded. They aren’t managed or supported by a politician or a larger power. They have been started and continued by working people around their kitchen table with friends.

They are the purest grass roots organizations going today. We don’t have full time employees, and most of the work is done from our home. We don’t have local offices or national leadership. What you see is what you get.

The media would love you to believe as the AP reported on April 15^th, 2009, that we have been, “Whipped up by conservative commentators and bloggers…”

While we do pay attention to current events, no one had to get us “whipped up.” The current state of affairs handled this for us.

So, how did we all reach this point at the same time?

We opened our eyes, and looked at what we had let the country become. We were all too busy trying to live out the American dream through hard work and commitment to family that we didn’t bother to stop the country from changing in front of us.

Some of us couldn’t afford to attend protests of any kind because we were supporting a family. Some of us didn’t care enough to get involved because we made the assumption that votes cast for a particular party would be good enough. On both accounts, we were wrong.

The simple truth is that we didn’t care enough to seek change because we valued personal comfort more than the current situation.

The turning point was – an agenda historically expanding government programs, ludicrous waste, unbridled special interests all without the means to be funded. In just a couple months, we saw the future of our country sold out from under us. Our government has written checks their butts can’t cash, and leveraged our futures for their ideology.

It seems they seek to enslave the entire society through either dependence or debt. In order to accomplish this move into bigger government and socialist ideals, they have trampled the constitution and destroyed our children’s chance at the American Dream.

Let me be very clear, we all agree this didn’t just start in 2009. It peaked. Republicans share as much blame as Democrats for this debauchery. We were all just wearing our blinders as the excesses of government programs, entitlements and spending soared.

I guess we all come together now because the travesties of the last few months have been more than we can bear. We have officially moved out of our comfort zone. No one had to tell us what to do. We just knew.

We knew we should seek out like-minded people and remind our government that we employ them.

We knew it was time to remind them that our inalienable rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness have not been forgotten, and we will not give them up without a fight.

We knew that protecting the interests of our families for generations would require a stand- now! Or, we should be prepared to hold our heads in shame for not standing up to the swell of socialism at our shores.

We knew it was now or never.

Many have joined. Many still will.

Will you?

Will you find common ground and a common voice in your neighborhood? Will you transcend politics because you know some things aren’t about political parties? They are about preserving our Republic with the least expense and greatest benefit.

Will you preserve the future of our great country for your children and grandchildren?

These thoughts are the impetus behind our twilight activism. We don’t engage in these movements because we want to. We engage in them because we must. We work at midnight, because - If we don’t, who will?

www.americanjunto.org

By Dan Lillback, www.americanjunto.org

Much of the current financial industry is in upheaval. There are banks deemed too big to fail, while major companies such as GM and Chrysler, are deemed able to fail, if the White House does not agree with their direction.

There are a number of aspects of failure that aid in eventual success, with a wide range of examples being sized just right to fail. Being too big to fail is a matter of perspective and direction, specifically with the arbitrary assignments of importance that exist in today’s society. Let’s examine the largest bank in the world, and then get larger from there and analyze what it means to be too big to fail.

Citigroup is the largest bank in the world, with a market cap of over $300 billion, and controlling over $2 trillion dollar in total assets.

If you work or are a vendor for Citigroup or a subsidiary, you probably have valid concerns about your job and a portion of your 401(k) if there was a failure in the organization. Most employees in Citigroup probably had little to do with the creation of some of the financial derivatives that are leading the organization toward failure. In fact most employees have attempted to make the company more successful through traditional routes of working hard and gaining customers. 

People outside of Citigroup see a massive business, with plenty of assets that are ready for the taking. Private equity groups, venture capitalists, and entrepreneurs would love to get a hold of a few of the productive assets within Citi. The malinvestment within the organization, and many like it, are unable to fail as a result of the government’s intervention, allowing the employees to keep their jobs, but potentially reducing options for additional employment as a result of the number of other companies that would be created from the liquidation and separation of the productive and unproductive assets. 

Citigroup is still too big to fail? How about something a bit larger?

Try the Roman Empire on for size; the empire was at one point the greatest force in known civilization. This empire at its height controlled over 20% of the world’s population. The empire was responsible for most of the ideal of western government, philosophy, art, currency, and military advancements. The citizens of the Roman Empire had more opportunities than most, but again depending on your perspective the demise of the Roman Empire was met with either exhilaration or disappointment.

Clearly those in charge of the Roman Empire had much more to lose than those that supported the vast empire. The incredible Roman army, documented for much of the success of the empire, probably enjoyed the opportunity to move back to their land and see their families again, after long tours, creating the empire.

Many of the conquered countries of the Roman Empire, most likely had a different perspective of the collapse of the empire. There ability to begin to operate autonomously without being persecuted by the Roman Empire, surely was met with a breath of fresh air. 

So, the failure of the Roman Empire was massive for the hierarchy of the empire, but probably less so for the soldiers, the conquered countries, and the oppressed, which were spread well across the empire.

Was the Roman Empire too big to fail? Is Citi too big to fail? It always depends on perspective, the important question to ask, is why would something that is ready to fail be forcefully propped up? Surely there is a money trail heading to some of the key politicians making the call, and clearly like the Roman Empire those elitists would be more impacted by the failure of any large organization much more than the bulk of taxpayers bearing the load. Failures are simply pathways to success; it just depends on your direction and perspective.

www.americanjunto.org

“We in America do not have a government by the majority. We have a government by the majority who participate.”

by Chris Littleton April 10, 2009, West Chester, Ohio – www.americanjunto.org

I’ve lived in 6 states since college, and having sampled some of the best America has to offer from sea to shining sea - I was drawn back home to Ohio. Those of you reading this (I’m sure) are asking, why Ohio? What were you thinking?

I came back to Ohio because I wanted to raise my children near family and be surrounded by people who are grounded and honest. People who aren’t afraid to work for their living. People who have produced Presidents, astronauts, great thinkers and great athletes. People who understand adversity as well as innovation. People who showed us how to fly, but remained humble enough to serve. Ohio, as well as any other state in the Republic, embodies the American spirit.

And, what is the American Spirit?

I believe the American Spirit is simply this – Don’t tell me what can’t be done. Allow me to show you what I will do.

Throughout the history of both Ohio and the United States, individuals have only asked for an opportunity to be great, but have never expected it be given to them. Nor, has the greatness of this country ever been achieved by a government institution or entitlement. It has been achieved by individuals who sought more than what they were born into. They dreamed, and were not inhibited in their journey by a system.

Neil Armstrong (born in Wapakoneta,OH) once said, “I think we're going to the moon because it's in the nature of the human being to face challenges. It's by the nature of his deep inner soul... we're required to do these things just as salmon swim upstream.”

He grasped what drives the human race forward. It is not handouts, nor management of our lives or provision for our well being. Our desire provides for us that light at the end of the tunnel.

What will happen when our own government removes that light? What will happen when they remove our desire?

Most of us just want the opportunity to work and support our families. We have no problem with a hard day’s work for a fair wage. What will happen when our government creates so many entitlements that a man can receive a fair wage – without the hard day’s work?

Will it not follow that a great many people will lose their incentive to work? Apply this principle to any part of life. When the incentive is removed, the effort stops.

Some other things you may consider as you ponder these universal ideals:

What will happen when the government provides for every bit of your retirement? Won’t you rely on them first – relinquishing your independence?

What will happen when government controls your healthcare? Will you be able to secure that life saving procedure when a government cost assessment has told you, no?

What will happen when the government owns businesses in your city? Will your employment be determined by race or gender – not qualification or resume?

These things are all happening in front of our eyes. The elected Left is quickly building a world they hope to be free from pain. But, pain can’t be avoided in life. While well intended, attempting to avoid all life’s hardships as a principle rallying call is naive and stupid. A world free of hardships does not exist, and maybe it shouldn’t.

The government cannot make your life better by giving everything to you. For each loan provided, the lender asks for payment plus interest – in this case, much more interest. This is not a debt we can afford to owe, because we will pay the bill with our freedoms. This is the price of socialism.

Cleveland raised Bob Hope once said, “I love to go to Washington - if only to be near my money.”

If he only knew how true this would become. Each day Washington removes more and more of our future through loans which can’t be repaid or printed dollars which can’t be supported. They are set on a course to destroy the very fabric of the American Spirit. What have we gained if we have indebted ourselves and future generations to a lifetime of servitude? Will this provide opportunity for the next Thomas Edison or Charles Kettering (both born in Ohio)? I say, no!

I propose that each brick of entitlement we add to this wall of socialism makes it less and less possible for the great American Dream to grow with another generation. Each layer of spending provides the mortar to solidify an impregnable fortress of European style government.

Ohioans, I appeal to your history and your conscience. Can you not see that for each dollar we take from the government, the more we are enslaved by them? With each program they give to us, the less free we are to make our own way. The accomplishments of great Ohioans weren’t built on the backs of others. We must seek policies which protect our future and our freedoms. There is no other way.

I know many feel this way, but for family, friends or unions, they have supported politicians from the Left.

The socialist path of this nation is set by the leaders who want to avoid the pains and rewards of life.  However, those of us willing to take a stand against that path, should cast our votes with those who will allow you to stand on your own, not keep you down as they build their ideal society on your back. 

As one of our Ohio born Presidents (Taft) stated, "Socialism proposes no adequate substitute for the motive of enlightened selfishness that today is at the basis of all human labor and effort, enterprise and new activity." 

Be enlightenedly selfish. Have a voice. Make a difference.

www.americanjunto.org

“We in America do not have a government by the majority. We have a government by the majority who participate.”

Altered from Thomas Paine’s original text, for the present, by Chris Littleton, West Chester, Ohio – www.americanjunto.org

Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favour; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of “nuanced thought.”

As the good people of this country will be grievously oppressed by a pending false security as proposed by the Left, they have an undoubted privilege to inquire into the pretensions, and equally to reject the summations of this falsehood.

The cause of these United States is in a great measure the cause of all mankind. Many circumstances have, and will arise, which are not local, but universal, and through which the principles of all Lovers of Mankind are affected. The laying a Country desolate with entitlement and oppression, declaring War against the natural rights of each citizen is the Concern of every Man to whom Nature hath given the Power of feeling.

The Left of the political spectrum have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them. The truth is - they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness. The former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one. Were the impulses of societies’ conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver. But, that not being the case, it is necessary to surrender up a part of property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this, simply because it is the lesser of two evils. So, protection being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others. We choose government only because we must, not because we should. It is the lesser of two evils. Better to live with government contributing to a stable society, than live without in a state of anarchy.

Government is namely, a mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world; here too is the design and end of government - freedom and protection. Nothing more, and nothing less. And however our eyes may be dazzled with show from the Left, or our ears deceived by sound; or selfish interests darken our understanding, the simple voice of nature and reason will say, “it’s right.” Government’s role is simply to protect the people who formed it, and allow for their freedom.

I draw my idea of the form of government from a principle in nature which no rhetoric can overturn - the more simple any thing is, the less likely to be disordered, and the easier repaired when disordered. With this truth in view, I offer a few remarks on the much boasted policies and proposals of the Left.

The proposed “change” to come from the current Left is exceedingly destructive. The nation will suffer for years without being able to discover in which part the fault lies; some will say in one and some in another, and every political physician will advise a different medicine.

I know it is difficult to get over long standing thoughts on “taxation,” and “government assistance,” yet if we allow ourselves to examine the component parts of the Left’s proposals, we shall find them to be the base remains of tyranny and oppression.

Taxation

Taxation is necessary to provide for the very basic responsibilities of a government, understood as acceptable, but only in moderation. The abuse of taxation was a primary concern to our founding fathers, leading to the central tenant of our Declaration of Independence – protection of our inborn rights - or as they called them: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Abuse of taxation does not allow for these inborn rights. It oppresses them.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”    - Declaration of Independence

Taxation has become a means for developing the programs that create a “debtor system” between society and government. This does not secure the rights of men.

Think of a debt owed. Who has the power? Health insurance as provided under government places each person in debt to the government – granting that government the ability to dictate behavior. This results in a “loss of freedom”, or, should this vocabulary be preferred, an “increase in oppression.”

We have allowed exactly what our founding fathers fought to destroy – a government, in control, with few checks or balances from the people whose freedoms it should be, by inborn right – to strengthen.

Each additional tax provides finances to mandate programs which create “debtors” to the government. I propose that we have been in a flailing state “partial socialism” under which each American is in debt to the government to some degree. That degree of indebtedness, and therefore governmental control, is only lessened by the accumulation of personal wealth.

It is clear that the development and growth of government programs and departments creates the necessity for increased taxation, but without this development and growth of government – there would be no need for increased taxation. And, without the burden of taxation, Americans would be free to accumulate wealth necessary to pursuing long term personal security in healthcare, retirement, etc. In short, taxation removes from Americans the means to strengthen their freedom, and preserve our unalienable rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Income Tax, Social Security Tax and Medicare Tax in the United States have made us debtor to the government, granting them control of our future and freedom. This is in clear opposition to the original reason we declared our independence.

Income tax has provided the means for, in many occasions, unelected officials to set policy for our daily lives in education, economy, etc. We have given the decision making power for our futures to the government. When has a stranger ever known what is best for you or your family?

Social Security has developed the idea that we should look to our government to secure our retirement and future as we age. It has created a dependency on government to make choices for our future. If we depend on government to secure our retirement, what happens when changes in population, income or economy effect the government’s ability to provide for that future?

Taxes under the Left will fund a form of government managed healthcare. Health Insurance is not a “right,” and it certainly was never part of our original government. For government to provide health insurance to every person, it only weakens the desire of every person to provide for themselves and their family. It promotes a culture of dependence on government and strengthens the control of government on the people. A “debtor system” is further developed.

Assistance or “Government Assistance Programs”

There is not a single mention in the Declaration of Independence or original Constitution of any form of government assistance or need based program.

Our founding fathers believed that all a person needed was the unfettered ability to chase their dreams, work for their family and build a life. The real American spirit of innovation, Westward expansion and independent thinking did not revolve around how government could assist them. It revolved around how government could stay out of their way.

They believed that the strength and desire of a free man, left alone, could rise above any circumstance, overcome any tribulation and battle against all odds – to pursue happiness. This was the story of the American Revolution. A down trodden, under funded, under developed people willed their freedom from tyranny.

This precious belief is in direct conflict with a government who would seek to indebt massive numbers of people by giving them what they need to survive – whether that be food, shelter or income.

The current proposals of the Left are at direct odds with the foundation of America’s greatness. They wish to forcibly take from one man, and give to another. Again, this is in direct conflict with the intentions of our founding fathers and more importantly – it is completely against the spirit of America’s greatness, which is the idea of finding your own way without government intervention.

It is also in opposition to the idea that a man should earn greatness and respect, not be born into it, or have it given to him. We did not form a monarchy for this reason. We believe that all men are born equal. But, please take very special note that creating equality is not the job of government. Men earn their equality with other men. That equality is not defined by money, title or family. It is defined by character and accomplishment. This is the American ideal - born equal with no man writing the future. Government should not, and can not, write our future.

What will happen when one man, who has earned a place in life, is forcibly taken from that place by government who would like to artificially create a place for another man not willing to create a place for himself. Will that man, from whom his place was taken, respond by doubling his work to support the second man? Or, will he lessen his work to prevent his place from being taken by this man?

Common sense knows the latter to be true. If a government, punishes one man for positive behavior, he will alter that behavior. If a government rewards a man for negative behavior, he will continue that behavior. We cannot punish success and reward failure. This policy does not work in any other part of life. Why would it work in this?

Government’s role in setting fiscal policy must be to create circumstances which encourage the poor to become rich, not the rich to become poor. The second only leads both parties to lessened productivity effecting everyone around them negatively.

If both men lose the desire to work (for separate motivations), the government has lost the means by which it hoped to take from one man and build up the other. In effect, they have destroyed the will and productivity of both men. Who have we served better?

The Left proposes to forcefully take what is necessary to increase the debtor’s enslavement to government. When government has taken these freedoms from each man, what will be left of the American dream? Would you work as hard as possible for 10 people you have never met, and have chosen not to work as hard as you?

Is that allowing for life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness?

But government exists to provide for the well being of all, says the Left. Then the more shame upon their conduct. Even brutes do not devour their young, nor savages make war upon their families. The people of our country, not a governmental system made America great. This new World has been the asylum for the persecuted lovers of civil and religious liberty from every part of the world. Here have they come, not from the tender embraces of the mother, but from the cruelty of their government - that the same tyranny which drove the first emigrants from home, pursues their descendants still.

People from every corner of the globe beg to enter our country, not because we will provide for their every need once in our borders. But, more simply because we won’t. The American dream is going from rags to riches on your own terms – not on the government’s. If we create an environment which destroys this dream, we will cease to attract the best, brightest and most ambitious people in the world.

If a complete dependence on a government was the desire of mankind, we would have seen emigrants begging to enter the former Soviet Union. Instead, we saw the opposite. People fled the security of a governmental blanket to brave the shores of America without a guarantee. They banked on themselves and freedom from oppression to pursue their dreams.

Why is the Left insistent on crushing this dream? Providing a security blanket will not inspire anyone to dream. It can only act as bare necessities in a great famine of hope. This famine of hope or lack of desire only grows when the incentive to dream is removed from the great equation of life. Is it not better to feed the dream by providing incentives than removing them?

Though I would carefully avoid giving unnecessary offense, yet I am inclined to believe, that all those who espouse the doctrine of equality, may be included within the following descriptions. Interested men, who are not to be trusted, weak men who cannot see, prejudiced men who will not see, and a certain set of moderate men who think better of the European world than it deserves; and this last class, by an ill-judged deliberation, will be the cause of more calamities to this country than all the other three.

The uniqueness of America is not in the belief that all men should be equal, it is in the idea that all men are born equal. A man earns his equality, superiority or even disparity by his actions. But, his actions, and his actions alone determine this status. As such, much of Europe’s recent socialist democracies were formed under the guise of an egalitarian mindset. By contrast, America has developed into a society formed by merit and accomplishment. Europe seeks the means to make most of the population acceptably mediocre. America gives most of the population an opportunity to become great. Once again, if our country’s focus becomes making the society equal, we will lose all that made us great.

The Left must have an America which shuns greatness in order to have the conditions necessary to accept redistribution of wealth as the norm. If we shun greatness, we cease to become America and are transformed into a lesser nation.

Men of temperance look somewhat lightly over the proposals of the Left, and, still hoping for the best, are apt to call out, "Come, come, we shall be friends again for all this." But examine the passions and feelings of mankind: bring the doctrine of reconciliation to the touchstone of nature, and then tell me whether you can hereafter love, honour, and faithfully serve the government which has robbed its people? If you cannot do this, then are you only deceiving yourselves, and by your delay bringing ruin upon posterity.

Your future connection will be forced and unnatural, and being formed only on the plan of present convenience, will in a little time fall into a relapse more wretched than before. But if you say, you can still pass the violations over, then I ask, has your house been effected? Has your property been lessened before your face? Are your wife and children’s happiness compromised? If you have not, then are you not a judge of those who have. But if you have, and can still shake hands with those who took from you, then are you unworthy the name of husband, father, friend or lover, and whatever may be your rank or title in life, you have the heart of a coward.

This is not inflaming or exaggerating matters, but trying them by those feelings and affections which nature justifies, and without which, we should be incapable of discharging the social duties of life, or enjoying the felicities of it. I mean not to exhibit horror, but to awaken us from fatal and unmanly slumbers, that we may pursue determinately some fixed object. It is not in the power of anyone in the world to conquer America, if she do not conquer herself by delay and timidity. The present winter is worth an age if rightly employed, but if lost or neglected, the whole world will partake of the misfortune; and there is no punishment which that man will not deserve, be he who, or what, or where he will, that may be the means of sacrificing a season so precious and useful. Now is the time to protect what we have built!

It is repugnant to reason, to the universal order of things to all examples from former ages, to suppose, that this country can entertain the idea of reversing everything we have held dear for over 230 years. The utmost stretch of human wisdom cannot, at this time, compass a plan short of stubborn resistance to this proposed “fundamental change” to our great experiment.

Every simple appeal to logic has been ineffectual. Our evidence in our own history has been rejected with disdain; and only tended to convince us, that nothing flatters vanity, or confirms obstinacy in the Left more than our inability to clearly convey our message. Wherefore, since nothing but blows will do, for God's sake, let us speak clearly without any form of political correctness, and not abandon the next generation to be without hope of any kind.

To say, they will never attempt it again is idle and visionary, we thought so at the repeal of the policies from the Johnson through Carter years, yet just a single generation and single significant economic downturn later, he we are again – fighting for the survival of the American dream. How can we not see what will surely destroy us? Both history and common sense light the path of that which should not be traveled, but we must yield to the wisdom of that light.

Again to present matters, it is not in the power of the Left to do this country justice: The business of it is already too weighty, and intricate, to be managed with any tolerable degree of convenience, by a man, so very ignorant of us; for if he succeeds, he cannot govern us. To be always running an agenda of wealth re-distribution and false equality will in a few years be looked upon as folly and childishness — There is no time when it is proper, and this is the proper time for it to cease.

Citizens not physically or mentally capable of providing for themselves, are the proper objects to take under care; but there is something very absurd, in supposing a country to be perpetually provided for by any man or government. In no instance hath nature made the satellite larger than its primary planet, and as in the government and American people, with respect to each other, reverses the common order of nature - it is evident this is wrong. The government should never “provide” for its people.

I am not induced by motives of pride, party, or resentment to espouse this doctrine of independence from governmental control and servitude; I am clearly, positively, and conscientiously persuaded that it is the true interest of this country to be so; that every thing short of that is mere patchwork, that it can afford no lasting felicity, — that it is leaving the burden to our children, and shrinking back at a time, when, a little more, a little farther, would have rendered this country the glory of many more generations.

As I have always considered the re-emergence of this country (much like the Reagan Revolution), as an event, which sooner or later must arrive, so from the late rapid progress of the country to maturity, the event must not be far off. Wherefore, on the breaking out of these debates, it was not worth the while to have disputed a matter, which time would have finally redressed, unless we meant to be in earnest; otherwise, it is like wasting an estate on a suit at law, to regulate the trespasses of a tenant, whose lease is just expiring. No man was a warmer wisher for reconciliation than myself, before the simple eloquence, yet destructive rhetoric of the Left, but the moment the wolf in sheep’s clothing was made known, I rejected the hardened, sullen tempered “leader of change” forever; and disdain the wretch, that with the pretended title of “saviour of our nation”, can unfeelingly hear of their slaughter, and composedly sleep with their blood upon his soul.

But admitting that matters were now made up, what would be the event? I answer, the ruin of this nation. And that for several reasons.

First. The powers of governing still remain in the hands of the elected. If of the Left, they will have a negative over the whole legislation of this country. And the Left hath shewn themselves such an inveterate enemy to liberty, and discovered such a thirst for false equality; are they, or are they not, proper to say to this nation, "You shall make no laws unless I deem appropriate to advance the cause of manufactured equality." And is there any inhabitant in America so ignorant, as not to know, that according to what we can call, the Left’s control of each branch of government, that this country will make no laws but what the leader of this Left gives it leave to; and is there any man so unwise, as not to see, that (considering what has happened) he will suffer no law to be made here, but such as suit his purpose. We may be as effectually enslaved by the want of laws in America, as by submitting to laws made for us before our independence. After matters are made up (as it is called) can there be any doubt, but the whole power of the elected will be exerted, to keep this country as low and humble as possible? Instead of going forward we shall go backward, or be perpetually quarrelling or ridiculously petitioning. — We are already greater than the Left wishes us to be, and will they not hereafter endeavour to make us less? To bring the matter to one point. Is the power who does not believe in our prosperity, a proper power to govern us? Whoever says No to this question understands this common sense, for the greatness of America means no more, than, whether we shall make our own laws, or, whether the Left, the greatest enemy of this American ideal, shall tell us, "You shall make no laws unless I deem appropriate to advance the cause of manufactured equality."

America is only a secondary object in the system of “manufactured equality”, the Left consults the good of this country, no farther than it answers their own purpose. Wherefore, their own interest leads to suppress the growth of our country in every case which doth not promote their advantage, or in the least interferes with it. A pretty state we should soon be in under such a second-hand government, considering what has happened! Men do not change from enemies to friends by simple rhetoric: And in order to shew that reconciliation now is a dangerous doctrine, I affirm, that THEY MAY ACCOMPLISH BY CRAFT AND SUBTILITY, IN THE LONG RUN, WHAT THEY CANNOT DO BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE IN THE SHORT ONE. Reconciliation and ruin are nearly related.

Secondly. That as even the best terms, which we can expect to obtain, can amount to no more than a temporary expedient, or a kind of government by guardianship, which can last no longer than till the country understands this mistake, so the general face and state of things, in the interim, will be unsettled and unpromising. Emigrants will not choose to come to a country whose form of government hangs but by a thread, and who is every day tottering on the brink of commotion and disturbance; and numbers of the present inhabitants would lay hold of the interval, to dispose of their effects, and leave this country.

But the most powerful of all arguments, is, that nothing but protection from “mandated equality” and “wealth re-distribution”, can preserve the future of our nation. I dread the event of a reconciliation with the Left now, as it is more than probable, that it will be followed by an absolute destruction of everything we know to be America.

Many around the world are already ruined by the Left’s doctrines of “mandated equality” and “wealth re-distribution”; (millions more would suffer the same fate in this country.) The general temper of the America, towards a false equality, will be like that of a youth, who is nearly out of his time; they will care very little about the country. And a government which cannot support liberty, is no government at all, and in that case we pay our money for nothing; and pray what is it that the government can do, whose power will be wholly on paper, should a civil tumult break out after these egalitarian policies take effect? I have heard some men say, many of whom I believe spoke without thinking, that they dreaded a re-emergence of America’s greatness, fearing that it would lower other nation’s opinion of us. It is but seldom that our first thoughts are truly correct, and that is the case here; for there are ten times more to dread from a patched up, dying nation than from a true re-emergence. I make the sufferers case my own, and I protest, that were I driven from house and home, my property lessened, and my circumstances ruined, that as a man, sensible of injuries, I could never relish the doctrines of “mandated equality” and “wealth re-distribution.”

I offer the following extracts from that wise observer on governments Dragonetti. "The science" says he "of the politician consists in fixing the true point of happiness and freedom. Those men would deserve the gratitude of ages, who should discover a mode of government that contained the greatest sum of individual happiness, with the least national expense."

"Dragonetti on virtue and rewards."

O ye that love mankind! Ye that dare oppose, not only these dangerous proposals, but the proposers themselves, stand forth! Every spot of Europe is overrun with oppression. Freedom hath been hunted round the globe. Asia, and Africa, have long expelled her. — Europe regards her like a stranger, and the Left hath given her warning to depart in this country. O! receive the fugitive, and prepare in time an asylum for mankind.

The present is that peculiar time which rarely happens to a nation - the time she has a chance to re-define herself. Most nations have let slip the opportunity, and by that means have been compelled to receive laws from their governments which perpetuate control and oppress freedom, instead of making laws which encourage liberties. First, they had a king, and then a form of government; whereas the articles or charter of government should be formed first, and men delegated to execute them afterwards; but from the errors of other nations let us learn wisdom, and lay hold of the present opportunity — To re-build this government in the right way.

Immediate necessity makes many things convenient, which if continued would grow into oppressions. Expedience and right are different things. When the calamities of America required a consultation, there was no method so ready, or at that time so proper, as to appoint persons who chief purpose is to protect each American from its government – not create a government to provide for each American; and the wisdom with which they should proceed would preserve this country from ruin.

To CONCLUDE, however strange it may appear to some, or however unwilling they may be to think so, matters not, but many strong and striking reasons may be given to show that nothing can settle our affairs so expeditiously as an open and determined re-emergence of America in the form our founding fathers intended. Some of these common sense ideas are,

1.     Government only exists out of necessity. As a rule, it does not contribute to individual happiness since it is effectively designed to control and restrict. In short, government naturally resists liberties.

2.     Taxation reduces personal wealth. A reduction in personal wealth inhibits each American’s life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

3.     If the Left puts a tax system in place which punishes productivity and rewards a lack of productivity – no one benefits. Re-distribution of wealth as currently proposed will do just this. Who will be left with incentive to work?

4.     Increased taxation will allow for creation of monstrous programs designed for people to rely on government in every part of their life. The more you take from a government, the more you are controlled by them. For if they control the means to your well-being – you are in their debt and effectively oppressed by the government.

5.     If the government controls a significant portion of the population by giving them healthcare, retirement, etc – that significant portion of the population will most likely never move to change this system locking our country into higher taxes, lowered freedoms and an extremely powerful government capable of dictating our lives into the future.

6.     These “fundamental changes,” proposed by the Left, increase government influence and a reduction in personal liberty. This is not how America has succeeded to this point.

7.     The Left proposes to “manufacture equality,” rather than rely on each man to choose his own path letting character and accomplishment define the man. This “false security” only looks good, but will surely destroy the heart of the American spirit and collapse of the American Dream. The uniqueness of America is not in the belief that all men should be equal, it is in the idea that all men are born equal. A man earns his equality, superiority or even disparity by his actions.

8.     The great American story has been written by freedom from controls as the founding fathers understood. Increasing government control takes us to the exact place from which Americans revolted to gain our independence. We want to be free to make our own decisions, not held hostage by government from living our lives. Freedom from government is America!

9.     Review history to see how these socialistic programs effected each nation that embraced them. With each review, you will find nations stagnant, dying or dead. At no point in history has a controlling government advanced the happiness of its people.

Who wrote this and why?

Who:

-       Chris Littleton, clittleton@americanjunto.org

-       30 year old male

-       Middle class (so, no, I do not make more than $250K a year)

-       I have 2 children

-       I am college educated (and yet, still did not vote for Obama – weird!)

-       I own a home, but pay a mortgage

-       I work 50+ hours each week, with frequent travel and time away from my family.

Why:

-       I truly feel like I am an average American trying to pursue the American dream. I feel hard work and creativity will pay off, and just want government to stay out of my way.

-       My friends and I talk about these concepts all the time, so I thought I would allow Thomas Paine to help me describe what we think. He is far more eloquent than I could ever be.

-       I was shocked how much Common Sense, confronting a tyranny in England, mirrored the future under an administration governed from the Left.

-       It’s always good to look at the thoughts that lead us to emerge as a nation the first time. When something works, why change it?

-       I am truly concerned about America voting a person into office who clearly promotes socialist tenants.

-       I have 2 children, and I’m scared what America will mean to them in 20 years. I want them to have a chance at pursuing the American dream.

-       I am shocked at the pure ignorance of most people voting for candidates of the Left. They have not bothered to follow proposals to their logical conclusion.

-       I am not taken in by flowery rhetoric. I focus on content before delivery.

-       I don’t have time to get formally involved with the campaign process, so this is my only contribution.