The Foundation

“No country upon earth ever had it more in its power to attain these blessings than United America. Wondrously strange, then, and much to be regretted indeed would it be, were we to neglect the means and to depart from the road which Providence has pointed us to so plainly; I cannot believe it will ever come to pass.” –George Washington

For the Record

“The Obama administration and congressional Democrats are betting their political futures on the hope that the American electorate is ignorant and forgetful, and hence the memo has gone out to functionaries hither and yon, from David Axelrod to John Kerry: This is to be called the ‘tea-party downgrade.’ That this is said with straight faces bespeaks either an unshakable contempt for the mind of the American voter or an as-yet unplumbed capacity for Democratic self-delusion. Let us revisit the facts. The original debt-ceiling deal put forward by the Democrats totaled $0.00 in debt reduction. This would have fallen approximately $4 trillion short of the $4 trillion in debt reduction the credit-rating agencies suggested would constitute a ‘credible’ step toward maintaining our AAA rating and avoiding a downgrade. … The Democrats have suggested that Republicans’ refusal to accede to tax hikes is the main reason Standard & Poor’s felt it necessary to issue a downgrade, the first in American history, last Friday evening. In their assessment of Standard & Poor’s reasoning, the Democrats are acutely at odds with Standard & Poor’s. The credit-rating agency did not call for tax hikes in its assessment. … But S&P, along with the other credit-rating agencies, has long taken a position on one aspect of our fiscal troubles: entitlement reform. … As anybody who has looked at our long-term deficit projections knows, entitlement spending is the major driver of our future deficits. … Tea-party leaders, far from being a barrier to entitlement reform, have demanded it. … The deal that finally did pass would have contained significantly more in deficit-reduction, except for the fact that Democrats categorically refused to consider – is this sounding familiar? – entitlement reform, the most important issue. … Democrats believe that they have discovered a cartoon villain in the Tea Party, and they are hoping that American voters are gullible enough to be distracted by the political theatrics. Come November 2012, Americans should keep in mind both the insult and the injury – to the nation and its credit.” –National Review

Opinion in Brief

“It seems to me that, on any reasonable assessment, the gulf between the parties on fiscal policy is becoming more difficult to bridge, not less. Pessimism on that score seems entirely justified, so it’s hard to argue with S&P[‘s credit rating downgrade] on at least that specific point. I do think the outlook for fundamental fiscal agreement before the 2012 election is bleak. After that, things could change dramatically for the better, or not. In any case, whether S&P is being fair or unfair to move at this juncture, the political standoff we’re in is, sadly, necessary right now, despite its costs. Americans are in the midst of a great debate on the future of our society. Everyone seems to agree that the outcome of the next election will have a decisive impact on what kind of country we are – or become. Will we retain our distinctively American characteristics, or move irrevocably toward the European model? … Whether or not Barack Obama is reelected will be the single most important factor determining the direction we take. Nothing much will happen until that question is resolved, S&P notwithstanding. And for all the problems it causes, that is the way it has to be.” –Ethics and Public Policy Center senior fellow Stanley Kurtz

Political Futures

“[On Friday] it was announced that the unemployment rate is 9.1 percent. The unemployment rate has now been above 9 percent in 25 of the last 27 months. [On Thursday] stocks fell 512 points. Consumer confidence has fallen again as has consumer spending. Manufacturing has slowed to the slowest pace in more than two years. GDP growth is a sickly 1.3 percent. Meanwhile, the national debt has risen to $14.8 trillion. Federal spending has risen to $3.6 trillion – $700 billion more than just three years ago – and continues to rise, despite the fact tax receipts have fallen to $2.2 trillion – $300 billion less than three years ago. [Obama] promised that if Congress passed the $812 billion stimulus bill in 2009, the unemployment rate would be approximately 5.5 percent by November 2012. That would require that between 800,000 and 1,000,000 jobs per month (depending on the labor participation rate) be created between now and election day. Given that over the last quarter we’ve been running between 750,000 to 950,000 jobs per month short of that goal, what are [his] plans to boost the employment rate? [Obama has] announced [he’s] going on a Midwest bus tour beginning the week of August 15 to focus on job creation. How many jobs [will his bus tour] create? Isn’t it reasonable for Americans to conclude that [his] jobs-creation program consists primarily of borrowing money, deficit spending, and giving speeches?” –National Review’s Peter Kirsanow

Essential Liberty

“Greater freedom for tax payers would be seized from tax consumers, in an act of terrorism against the sacred machinery of redistribution. This mindset flows from the fundamental leftist misunderstanding of freedom. They view the essence of freedom as action. … In reality, freedom is property. Every form of collectivism, from fascism to socialism, is an offense against property rights. The early philosophers of socialism railed bitterly against the private ownership of property. They hated the notion of a middle class with independence secured through ownership. The perilous financial situation of the United States government illustrates how closely private property rights are connected to all other forms of liberty. The less absolute your rights of ownership over your land, labor, and fortune become, the more easily the other rights can be dismissed at the convenience of the State. … Now we are told that we have no choice but to allow the State to become larger, spending and borrowing more as it extends its control over our lives. Those who disagree are denounced as 'terrorists.’ … In a nation where the government fully respected private ownership, the notion of citizens becoming ‘hostages’ to federal budget cuts would be laughable, rather than insulting. Freedom is not something to be granted, rationed, allocated, or redistributed. It is not won or lost in an election. Freedom is something you own.” –columnist John Hayward

The Gipper

“Now it doesn’t require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism on a people. What does it mean whether you hold the deed or the title to your business or property if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property? And such machinery already exists. The government can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute. Every businessman has his own tale of harassment. Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, unalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment.” –Ronald Reagan

Government

“[T]he most fundamental reality is that the average wealth of the elderly is some multiple of the average wealth owned by people in the other age brackets. Why should the average taxpayer be subsidizing people who have much more wealth than they do? If we are concerned about those particular elderly people who are in fact poor – as we are about other people who are genuinely poor, whatever their age might be – then we can simply confine our help to those who are poor by some reasonable means test. It would cost a fraction of what it costs to subsidize everybody who reaches a certain age. But the political left hates means tests. If government programs were confined to people who were genuinely poor in some meaningful sense, that would shrink the welfare state to a fraction of its current size. … [O]ld age is not some unforeseeable misfortune. It is not only foreseeable but inevitable for those who do not die young. It is one thing to keep people from suffering from unforeseeable things beyond their control. But it is something else to simply subsidize their necessities so that they can spend their money on other things and leave a larger estate to be passed on to their heirs. People who say they want a government program because ‘I don’t want to be a burden to my children’ apparently think it is all right to be a burden to other people’s children.” –economist Thomas Sowell

Insight

“The power to determine the quantity of money … is too important, too pervasive, to be exercised by a few people, however public-spirited, if there is any feasible alternative. There is no need for such arbitrary power. … Any system which gives so much power and so much discretion to a few men, [so] that mistakes – excusable or not – can have such far reaching effects, is a bad system. It is a bad system to believers in freedom just because it gives a few men such power without any effective check by the body politic – this is the key political argument against an independent central bank.” –economist Milton Friedman (1912-2006)

Reader Comments

Publisher’s Note: In my essay, The Next American Revolution, I began by writing, “I receive hundreds of messages every day from Patriots across the nation. For the last three years, one thematic question has emerged with ever-increasing frequency. To paraphrase that question: ‘What is the authority to rebel against the central government?’ … Such questions were once deemed too radical and discordant for consideration in civil discourse. However, as Rule of Law enshrined in our Constitution has been all but completely usurped by the rule of men through the Left’s so-called living constitution, the frequency and tenor of questions about the future of Essential Liberty for our once-great Republic is propelling them into mainstream debate.”

As of this morning, nearly 1,100 of you responded and the overwhelming sentiment was “it’s time.” Please add your voice to the growing chorus of Patriots clamoring for real hope and change. Let’s restore Essential Liberty for our great nation.

Editor’s Note: In Friday’s Digest, along with covering the ins and outs of the debt crisis and the phony “deal,” we asked a question that seemed to trigger even more interest: Who’s your presidential candidate?

Support among readers was more or less confined to a handful of candidates, soon-to-be-candidates and non-candidates. As for those who are running or likely to run, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain and Ron Paul had the greatest support. Our first battle for 2012 is in the GOP primaries, and choosing the right candidate is paramount. Sound off today.

The Last Word

“On Thursday, in honor of Barack Obama’s 50th birthday, the Dow dropped ten points for every year he has walked among us. It was the ninth largest drop in history. We should be relieved he wasn’t turning eighty. The markets are apparently concerned that the entire global economy may be ‘stalling.’ You don’t say? Observant fellows, these market chappies. … Under the ‘historic’ ‘resolution’ of the debt crisis (and don’t those very words ‘debt crisis’ already feel so last week?), America will be cutting federal spending by $900 billion over ten years. ‘Cutting federal spending by $900 billion over ten years’ is Washington-speak for increasing federal spending by $7 trillion over ten years. And, as they’d originally planned to increase it by eight trillion, that counts as a cut. If they’d planned to increase it by $20 trillion and then settled for merely $15 trillion, they could have saved five trillion. See how easy this is? As part of this historic ‘cut,’ we’ve now raised the ‘debt ceiling’ – or, more accurately, lowered the debt abyss. Do you ever discuss the debt with your neighbor? Do you think he has any serious intention to repay the 15 trillion racked up in his and your name? Does your congressman? Does your senator? Look into their eyes. You can see the answer. And, if none of these parties seem inclined to pay down the debt now, what are the chances they’ll feel like doing so by 2020 when, under these historic ‘cuts,’ it’s up to 23-25 trillion?” –columnist Mark Steyn

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
The Patriot Post Editorial Team