The Constitution was never intended to be a "living document" any more than dams and seawalls are "living structures".  Each is built for a purpose:  The protection of something valuable from outside forces.  That purpose doesn't evolve over the years.  A document or structure may fail as the result of erosion or natural disaster, or it may be destroyed deliberately.

     The Constitution was created by men who had studied some 3,000 years of history.  They saw the same patterns of behavior consistently used by men to undermine their own societies in order to acquire and wield power.  The names of the people changed over the years, but their tactics remained the same.  The Founding Fathers understood that while nations and empires may come and go, human nature - and the thirst for power - remains constant.

     The initial version of the United States came about after the Articles of Confederation were ratified in 1781, ending a process which began in 1777.  Rather than being a truly united country, the states were a loose-knit coalition, or confederation, with each state jealously guarding its status and its perquisites.  The arrangement was doomed to failure.

     A convention to draft a constitution was held in Philadelphia, PA in 1787.  The delegates created and adopted the Constitution after much discussion and debate.  After being ratified in 1788 by the required number of states, it took effect.  The United States, a constitutionally-limited federal republic, had been born.

     Dams have spillways to relieve pressures which might damage their structural integrity.  The delegates at the Constitutional Convention recognized the need for such a device to protect the Constitution and the citizens for whom it had been created.  It took the shape of Article V, which described the procedures for amending the Constitution.  It is this article which allows the Constitution to be adapted to changing times.  That's all the "life" it needs.

     Well aware of the dangers of a centralized government, members of Congress proposed twelve amendments to the Constitution in 1789.  Ten were approved in 1791 by 3/4 of the states, as called for in Article V, and these ten amendments were known as the Bill of Rights.  The Bill of Rights was intended to be an added layer of protection for both individuals and states against the inherently coercive nature of the federal government. 

     The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were carefully constructed to protect citizens from their government.  That was the original intent of the people responsible for creating them.  They knew history.  They knew human nature.  They knew that people dedicated to attaining power would use any means necessary to achieve their objectives.  The Founding Fathers spelled out, as clearly as they were able, what they feared and what safeguards were needed.

     They never conceived of the concepts of activist judges and a "living" Constitution.  The results of this lack of foresight can be seen today.  We must excuse them for their blind spot.  During their lives words had particular and exact meanings.  "Fantastic" and "Incredible" would be their reaction to today's interpretation of their efforts.  The principles envisioned and articulated by the Founding Fathers have been turned on their head.  It didn't happen by accident.  It's happening by design.
    
    
    

     Something must be cleared up before we proceed.  Politics has no left and right.  That view is a misdirection created by those who wish to rule.  Politics is consent or coercion.  In a republic or democracy, people consent to be governed and have a meaningful voice in their government.  In a dictatorship, consent is neither necessary nor wanted.

     The concept of left and right makes people think that one political ideology exists at one end of a straight line, with the other ideology at the opposite end.  In reality, they aren't opposites.  They are joined together like two halves of a snap-on bracelet.

     Communists, socialists, liberals and progressives are defined as being on the left.  Fascists and Nazis are defined as being on the right.  In fact, Nazis were German fascists led by Hitler.  They were a branch of the fascist movement which had been updated and expanded by Mussolini in Italy.  Fascist parties existed in Spain, England and the United States.

      Far from being the enemies of socialism, fascists are socialists.  "Nazi" is an acronym for National Socialist German Workers' Party, the vehicle Hitler rode to power.  Communists evolved from the socialist movement and are simply more openly totalitarian.  If fascists and communists are both socialist in origin, how can they be at opposite ends of the political spectrum?  The answer is, They can't. 

     The difference between fascists and communists is one of focus.  Fascists were inner-directed.  They wanted to create a socialist system within their respective countries.  They would use force to expand outside their borders, but for the usual reasons.  They didn't do it to spread socialism.  Communists were outer-directed.  Not satisfied to create a socialist society within their own borders, they wanted everyone to be subject to it.  They the were missionaries of socialism.  There's a reason it was called the Communist International. 

     The dispute between communism and fascism wasn't one of ideology.  It was that Lenin, and later Stalin, found it intolerable that Mussolini and other fascist leaders wouldn't make themselves subservient to the true leaders of socialism, the Communist Party of Russia.  It was as though the capos of a Mafia gang were refusing to kick up a percentage of their take to the don.  It was a major show of disrespect and very bad for discipline.

     Since the Russian Communist Party couldn't acknowledge the separated-at-birth status of their fascist siblings, they referred to them as right-wingers.  The label stuck.  In Mao's China, members who deviated from the party line of the moment were called capitalist-roaders or right-wingers.  In today's Russia and China, those who hold most tightly to communist policies, especially if they're military leaders, are call right-wing hardliners.  Do you ever hear or see this reported as a contradiction in terms?

     Politics isn't left or right.  It's consent or coercion.  I can be governed, but I won't be ruled.  What free man would?

 

     In breaking news, intellectual property is dead.  Dean Singleton, chairman of Associated Press, is upset that his news products are being taken without payment.  "We can no longer stand by and watch others walk off with our work under misguided legal theories," he said.  (Note:  Quoted from Reuters article by Robert MacMillan.)
     He finally sees what some of us have known for years:  The concept of intellectual property is dead.  AP reporters covered its demise, sometimes in approving tones.  They said nothing until it was their company's turn to become a carcass.
     The patent system came about to encourage creativity.  Creative people deserve to be paid for their creativity.  It's that simple.  They may choose to give away the results of their efforts.  If, however, they want payment for their creations, that's their right, and it's protected under the intellectual property laws of patent and copyright.
     The opening salvo in the war on intellectual property was fired during the fight against AIDS and was greeted with approval.  Poor countries with large populations of HIV-infected citizens couldn't afford the treatment.  Research and development costs, corporate taxes, and the desire to make a profit made the cocktail treatment pricey.  Drug companies were characterized as greedy, more concerned with profits than people.  India and Brazil (among others) were given the right to violate the drugs' patents in order to provide them at a lower cost.  Were their prices lower?  Yes.  Patents provide blueprints for others to follow, so they had no R & D costs.  Also, U.S. corporate taxes are heavier than India's and Brazil's.
     Microsoft became a target of American and European governments in the next battle.  Because of its innovation and research, Microsoft holds a dominant position in the industry.  Their rivals enlisted the support of governmental agencies to offset this dominance and to gain market share.  It was done under the guise of "giving consumers more choices", an ironic position given that Microsoft had already provided more computing power and applications at prices lower than would have been thought possible 20 years earlier.
     The assaults on Big Drugs and Big Computer were met with approval.  We were being protected from greedy companies:  People before profits.  This approval was expressed in many venues, including the entertainment community.  Well, the People decided they had a right to free music and videos.  The greedy recording and motion picture industries found themselves to be the targets of the same venom as Big Drugs and Big Computer.  They complained that their intellectual property was being stolen, but nobody cared.  They retained some of their rights only after protracted court battles.
     And now, newspapers and magazines are the targets of those who want to "give consumers more choices".  It's likely these institutions never saw that they would be considered greedy and selfish.  After all, they only wanted to get paid for the risks they took and the work they did.
    
    

     The earliest Planners worked behind the scenes as advisers to their chiefs or kings, who were the public faces of authority.  It was necessary to hide their ambitions and their true opinions of their employers.  Overly ambitious people were seen as threats to be dealt with harshly.  Openness would cost them their heads - there were no parachutes, golden or otherwise.

     It was the Planners who came up with the targets to be acquired and the methods of acquiring them.  Planners did whatever was necessary to ensure that those they served remained in power, at least until a better opportunity came up.  Their access, their statues, their very lives depended on it.

     Planners are by nature chameleons, assuming the coloration best-suited to advance themselves and their agendas.  In a society with a religious framework they will be religious, sometimes ascending to positions of influence and power within the religious structure itself.  The priests in Egypt and the Aztec empire are examples.  So, too, are Thomas Becket in England and Cardinal Richelieu in France.  In a society which opposes organized religion they will be staunch atheists, to the point of persecuting those who do believe.

     As the centuries rolled by, monarchs were ousted or overthrown, often with the help of their advisers.  Think of Cromwell in England and Rasputin in Russia.  The Planners saw these as lateral moves, clever and necessary.  They kept both their positions and their heads.

     When monarchs were replaced by elected governments, the Planners were instrumental in the process.  Would the French Revolution have taken place without Talleyrand and Robespierre?  Would Germany have started the Weimar Republic without the efforts of Kurt Eisner and Karl Liebnecht?

     The new democracies and republics in Europe were ripe for the steadying hands of the Planners.  They were able to exercise power more openly now, using their relationships with Planners in other countries to gain diplomatic recognition and loans.  If forced to admit new people in order to expand their influence, so be it.  Even if a few more like-minded people were let into the circle, there would still be enough power and plunder for everybody.  The pace of planning and control increased.

      The only country thwarting the Planners was the newly-born United States of America.  It's not that there were no Planners here - Hamilton was certainly one - it's that the Founding Fathers had erected formidable barriers against their influence and operation.  The Founders were only too aware of the insidious and corrupting influence of the Planners.  They had studied and understood history.  They saw first-hand what was taking place in Europe.

     To protect their fledgling country, the republic for which they had risked so much, they created a bulwark.  It consisted of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the principle of the separation of powers.  As long as they remained intact, we would be safe.

     Producers have only themselves to blame.  Without them and the products of their minds, there would have been nothing for the Planners to steal.  When life is merely a struggle for survival, the only worthwhile plan is getting through the day. 

     It was a Producer who saw that living in a cave would offer shelter from the elements and wild animals.  It was a Producer who discovered that fire could be harnessed and used for warmth and cooking.  It was a Producer who discovered that a piece of flint could be turned into a tool to be used for killing animals, securing a steady stream of food and clothing.  It was a Producer who figured out that seeds could be planted and grown, with the resulting crops used as another source of food.

     The Producer's blame, or guilt if you prefer, lies in the fact that he didn't say from the beginning:  "I am doing these things for my benefit, not yours.  You may share in the products of my mind and efforts, but only on my terms."  Had he done that, we wouldn't be in the position we're in today.  Instead, he gave them away without demanding the payment to which he was rightfully entitled.

     The reason he didn't demand payment is the most deadly weapon in the Planners' arsenal:  The Producer's moral code.  This moral code recognizes that there is a difference between right and wrong.  That difference is not subject to nuance or interpretation.  Because of this division between right and wrong, Producers see the world in black and white.  Shades of gray are used to obscure, not clarify.  They are used in an attempt to justify wrongdoing.  These views underlie the concept of Honor.

     Responsibility is another aspect of the Producer's moral code.  His abilities are to be used with self-imposed restrictions.  They aren't to be used as a weapon against the less able, but as tools for the benefit of himself and those around him, most of whom are less able than he.  It is this understanding which gave rise to the concept of Duty.

     Planners perverted the moral code by creating false premises.  Doing things for your own sake, with no consideration of others, even when your actions benefited them, was Selfish.  The only acceptable motive for any action was Altruism.  Recognizing your abilities, even when they were acknowledged by others, was Egotistical.  Demanding payment for the products of your mind from those who benefited from them was Greedy.  Duty was turned into Obligation.

     It was easy for the Planners to do this.  They turned the worst of human nature loose.  Those who receive benefits without payment are charity cases if the benefits are given freely, and receivers of stolen property if not.  If it goes on long enough, a sense of entitlement is created.  The recipients understand they haven't earned what they're given, but there is no sense of gratitude.  Instead, they react with resentment and bitterness.  These feelings were turned against the Producers, who found it necessary to justify their actions.

     The Producers should have walked away and let everyone sink back into the mire.  Instead, they accepted the false premises.  In doing so, the Producers accepted the chains fashioned for them. 

     This is sometimes stated as:  From each according to his abilities; to each according to his needs. 


         

     

      
    

     The Grand Canyon was created by water wearing away rock over billions of years.  This slow, steady process of erosion cut deeply into the earth.  We have reached the point we have as a result of the erosion of our base of knowledge and our system of values.  For simplicity's sake, I will refer to those who created and employed the erosive agents as the Planners.

     The timeline discussed in the introduction goes back only 160 years, but the forces were in play long before then.  The actors changed over the years, but their methods remained constant.  All may be fair in love and war, but fair is of no consideration when trying to amass power.  The methods are described today by leftists and black power advocates, a leftist subset, with the following phrase:  By Any Means Necessary.

     The Planners' genius, and it was genius, no matter how twisted, lay in their analysis of human beings.  They recognized that most people just wanted to go about their daily lives.  As long as there was enough food and shelter from the elements, freedom was of little concern.  They might have wished for their children to live better than they did, but that goal wasn't mandatory.  If these people were bees, they would be called workers.  Easily directed, they are the majority of the population.

     It was the creative minority which posed the real problem, as they always have.  It is individuals from this creative minority who have been responsible for all advancements in society.  I'll call them the Producers.  Without them we would have a lifespan of 20 years and still be living in caves.  The Planners wanted the benefits of the Producers' minds and activities without having to deal with the downsides.

     The downsides are many.  Freedom is first.  Freedom isn't just a word or concept to Producers, but something tangible.  Freedom is as essential to them as the air they breathe.  Throttle their freedom and their contributions cease.  They question authority when it has no moral grounding.  They question the general assumptions of any society into which they're born.  Tell them the world is flat, and they'll sail around it to prove you wrong.

     Producers can be difficult people.  They can be stubborn, even obstinate.  Making up no more than 10% of the population, they know their value and refuse to pretend they don't.  They wonder why it's acceptable to recognize other people's talents and attributes, but considered conceited to be aware of their own.  Producers are natural traders.  They believe in a voluntary exchange of values.  The medium of exchange may vary according to time and place, but the key to a successful transaction is that each person is satisfied with the result.

     Planners realized there was no way to completely separate the Producers from their output.  The best that could be done was to minimize the number of truly difficult, free-thinking Producers - a minority within their own community - even if marginalizing them meant losing their output.  That loss, it was reasoned, would be offset by making the remainder more manageable.  It seemed an acceptable course of action.

    



    

    

     This is the first of a continuing series.  The subject matter is so dense and involved that attempting to deal with everything in one post would be overwhelming.  Making each of the pieces readable in one sitting will, I hope, make it more accessible.  After this initial posting burst, future essays will be posted on Fridays.  

     What's happening today is no accident, and it didn't come about overnight.  The divisions in our society are a result of it.  The economic melt-down is a result of it.  Both are products of decades-long efforts.  Does that sound conspiratorial to you?     If it does, consider that marginalizing explanations of what has happened, and why, is another objective of the activities I'm talking about.

     Is there an organizational effort to undermine capitalism, democracy and Western civilization?  No.  I don't see a single group of puppet masters issuing secret orders and moving people around like chess pieces.

     Are there organized efforts to do so?  Yes, in the sense there are groups working to achieve common goals.  All you have to do is look around to see them and their origins.  The Communist Manifesto, written in 1848, gave rise to many.  The Fabian Society was created in 1884.  The Rhodes Trust has given us Rhodes Scholars since 1904.  The Council on Foreign Relations was established in 1921.  The United Nations was chartered in 1945.  The Trilateral Commission was born in 1973.  Let's not forget the non-governmental organizations (NGOs), which have sprung up like weeds.

     These groups, many of which share members, don't necessarily act in concert.  It's not a military operation in which each unit has an assigned task or mission.  Military operations tend to have fixed timelines.  The groups I'm talking about have no timeline, just an objective.

     What is their objective?  They'll tell you the goal is a more stable, peaceful world in which all of humankind can share the earth's bounty fairly and equally.    Peace, love and granola for everyone.  What decent, fair-minded person could object to such a goal?  Only a bigoted, sexist, racist, homophobic, right-wing religious warmonger would want to stand in the way.

     The actual objective isn't so rosy.  How could it be, given the fact that the players seem to be philosophical opponents?  How likely is it that communists, socialists and purported capitalists truly share the same vision?  How likely is it that they're working toward a goal which will actually benefit them all equally?  Not very likely at all.  If, however, the real objective is a consolidation of power, with one group ending up in control of it, then those philosophical differences dissolve into mere competing interests, and all bets are off.  Each group believes that it will emerge victorious.

     The timeline above shows what a long trip it's been to get here.  There's a reason for the slow progress.  The organizers of this trip have learned their history well.  It's relatively simple and cheap to conquer a territory and its people.  The difficult and expensive part comes when you switch roles from conqueror to ruler.  History is full of examples of conquerors and countries which were bankrupted and evicted by the people they sought to rule.

     And so the rulers-to-be assumed the roles of organizers and planners in order to achieve their objective:  Power the likes of which has never been wielded.  They were more interested in long-term, sustainable control than immediate gains.  If it took decades or even centuries to shape things properly, so be it.  If there were missteps on the way - and there would be - there would be time to make the necessary adjustments.  The prize would be worth the wait.

    

     Shared sacrifice is neither equal nor moral.  For sacrifice to be moral, it must be individually-motivated and voluntary.  Shared sacrifice is never voluntary.  It has two actors, only one of whom survives.  The object of the sacrificial rites disappears, becoming a human sacrifice.  The fact he may still have his heart within his chest doesn't change the outcome.
    
     There's been much talk lately of the need for shared sacrifice.  Times are uncertain and difficult, and we're all in this together, aren't we?  I reject the premise because I know what it really means.  I can distinguish between what is said and what is meant.  This ability has been honed over the years by listening carefully to Democrats, liberals, pundits and other snake oil salesmen.
    
    "Shared sacrifice" really means "human sacrifice".  People sitting on high determine that their plans, lives and well-being are more important than anybody else's.  They are able impose these decisions as a result of their degrees and positions, whether elected or appointed.  In their minds, they can see not just the big picture but also the nuances, both of which escape the rest of us.  Compulsion is used when persuasion fails.
    
     The difference between a moral sacrifice and a shared sacrifice is easily distinguished:  Choice versus Compulsion.  Sacrifices made as a result of an individual's choices are moral.  An individual is qualified to determine if what he wishes to  make a sacrifice for is worthwhile.  Military men will risk injury and death for their comrades.  Citizens will endure hardship to defend their homes and country.  People take jobs they hate to provide opportunities for their children.  Mothers will do without so their children are properly clothed and fed.  Neighbors will make do with less to help one another out during hard times.  Parents will lay down their lives for their children.
    
     In each of the examples above, people made decisions regarding their values and beliefs.  They supported them with their actions.  Their actions were voluntary.  The sacrifices in these examples are moral.
    
     "We can make you" is the tool of people who speak of shared sacrifice.  Like all bullies and thugs, they use compulsion and intimidation to achieve their desired results.   Rick Wagoner was told that General Motors and its employees would be drowned if he didn't resign immediately.  He did resign, but was his decision to quit in order to protect the jobs of GM's employees a moral sacrifice?  The answer must be no, because he didn't act of his own free will.
   
      Remember, a sacrifice is moral only when voluntary.  Mr. Wagoner's decision was coerced by the people who held hostage the lives and well-being of the employees of General Motors.  Mr. Wagoner valued them as people, which was part of his moral code.  In using his moral code as a weapon against him, his attackers revealed themselves and their principle of "shared sacrifice" to be truly evil.

 


    
        

     Diversity, as used today, means divisive.  It uplifts nobody.  It's used freely, but its purpose is obscured.  That purpose is the undermining of established values.  We are told that we live in a multicultural world, which is true.  We are told that all cultures are equally valid and valuable, which isn't true.

     I live in a middle-class suburb populated primarily by educated, 2-parent families who own their homes.  My neighborhood is safe.  My school system is considered among the best in the state, which is one of the reasons I moved into the area.  My neighbors and I are active in school, church and community affairs.

     Using that as a baseline, what is diverse?  A neighborhood with a high crime rate and a high illegitimacy rate?  A school system so bad that its teachers won't enroll their own children in it and whose graduates are functionally illiterate when they graduate, if they don't drop out first?

     These scenarios are diverse.  Is each valid?  Yes.  Is each equally valuable?  No.  One is the result of choices properly made.  One reflects foresight and accountability.  One is what I want for my own children.  What value does the second add to the quality of my life, and why I should embrace it? 

     The melting pot which was America incorporated the traditions of each immigrant group as it wove itself into the fabric of the country.  Look at the variety of foods, festivals and sports which are now considered American.  That was diversity on the way to becoming American, and it worked to uplift all who wished to work for it.

     Today's diversity rips apart the notion of what it is to be an American.  It pits group against group.  Rather than raising those at the bottom, it fosters resentment.   It uses separate but unequal to advance ideology.  Those who advocate it view achievement as either luck or larceny, either of which deserves to be punished.

     They exempt only themselves - the anointed, the best and the brightest - from this assessment.  Their educational pedigrees entitle them to make things fair.  In their private view, those at the bottom can't be raised because they are, frankly, not smart enough.  With that option off the table, the only thing to be done is to punish those who don't or won't know their place.

     The Ron
     all rights reserved
    
    
    
    

The unions and their lapdog Democrat legislators are set to rob me.  The weapon is the Employee Free Choice Act.  Known as Card Check, this act would allow 50% of my employees to stage a coup by signing a card saying they wanted to unionize.  Intimidation by union supporters is likely because opponents will lose their right to a secret ballot.

I started my company 17 years ago.  I cashed in my retirement money as start-up capital.  I paid taxes and penalties for the privilege of doing so.  I worked 80 to 110 hours per week for years and felt like a slacker when I cut back to 60.  It took just under 4 years before I was able to deposit my personal paycheck on the day it was issued.  This is background, not whining.  I knew what I was getting into when I started my own business.

My employees have jobs because of my efforts and sacrifices.  I created the jobs - they just fill them.  Had I not started my company, their jobs wouldn't exist.  I hired them to allow me to use my time more effectively in growing the company, thereby creating more jobs.  They are paid well because of my belief that I can get more work done in less time with fewer employees if those employees are competent.  That has proven true.

I want the unions and their legislative stooges to understand one thing.  It's my company.  If they want to buy it, make me an offer.  If I agree, they can have it.  That's the way business should be done.  If, however, they think they can steal it from me, they're in for a surprise.

I'll kill the business, and the jobs that go with it.  I'll liquidate my inventory.  I'll sell my receivables and my customer list.  I'll settle my debts and move on.  I'll get a job doing something else, making more money and putting in fewer hours.  Can they do the same?

Robbery has two actors:  Robber and Victim.  I can't do anything about the robber, but I can choose not to be a victim.

     The Ron
     all rights reserved

     My life is guided by the following principle:  There is right and there is wrong.  If you are religious, as I am, there is an even more fundamental principle:  There is good and there is evil.  I'll deal with right and wrong today.
     The concept of right and wrong is constant, but the interpretation varies according to the values and customs of a given society.  Values and customs are learned behavior.  Eating meat isn't acceptable in vegetarian circles.  Public nudity is okay in some places and frowned on in others.  Which side of the road you drive your car on depends on the local customs.
     Life is black and white.  The shades of gray that everyone speaks of don't exist.  Gray is an excuse.  It is an attempt to justify or excuse doing something you believe is wrong.  You may feel you had a good reason to do whatever it is you did, but you still feel uneasy.  It is this sense of unease which gives rise to the need for gray.
     I don't claim moral superiority.  I know about the shades of gray because I've used them.  My reasons were better some times than others, but that doesn't change the fact that I was doing something wrong.  I used gray to soothe my conscience.
     If you think I'm wrong to view the world as black and white, answer this question.  Have you ever heard anybody say:  "I did the right thing, but I had a really good reason."?  I haven't, and I doubt you have.  Why is that?
     Because the right thing speaks for itself and needs no further justification or excuse.

     The Ron
     all rights reserved

I live just outside of Detroit, MI.  Various groups of mass-transit advocates have been trying to create a light-rail and / or subway system in Detroit for at least 20 years.  The latest plan, M1-RAIL, was hatched 2 years ago and has gained some local private funding.  The amount isn't nearly enough for the system envisioned, but the promise of some federal stimulus money has encouraged the planners' efforts.   I wrote the following and sent it into our local newspapers.
 
     Detroit has a light-rail system in operation.  It's called the People Mover.  It runs in a 2.9 mile circle and sucks up $12 million annually in state and city subsidies.  Original estimates of daily usage were 67,700.  The reality is about 7,500.  Each rider pays 50 cents of the $3.00 per-ride cost.
     The M1-RAIL proposal is a straight-line People Mover running 3.4 miles from Hart Plaza to New Center.  Billed as a private project, it has evolved into a private / public / non-profit project during the attempts to secure funding.  Even with federal stimulus money, the system will become totally public when subsidies come due.  Taxpayers will pay the operational costs of the "New People Mover".
     There isn't enough passenger demand to support a light-rail system, as can be easily seen by driving the proposed route.  The closed stores, vacant apartments, and boarded-up buildings won't be filled if the system is built.  This isn't Iowa, and Woodward Avenue is no field of dreams.
     When General Motors moved from the New Center area to the Renaissance Center, the city of Detroit and the state of Michigan filled the void by deserting other parts of the city.  This hurt those areas, which were considered less visible and less important than New Center.  It was a form of urban triage, the battlefield system of determining which of the wounded should be treated.
     What drives proponents of mass transit?  I don't know.  Most people enjoy the flexibility of using their own vehicles.  That's why mass transit isn't self-sustaining.

     The Ron
     all rights reserved

I am pro-choice.
I choose to believe that an unborn child is created in the image of God and deserves our protection.
I choose to believe that a woman’s decision to kill her baby is painful and not undertaken lightly.
I choose to believe that it is to her conscience and God that a woman must answer for her actions.
I choose to believe that while all moral actions are legal, not all legal actions are moral.
I choose to believe that freedom of conscience is one of the most important underpinnings of our society.
I choose to believe that a person’s moral code shouldn’t be used against him.
I choose to believe that we have a moral obligation to resist immoral actions and dictates.
I choose not to obey the “Freedom of Choice Act” when it is enacted.
I choose to believe that civil disobedience, not including violence, is an appropriate response when we are
forced to choose between obeying our consciences or obeying an immoral law.

We have seen our choices maligned and marginalized over the past 30 years.  Not satisfied to condemn only themselves, the pro-death supporters are preparing to make truly pro-choice advocates unwilling participants in their immoral activities.  Hyperbole?  Please read Planned Parenthood’s explanation of Senate bill 1173.  Medicaid funding for abortions is there.  No parental notification of minors is there.  Federal funding for women’s “reproductive health services” is there.  Killing babies overseas is there.  Forcing persons of conscience to provide morning-after pills, RU-486, and abortions is there, and it’s immoral.
    
Marches will not help us.  There is a large one every January in Washington; still this bill will be enacted.
Phone calls and e-mails will not help us.  Politicians only want to hear from us during an election cycle.
Wringing our hands and wailing about the unfairness of it will not help us.  We’re the only ones listening.
   
I propose civil disobedience, but it will have to be a personally active disobedience.  There is a price to pay
for moral stances, but you already know that.  The question is:  Are you willing to pay it?
   
I offer four avenues of resistance.
    1)  If you are forced to sell products which you believe will result in the death of a baby, raise the sales
            prices of the items.  If the item has a manufacturer’s suggested list price of $5.00 per dose, make your price
            $500.00.  At that point, the potential customer can choose to buy it from you or not.  
    2)  If  they do buy, and they may, with support from a pro-death group hoping to make a point, the
            next step is to donate 100% of the after-tax profits to a group which supports adoption.  The Dave Thomas
            Foundation for Adoption is an excellent choice for such donations.
        3)  If you are a doctor or nurse ordered to provide an abortion, refuse to participate.  Go on strike. 
            A woman’s choice to kill her baby doesn’t trump your moral, ethical or religious beliefs. 
       4)  If you run a hospital or other healthcare facility, refuse to obey laws which violate your moral,
            ethical or religious beliefs.  They can’t turn all the patients into the streets, or put all objectors into jail.
            Let them explain why all your living patients deserve to be harmed because you won’t kill babies.

Your opponents use your moral code as a weapon against you. You believe in the essential goodness of mankind – they don’t.  You care about others – they say they do, but their actions betray them.  You don’t want to cause harm to others – they don’t care whom they harm as long as their objectives are achieved.  You will struggle to complete any task assigned or undertaken – they’ll raise obstacles and still expect you to perform.
   
Know this, and be armed.  You’re not alone nor will you be when it’s your turn to be a witness for life.

The Ron
all rights reserved

  

     As a direct result of the Michigan Business Tax, we've laid off an employee for the first time in our 16-year history.  We began taking steps nearly 2 years ago to deal with Michigan's shrinking economy.  We reduced inventory levels.  We consolidated delivery runs to cut costs without sacrificing customer service.  When one of our drivers left for another job, we didn't replace him.  We traded in our large delivery truck for a smaller, more fuel-efficient one.  We stopped discretionary purchases.  We raised the temperature in the office during the summer and lowered the heat in the warehouse in the winter to save money.  We kept a close eye on our receivables, firing customers who didn't want to pay within terms.

     What we had no control over was the 567% (yes, five hundred sixty-seven per cent) increase in our State of Michigan business tax.  Our sales hadn't increased that much.  In fact, we were proud that we had been able to grow them by 1.5% last year.  Our profits certainly hadn't increased that much.  Everybody knows what happened to gas prices last year, so you know our expenses had gone up.

     We were blindsided by the increase.  Especially difficult to swallow was the fact that the sales tax we collect for and send to the state was now considered to be part of our gross income, and thus taxable.  Even worse, the entire amount of the tax was subjected to a 22% surcharge.

     The tax we owed was the salary and benefits of one employee who had been with us for over four years.  She is going to school to become a registered nurse, so we gave her flexible hours to accommodate her class schedule.  She used her paycheck to pay for classes and books, but that's over now.  Her unemployment check is substantially less than her paycheck.  She's looking for work, but she's looking for work in Michigan.  We all know what that's like.

     We could have taken advantage of various taxes credits in the new MBT framework, but we don't make movies; we don't own a NASCAR speedway; we don't own a sports stadium; we don't run an international auto show; and we don't work in or own a new or old brownfield development.  Those are just some of the credits available to those companies which had effective lobbyists helping to create the new tax framework.  We couldn't have afforded to hire a lobbyist even if we had known that we needed one to protect us.

     We have no choice but to pay the tax or face penalties and interest.  We can't afford to hire an attorney to fight this.  The state doesn't want to hear our personal problems - it wants its money.

     It's difficult to let a good employee go through no fault of hers or yours.  It's even more difficult when that employee is your daughter.

     The Ron

     all rights reserved

    

    

     I am responding to your remarks that we are too cowardly to discuss race in this country.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  It isn't cowardice that precludes discussions, but the existence of political correctness. Should one express an honest opinion of one's observations, one risks scorn, ridicule, and sensitivity training.  Given the consequences of of true openness, people tend to keep their opinions to themselves.  Is that cowardice or self-preservation?

     I live in the metropolitan Detroit, MI area and am barraged daily by racial discussions on radio and television programs and in the local papers.  Most of the discussions aren't dialogues, but rather rants about the existence of white (always white, never black) racism and the negative effects of that racism on the black community. Can't find a job?  Suburban employers are racist.  Can't buy a house?  Lending institutions are racist.  Car and home insurance higher in the city than the suburbs?  Insurance companies are not only racist, but guilty of redlining.

     My problem, Mr. Holder, is that I took the dreams of Dr. King seriously.  I looked forward to the day when America was color-blind and individuals were judged only on the content of their characters.  Please note the word "individuals".  Dr. King's dream, at least in the speech I listened to, never mentioned protected groups.  It never mentioned reverse discrimination.  It never mentioned that people living today would be obliged to pay for the actions of people in another century.

     You  may have guessed by now that I am a white male, that most privileged member of the majority culture.  As such, at least according to the racial and sexual politics of the past 40 years, I have benefited from the oppression and exploitation of blacks, Latinos, women, homosexuals, and the disabled.  (If I've left anybody out, what do you expect?  If you're not a white male, do you really matter?)  If I viewed myself as a member of a victimized class (see above), I would say that I was a victim of racial and gender profiling.  Since I'm not a victim, I'll just say that I've been stereotyped, and it's gotten really old.

     It is widely presumed that I have gotten where I have as a result of the inherent benefits derived from being born a white male.  Education played no part.  Hard work played no part.  Struggle, real struggle and not Al Sharpton's version of it, and sacrifice played no part.  Foregoing immediate gratification for long-term benefits played no part.  No, my position in life is due solely to my birth status and the foundation of victims upon which it is built.

     Unfortunately for you and the people you represent, that is bunk.  I was born and raised in the projects of Detroit.  My father was an alcoholic who abused his wife and children.  My mother had episodes of mental illness and was the recipient of electroshock therapy when she was committed to a mental institution.  My mother, younger brother and I fled Michigan with one suitcase each when it became apparent that our lives were in jeopardy from my father.

     I started working to support us shortly after I turned 15.  I worked at a variety of jobs after school and on weekends, turning my pay envelope or check over to my mother.  My younger brother and I violated child labor laws in Alabama by putting Kool Seal reflective coating on mobile home roofs one summer.  We'd fill our rubber boots with cold water.  We'd apply the product on the roofs until the water in the boots got so hot that we had to climb back down and change it, repeating the process until the roof was done.  The money we earned paid for rent and food.

     I knew that I wanted to go to college, so I did what many of the original immigrants to America did:  I indentured myself.  I joined the Army in 1968 for the VA educational benefits, which at that time were greater for enlistees than for draftees.  I got out of the Army in 1971, got my mother set up, and went to college.

     I worked full-time at night and on weekends at a grocery store, stocking shelves and running a cash register.  I went to school during the day, taking 16 -21 credit hours per quarter and finishing school in 3 years.  My life was so tightly structured that my wife and I were married between summer and fall quarters so that we would have time for a honeymoon.

     I worked for small companies until 1992, when my wife and I started our own business.  She owns 90% of the stock and is president.  I own 10% and get something nice on Secretary's Day.  Despite the fact that my wife is obviously a woman, the State of Michigan employee in charge of certifying a company's woman-owned business status made us jump through hoops to obtain that status.  That employee was a black woman, and the incident wasn't isolated or an anomaly.

     Our start-up capital came from cashing in my retirement account.  We paid personal income tax on the money, plus a 10% penalty for early withdrawal.  Adding insult to injury, we had to pay federal corporate income taxes on the inventory we had purchased with the twice-taxed money.  We worked for 3 years, 11 months, and 2 weeks before we were able to deposit our paychecks on the day they were issued.  During that time we hired and paid employees; paid our suppliers; and fed the state's and fed's voracious appetites.

     During this time I have witnessed the transformation of business from an exchange of goods and services for money into a social-engineering laboratory.  Quality of products; timeliness of service; competitive pricing - those were the criteria upon which a potential supplier / customer relationship was based.  A personal relationship might help you get into an account, but you'd lose it if you didn't meet the criteria shown above.

     Diversity; Equal Opportunity; Minority Set-asides - those are the social engineer's criteria.  Is the potential supplier a member of a preferred or enumerated group?  If not, how can we make it so?  Is the owner certified as such?  If not, how can we arrange a joint venture to fit our needs?  What percentage of our set-aside target (quota) will his / her product or service fill?  After all, we have city / state / federal targets to meet or our bids won't be accepted or our contracts renewed.   Worse than that, we don't want Jesse or Al or any of the other race hustlers raising a ruckus, do we?

     Do you think I exaggerate, Mr. Holder?  Given the fact that you worked for the NAACP, I don't think you can.  After all, that group is a major force behind the social engineering changes, isn't it?  The admirable purposes of the NAACP at its founding have become perverted over the years.

     Tell me, Mr. Holder:  How do you feel about being put into the newest White Male classification?  After all, you're from a privileged class.  Your family is from the West Indies, and West Indians and native Africans are overrepresented in the minority set-aside programs in New York City, aren't they?  That's causing problems in the American-born black community, which sees its "fair share" of the pie being eaten by other, less-authentic black people.  That's what I read in "The New York Times", and they wouldn't steer me wrong, would they?

     There's more to be said on this issue, much more.  Whether it will be said depends on your courage, Mr. Holder.  I've started a dialogue, but I'll need your help to continue it.  I look forward to hearing from you.

     The Ron

     all rights reserved