Where Will You Be When The Lid Blows Off?

We live today in a pressure-cooked society of do-or-die politics, and the politically vanquished have no place to go. 

In 1900 the population of the United States was about 76 million. In 1901 the federal government spent $525-million (and the budget was in surplus), that's about seven federal dollars spent for every man, woman and child in the country. In 1900 there were 45 sovereign states. US Senators were appointed by state legislatures. At the turn of the century only 17 million people lived in the American West and most of those resided in California.

In short, at the turn of the century, America was a wide open country. In fact, at the turn of the century America was not a country, not really. America then was a hodgepodge of local and regional communities that were more or less distinctive cultural enclaves. Yes, the country had suffered through a bloody Civil War that ended in 1865. The War settled some Constitutional issues and paved the way for the strong federal government we have today. However, at the turn of the century that federal government was in its infancy.

The point is that individuals who found themselves in uncomfortable social or cultural surroundings had options in 1900. They could move west and homestead. They could relocate to communities that offered more tolerant surroundings or that were comprised of more like-minded individuals. The much ballyhooed American "melting pot" was a myth. Towns and cities were not ethnically diverse communities wherein residents of different cultural backgrounds and religious beliefs could be found residing side-by-side on every block. Far from it. In 1900 America was a conglomeration of neighborhoods and regions that were, for the most part, culturally, ethnically and religiously distinctive. These neighborhoods and regions were loosely united under the American flag, but each had its own peculiar idea of what it meant to be an American.

This all changed in the 20th century. Americans elected politicians like Teddy Roosevelt, William Howard Taft and Woodrow Wilson who were not only nationalists but, in many ways, internationalists. They embarked on programs and policies that served to break down the ethnic and regional sectionalism that characterized the nation. In 1913 they passed the Federal Reserve Act which unified the country's currency. People often forget that until the passage of the Act the country's monetary system was comprised in the main of gold and silver coins, along with notes from a wide variety of regional banks. The new Federal Reserve System would standardize the dollar and Federal Reserve Notes and Gold Certificates as the country's common units of exchange.

In 1913 the country was further united under the federal umbrella with the passage of the 16th and 17th Amendments which provided for a national, federal income tax and the direct election of US Senators respectively. The consequence of these actions was a well-funded and more powerful federal government and vastly weaker states.

Of course, in 1917 Woodrow Wilson lead the nation into the first World War. The effect on the nationalization of the country by means of this war cannot be underestimated. Young men from distinctive regions of the country were conscripted into the army and forced to fight shoulder-to-shoulder in the trenches of Europe. Social and cultural regional barriers were gradually exposed and broken down. America began to homogenize.

Moreover, on the home front, federal politicians were eagerly doing what they could to consolidate federal power and force the nation's wide variety of distinctive communities to conform to federal edicts. In 1919 the federal government passed the 18th Amendment which prohibited the sale of alcohol across the nation. In 1920 the 19th Amendment was passed which provided for national women's suffrage. America was no longer a conglomeration of sectional hamlets, but was being forced to become a nation of uniform laws and customs. America's entry into World War II sealed the deal. Americans were one people united by a vastly expanded and powerful central, federal authority.

Today the population of the United States is roughly 313 million. The federal government spends about $3.6-trillion annually (taking in only about $2.3-trillion). That means the federal government spends not $7 but about $11,500 for every man, woman and child in the country! And that's not including the federal Gross Public Debt, which works out to about $52,000 per capita. This explosion in federal government spending per capita is mirrored by a similar explosion in federal government rules, regulations, laws and taxes which command and control virtually every nook and cranny of an individual American's life.

During the Bush and Obama administrations federal intrusion into the lives of individual Americans has mushroomed out of control. The War on Terror with its nefarious Patriot Act and the establishment and subsequent expansion of the Department of Homeland Security has granted the federal government vast new powers to monitor and arrest American citizens. The TSA has carte blanche power to literally get in the pants of American citizens as they travel by air, sea, rail and automobile. During the first years of the Obama administration politicians passed the Affordable Health Care Act which will regulate and standardize the American health care and health insurance industries, a sixth of the United States economy.

The means used by the federal government to abrogate the personal liberty of individual Americans and arrogate to itself the right to conform and standardize American social and cultural life is coercion. Today the US Constitution is mocked as antiquated and is virtually ignored by our politicians. Ironically, minority rights have virtually disappeared as the majority seeks to guarantee all manner of rights and privileges for minorities. Individual Americans are cowed by the awesome and intrusive power of the federal government to tax, to regulate, to rule and, ultimately, to imprison individuals who do not conform to the wishes of federal bureaucrats. Another tragic irony is that fully half of the American electorate consistently supports and defends this continuing federal power grab.

Why?

Half of individual Americans have come to realize that by joining with federal politicians, officials and bureaucrats they are able to get what they want from the other half. If they want grants and subsidies for food, shelter and clothing, the federal government can mandate them and send the bill to the taxpaying half. Special treatment under the law is easily arranged if your friends hold positions of power in Washington, DC.

The power of intimidation works just as well in matters of faith and culture as it does in matters of economics. If you don't like your neighbor's "disgusting" habit of smoking or drinking or using marijuana or preaching against abortion, homosexuality, public lewdness and indecency, you simply petition your friends in Washington to pass a law which will outlaw such habits or tax them to death. In this new era of absolute federal authority it seems it is possible to have your cake and eat it too, so long as your friends stay in charge.

That is the game now and it is totally understandable. Those who have power in Washington decide who wins and who loses in American society. Is it any wonder why politicians fight like rabid dogs to gain power in Washington? Is it any wonder why the news media is obsessed with federal politics? Or why politics is heatedly discussed among American individuals at work, at play and on the internet? If your man or woman wins the federal election, you stand to benefit by receiving a whole range of rights, privileges and gratuities. If your man or woman loses, you lose and you wind up paying through the nose for the spoils doled out by the victors. Not only that, you will wind up being forced to conform to the social and cultural mores decreed as the new American standard by the victors.

In America today there is no refuge for the politically defeated, the plundered and the dispossessed, no place to go for the social, cultural or religious nonconformist. The former Western frontier is as dominated by Washington as our largest eastern cities. Although we now have 50 states, they are all uniformly emasculated, unable to resist the siren call of federal "revenue sharing," unable to fight the massive and well-funded federal legal system, and unwilling to test the wrath of federal power scorned.

The only choice allowed the nonconformist is to enter the political fight in order to force his will down the throats of the other half of Americans which stands ready to deny his liberty. If he fails to fight, he'll be picked clean by his political opponents and their pals in Washington, the federal vultures.

Those of us who advocate for Constitutional government, state sovereignty and a vastly reduced federal government are slowly but surely being pressed into a corner. Without Constitutional protection of our property and state protection of our preferred way of life, and with no suitable place to go for refuge, we -- the oppressed -- will soon be forced to demand what rightfully belongs to us: our property, our freedom and our right to live in peace.

Will you oppose us? Will you deny us our wish to simply provide for ourselves and our families while truly hurting no one, oppressing no one? Will you stand against us based only on your easy and flimsy philosophy of collectivism, selfishness, sloth and greed?

You can't really believe that the socialized, nationalized and politicized America of today is preferable to that country of god-fearing, industrious and pioneering individuals that existed prior to 1900. You must be able to see the discontent bubbling beneath the surface of this pressure-cooked, oppressive society you've forced upon us.

If you can't, you will, unfortunately, suffer the inevitable consequences when the lid finally blows off.

Progressives Are Right About One Thing

They understand their political opponents are enemies who must be "crushed:" MSNBC's O'Donnell: 'I Want to See Hard Core Republican Conservatism Crushed.'
(via Weasel Zippers)

Far, far too many conservative Republicans believe the goal of politics is to compromise with your political opponents on the other side of the philosophical spectrum. These Republicans need to wake up. The game has become serious and has progressed well beyond such rank naivete.

If you disagree, please tell me how we go about compromising with the likes of Lawrence O'Donnell without giving away the store?

Make no mistake about it. Hard Core Progressives want you silenced and, since they believe that the end justifies the means, they will stop at nothing to see that you are silenced. Don't tell me there is no difference between O'Donnell, Obama and, say, the most maligned of Republican candidates, Mitt Romney!

O'Donnell calls for a return to the good old days of Bill Clinton:

And it might start to look more like what it looked like in the early 1990s when you had very strong conservatives like Newt Gingrich and others, but you had people from states like Missouri, states like Rhode Island who were Republicans who were willing to find a spot to compromise so that you could govern, and you never, ever had standoffs over things like: Should we raise the debt ceiling? Ever. Because there was a sense of responsible governance.

Do you understand what O'Donnell means when he says he wants to "govern" you? He calls for "responsible governance" which in his warped understanding of the term means that RINO Republicans would never "Ever" oppose Progressive attempts to raise the debt ceiling! In short, he longs for the day when conservativism is devoid of meaning, and Republicans are devoid of conscience. He longs for the day when Republicans, conservatives and all his political opponents voluntarily, nay willingly, place their necks in the Progressive guillotine.

How does the mindless, talking ass, Chris Matthews, interpret "responsible governance?"  

It'll be an immediate impact when they [the Republicans] lose control of the government. And that could be good for the country, very good. Because you would then have a ruling moderate to liberal Democratic party running the country for a couple of years and seeing if they can get the job done. That would be good for the country.

In short, Matthews sees "responsible governance" as absolute rule by "liberal" Democrats!

 

Wake up, conservatives! Unless you want human sewage like O'Donnell and Matthews to conduct a running experiment on the country for the foreseeable future with you playing the part of the lab rat, wake up! These morons must be crushed themselves like the rat-master wannabees they are!

 

Liberty never is so dear as when you lose it!

News Item: Despite Slowdown 35% Of US Oil Imports Come From Venezuela

From El Universal:

Venezuelan oil sales to the United States have slowed since 2007. Concomitantly, the Venezuelan government is moving closer to China and other Asian consumers.

Nonetheless...

...in 1992, Venezuelan oil sales accounted for 45% of US imports. In 2011, the proportion sank to 35%, as evidence of Venezuelan's lower profile as energy supplier for the United States.

UPDATED: The Inherent Goodness Of Government

I had a discussion with a co-worker yesterday about laissez-faire capitalism. Call him Jim. Jim is somewhat of a fundamentalist Christian conservative. He told me he believed in capitalism, but he also believed that capitalism must always be regulated by the government so as to protect people from scam artists and con men who cheat and steal.

I asked Jim if he considered himself a gullible man. He said he didn't. I then asked him why he needed a government regulator to protect himself from con men. Jim said he didn't need such protection. Other people, more gullible than he, needed the regulators.

After agreeing with him that some people were scam artists and con men and other people were gullible, I asked Jim what makes him think such people do not also work for the government as regulators. I pointed out that it's common knowledge that corrupt and stupid bureaucrats exist in virtually every regulated industry. "Greasing a palm" to get what you want from a building inspector is not unheard of. Block-headed, naive and gullible bureaucrats are commonplace. Corrupt policemen who regulate gambling and the drug trade are in the news virtually everyday. Other co-workers around us who were eavesdropping on our conversation quickly agreed with me.

Jim countered that at least the people have recourse with a corrupt government regulator. They can monitor his activities and report him to higher authorities, he said. Wait a second, I said, you can't have it both ways. If people are so gullible that they can't recognize scams perpetrated by businessmen, how are they able to recognize scams perpetrated by government regulators?

Jim said that less gullible people like himself could police the police. I asked Jim if maybe it wouldn't be easier for smart people like himself to police industry by forming trade organizations like the local Chamber of Commerce, or private consumer watchdog companies, such as Consumer Reports or the Better Business Bureau, to educated the gullible and expose con men. That way corrupt people wouldn't be entrusted with guns and legitimate authority with which to harass the public, and gullible people could learn their lesson and become less gullible in peace.

Jim wasn't convinced, but our discussion got him to stop and think about his blind faith in the inherent goodness of government.

The problem with our political candidates, especially most of those on the Republican side, is that they really don't believe in laissez-faire capitalism. They are suspicious of it; they can't defend it. In a one-on-one discussion they are more apt to take Jim's side of the argument than mine.

So long as our political candidates believe in the inherent goodness of government, how can we rationally expect to exorcize government from our lives by voting for them?

UPDATED: Congressman Ron Paul, a current Republican candidate for President, is definitely not a political candidate who believes in the inherent goodness of government. Paul is not only aware of Ludwig von Mises and Austrian economics, he also understands.

The Ludwig von Mises Institute just posted on its blog an old essay by Ron Paul called Mises and Austrian Economics: A Personal View. The essay is a good primer on the subject for those who are not aware and do not understand.

The Republican rejection of Ron Paul's candidacy is truly the nation's loss.

Are Gas Prices Soaring Because The Value Of The Dollar Is Falling?

In the last week or so there have been a number of articles posted on the internet which assign the cause of rising gas prices to the falling purchasing power of the US Dollar.

The first article I noticed on the subject was posted March 2 by Julie Borowski at Peace, liberty and sound money. Ms. Borowski's post is titled: "Gas Prices are Rising Because the Dollar is Falling." In the comments section of her post a reader pointed me to the following YouTube of a TV report which apparently aired Feb. 29. The reporter, Ben Swann, claims the price of oil is rising in terms of US Dollars because the US Dollar is being inflated and is, consequently, losing purchasing power. Hmmm.

Following the links in Ms. Borowski's post I found my way to an article posted on Feb. 29 by Nick Sorrentino at AgainstCronyCapitalism.org. Sorrentino references the source of his post as an article by Louis Woodhill posted Feb. 22 in Forbes Magazine.  Ms. Borowski also linked to an article by Eric Parnell which was posted on the website called "Seeking Alpha" on Feb. 22. Interesting...

Who started this train of reasoning is immaterial to me. The question in my mind is: Does the conclusion make any sense? Are gas prices really rising because the purchasing power of the US Dollar is falling? 

Let's delve into this question by considering the following graph which was included in Eric Parnell's post:

The graph shows an apparent correlation between rising gas prices and the Fed's recent bouts of "Quantitative Easing," i.e., injections of new quantities of money into the financial system by the Federal Reserve. Parnell explains the correlation as follows:

Gasoline prices have followed a predictable trend since the first days of Fed stimulus. During QE1, gasoline prices skyrocketed by +118%. Once QE1 ended in April 2010, gasoline prices immediately dropped by -27% in a matter of months, and this occurred during what is typically the strong summer driving season. Once QE2 was delivered to the market in August 2010, gasoline prices jumped another 92% by the end of this stimulus program in June 2011. Once again, the moment QE2 ended, gasoline prices retreated another -28% in a matter of months. Finally, since the latest Fed stimulus program along with the European Central Bank's own LTRO program, we've seen gasoline prices skyrocket another +30%. What is even more irksome is that much of this rise in gasoline prices has occurred during a time when gasoline consumption has been falling. Have the laws of supply and demand been repealed? No, they've just been severely distorted by policy action.

Clearly Parnell believes Quantitative Easing by the Fed has not only a direct effect on gas prices but an immediate effect. However, a statistical correlation is not the same as cause and effect. In order for Parnell's belief to be true, he must explain how an injection of money into the system by the Fed directly causes gas prices to rise, especially in view of the fact that, as he observes, "gasoline consumption has been falling" during much of the time gas prices have been rising. Moreover, he must explain how this direct cause is immediate.

Parnell knows that, when the quantity of money in the financial system increases, prices will necessarily and eventually increase. But why? There is no magic involved. The new money finds its way into the hands of consumers who bid up commodity prices. However, this process takes time. And the process works through supply of and demand for the specific commodity in the market place. If consumption of gasoline is down, higher demand for gas couldn't account for higher prices. And it defies credulity to believe that gas prices could begin to "skyrocket" in "the first days of the Fed stimulus."

It seems to me that Parnell and Borowski have it exactly backwards. It is not the falling purchasing power of the monetary unit that causes commodity prices to rise. On the contrary, it is the rising prices of commodities and services which result in a general, perceived fall in the purchasing power of the monetary unit. As new quantities of the monetary unit are injected into the system, the prices of commodities and services are bid up by those who are the recipients of the new money. In time, and by this process, the prices of all commodities and services are bid up resulting in a fall in the purchasing power of the monetary unit.

So why are gasoline prices rising precipitously if not because of a fall in purchasing power of the US Dollar? I'll offer an educated guess.

Gas prices may be rising because suppliers are witnessing a precipitous rise in crude oil prices and anticipating higher future production costs. 

Why are crude oil prices rising? Perhaps because it is not the US Dollar that determines the price of oil, but gold. As Louis Woodhill points out, the price of oil in terms of gold has remained fairly constant since 1971:

In terms of judging whether the price of WTI is high or low, here is the price that truly matters: 0.0602 ounces of gold per barrel (which can be written as Au0.0602/bbl). What this number means is that, right now, a barrel of WTI has the same market value as 0.0602 ounces of gold.

During the 493 months since January 1, 1971, the price of WTI has averaged Au0.0732/bbl. It has been higher than that during 225 of those months and lower than that during 268 of those months. Plotted as a graph, the line representing the price of a barrel of oil in terms of gold has crossed the horizontal line representing the long-term average price (Au0.0732/bbl) 29 times.

Although the US Dollar is the currency in which oil is usually traded, perhaps its role is only nominal. Oil suppliers are not stupid. They realize that gold is and has been the world's preferred store of value. Perhaps they have been pegging the price of a barrel of oil to an ounce of gold and, setting its price in US Dollars based on the value of the US Dollar in terms of gold.

This is pure speculation on my part. I'm not about to gather statistics and do the research. However, I know for certain that commodity prices do not rise magically and immediately due to an influx of a new quantity of money into the system. The laws of supply and demand are always responsible for changes in price. 

NOTE: I should make clear that by this post I am not saying that gas prices have not suffered from price inflation over the years. The prices of commodities and services rise and fall due either to goods induced changes or currency induced changes. I'm sure gas prices are going up and have gone up over the years do to both phenomena. My quarrel is that there is no direct and immediate correlation with monetary inflation.

Events May Determine Obama's Fate

There are eight full months between now and the November, 2012 elections.  A lot can happen between now and then, some good, some bad, when considered from the prospective of the President's reelection. The crazy thing is that these events take on a life of their own. The consequences could be devastating one way or the other. In many respects, it doesn't matter who the Republicans nominate. This is why I find it difficult to take politics too seriously at the moment.

EVENTS THAT COULD ASSURE OBAMA OF A SECOND TERM

1. A Well-Timed QE3  Nothing is more important in a Presidential election year than the state of the economy. And nothing has more influence on the economy than the actions of the Federal Reserve. FED Chairman Ben Bernanke released a trial balloon this weak hinting that the FED may have to engage in another round of pump priming. A well-timed, massive injection of new money into the financial system could give the economy a boost that would resemble a substantial and permanent recovery. Stocks would take off significantly. Employers would be quoted as thinking about hiring again, or delaying layoffs, especially in the financial industry and among government contractors.

The intervention would have to be massive. A corresponding jump in price inflation would be the natural consequence. However, if the Fed intervened in June, the consumer wouldn't feel the pinch in prices until after the election. It wouldn't be the first time a well-timed Fed intervention affected the outcome of a Presidential election. Whether there is collusion between the Fed and the White House is another question altogether.

2. A Well-Timed National Emergency  What kind of emergency? Your guess is as good as mine. Maybe a war with Iran that is precipitated by Israel. The President could say he did all he could to prevent such a war, but Israel's action left the US no choice but to become involved.

Another possibility is a terrorist attack on the US, or Chinese adventurism in the Far East. Who knows. The possibilities are endless. Fear and patriotism have swayed elections in the past.

Summary  Both of these events carry with them an "I got Bin Laden!" opportunity for the President. Mr. Obama is not shy about claiming credit where credit is not due. A faux-economic recovery or a swift and decisive intervention by the American military or first responders would be easy pickings for the President and the mainstream media who are essentially shills for the incumbent.

EVENTS THAT COULD SWING THE TIDE AGAINST OBAMA

1. New Taxes Sink The Economy To A New Low   In 30 days the US will Have The World's Highest Corporate Tax Rate. Moreover, at the end of December, 2012 the Bush Tax Cuts are set to expire. Too late to affect the economy before the election? Hardly. Ending or extending the Bush Tax Cuts are likely to be a huge election issue. The Democrats will demagog while the market places its bets. The end result will be an anchor on the economy. In the meantime, key new Obamacare taxes are set to kick in at about the same time. Business owners will continue to sit on their hands and the medical industry will anticipate them. This all adds up to another economic anchor weighing down Mr. Obama.

2. The Birth Certificate Controversy May Explode  This week Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona’s Maricopa County released a report that "concluded there is probable cause that the document released by the White House last year as President Obama’s birth certificate is a computer-generated forgery." Arpaio's efforts will continue. Moreover, there are a handful of "birthers" around the country who won't let this issue go unchallenged in the courts. Who knows? Arpaio or an obscure federal judge somewhere might just spell Obama's Waterloo. Stranger things have happened.

3. Obama's Elusive Paper Trail May Catch Up With Him  Reportedly, the late Andrew Breitbart "was set to release damning video footage that could have sunk Barack Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign." Breitbart's compatriots have promised the videos will be released shortly. If the videos show conclusively that Mr. Obama was well-acquainted with terrorist radicals William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn and not merely "neighbors" who barely knew each other (as the President has said), the President and his cronies will have to do some fast talking. The damage is sure to be palpable.

Moreover, these things have a tendency to snowball. Perhaps someone somewhere has access to the President's college writings or knowledge of some damning associations or activities in Obama's hidden past. Who knows what information may come back to bite the President.

4. The Truth About Bin Laden's Death May Surface  Unlike the issues above, about which I continue to remain skeptical, I'm convinced there is something very fishy about Bin Laden's assassination and burial at sea. So far the media has bought the official administration story hook, line and sinker. However, the facts suggest questions that have never been asked, much less answered. No administration in history would have been given such a huge benefit of the doubt.

Think about it. The purported mastermind of the most deadly terrorist attack on US soil, the alleged head man of Al Qaeda, America's enemy number one in the ten year old "War on Terror," one of the reasons used to justify the invasion of Iraq, the sole reason Americans have been dying in Afghanistan for ten years -- this diabolical enemy is killed by an elite Navy Seal team, his body is hurriedly evacuated, and is immediately buried at sea in order to comply with the rites of Islam.

No pictures. No autopsy. No nothing. Some on the left believe the Bush administration masterminded the attack on the World Trade Center and then covered it up. If it is possible for a Presidential administration to do that, it is possible for a Presidential administration to fake Bin Laden's demise for political benefit.

Andrew Breitbart won't break this story. There is no "Woodward and Bernstein" in today's media. But somewhere someone just might come clean and sink Mr. Obama's bid for a second term.

5. "Fast and Furious" and Solyndra: Obama's Watergate?  Time is getting short, but these are two more events that may blow up in the President's face. They fail the smell test. All that is required is someone somewhere to turn over the right rock and expose the roaches. Unlikely, but still possible. And potentially fatal.

Summary  Are all of the above mere pie-in-the-sky conspiracy theories? Do any of these events have a snowball's chance in hell of ever materializing in the real world?

Mr. Obama has the media in his pocket. He gets away with blatant hypocrisy and absurdity. He blamed Bush for rising gas prices but denies blame for skyrocketing gas prices during his watch. With a straight face, he proposed "algae" has his solution to the nation's energy problems. His Press Secretary, Jay Carney, lies with impunity. Joe Biden, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, numerous Democrats in the Senate and the House, not to mention leftist talk radio hosts, make absolutely partisan, absurd and foolish pronouncements with nary a peep reported in the mainstream media. Joe Biden said the Taliban is not our enemy, for god sakes! Carney defended him. And still nothing in the press.

All this doesn't bode well for the game-changing events happening as I've speculated. Still, I wouldn't bet against them. Not in this day and age.

We've Lost Our Way

There is a scene in the movie "The Good Earth" in which townspeople, ravished by famine, break into the home of one of their own, a peasant with a reputation for prudence, hard work and frugality. They suspect their friend of hoarding food. Amid righteous demands that their friend share his "good fortune," they tear the cover off the pot on the stove and discover it contains nothing but simmering water and earth.

Those of us with grey hair remember an America quite different than it is today. Neighbors respected each others privacy and their private property. They kept to themselves but were, nevertheless, friendly and quick to lend a helping hand if warranted. They were God-fearing people who understood the difference between right and wrong. They taught their children self-reliance, self-discipline, enterprise, tolerance and the Golden Rule. They insisted their schools do the same.

They failed.

Today even adults are brats, spoiled by a lifetime of coddling, privilege and a righteous sense of entitlement. Schools don't teach civics and godliness anymore. They teach reverence for the self and for what the collective can provide the self. In the old days of America what citizens demanded and fought for was simple opportunity. Now the brats demand their natural-born right to everything from health care to transportation to food -- free of charge -- and they are willing to bash in the skulls of others who have the wherewithal to provide it.

In the old days shame was real. It was what you were made to feel when you let your parents down, or slacked off, or accepted help without the solemn intent to return the favor in kind. Today, no one feels shame because no behavior -- no matter how undignified or raunchy -- is considered shameful.

I got an email today from some brat named Stephanie Cutter. Apparently, she's the Deputy Campaign Manager for something called Obama for America. Stephanie emphatically reminded me that having to pay for something yourself -- in this case, birth control pills -- amounts to a "dangerous overreach" and someone else "having the power to decide what's best for you."

In Stephanie's new America getting what you need free of charge from someone else is a human right. No American today should find this philosophy shocking or disagreeable. For years we've dutifully allowed our taxes to support free-of-charge public schools where "progressive" educators fill our children's heads with such tripe. That these children graduate spouting the values of Karl Marx rather than Ben Franklin should not be surprising.

When times are good, when the harvest is lush and plentiful, these newfangled ideas are mere laughable curiosities. No one could possibly take seriously the idea that charity can be righteously coerced by a government bureaucrat, or that the demands of a hungry and needy majority can trump an individual's right to his own private property, or that having to pay for something yourself can be construed as tyranny.

However, when times turn bad, when famine hits, normally reasonable individuals lose their heads. They band together with their neighbors to form a mob. The come to your house knocking, shouting, demanding. Then, the sudden fearful realization hits you that these people are not only serious but they are also willing to kill you and your family to get what they want.

Don't worry. It is but a fleeting fear. For soon these brats will discover the laugh's on them. Why? Unbeknownst to them, their coddling victims have embraced their brat philosophy. As a result, the cupboards are empty. There is nothing left to steal but a simmering pot of water and good earth.