Current Thoughts

                   Current Thoughts


NEWS FLASH:  CBO Report Shows Capital Gains Tax Revenue Increased 51% Since Tax Cut  

It is a proven fact (never to be taught in a government monopoly school) that there is a huge difference between tax rates and tax collections.  The above report presents quite a quandary for well-meaning Controllers. Will they consider it more important to punish successful people or to raise revenues to fund additional counter-productive and unconstitutional government programs?



There are a lot of "evil" corporations and a lot of individuals with food on the table in the United States.



Q:  Does it make any substantial difference for the Federal government to perform a lot of functions since "We, the people" hold the power and have merely voted for the government to perform some functions for us?

A:  While the power is ultimately held by “We, the people", sometimes this power needs to be exercised as a large group (Federal government), but the vast majority of the time it needs to be exercised individually and by smaller groups, public and private. That is what our Founders mandated in our Constitution and what Libertarians believe today.  Read Big Government...Poor Grandchildren for details.



A caller on a radio show recently said that the disability portion of Medicare was extremely important to him and asked me if I advocated abolishing that specific government program.   I failed to apply the principles of government established by our Founders to that particular issue and promptly fell into a trap that I have been warning everyone else about. 

It is commonly believed that there are only two solutions to any problem (government monopoly schools?):  1) get government involved or 2) let unfortunate people suffer.  Government has confiscated almost all of the funds and feelings of goodwill available for assistance of all types, and in the short run, there truly are only those two options.  However, all unfortunate people would be helped in all areas by canceling (after a gradual transition period) all government welfare programs.  These government programs are unconstitutional and only marginally productive.  Private institutions do a far superior job of helping the needy and refusing to enable the greedy and lazy.



Some say that the U. S. Constitution  is one that evolves with a series of Supreme Court decisions, but I have yet to find the provision in our Constitution that allows five Democrat or five Republican Justices to amend it without any other input.  Would someone please let me know where that provision is?  Only then will I agree that court precedents supercede the Constitution that all of the Justices have sworn to protect and defend.



That drowning sensation you are feeling is your notice that your ship just sank, and the only lifeboats I see on the horizon are lawsuits raising Constitutional issues and the Libertarian Party.

The Senate just voted 82 to 15 to pay $223 million for a bridge in Alaska to an island where 50 people live.  That is almost $4.5 million per person that the government in its infinite wisdom decided was a better use of your money than to let you make your own stupid decisions.  Only eleven Republicans voted against the measure.   If you think that Republican President Bush will reverse his direction and veto the bill, you need to make an appointment for a reality check.



That drowning sensation you are feeling is your notice that your ship just sank, and the only lifeboats I see on the horizon are lawsuits raising Constitutional issues and the Libertarian Party.

The Senate just voted 82 to 15 to pay $223 million for a bridge in Alaska to an island where 50 people live.  That money will go to some major corporations and a significant percentage of it will find its way into the campaign coffers of a Republican Senator from Alaska.  Only four  Democrats voted against the measure.


Learn more by visiting the sites linked from this one and buying a copy of :

"Big Government ...Poor Grandchildren"


No Longer Current Thoughts



(Ambassador from the U. S. to somewhere else)

Ambassador John Bolton

U. S. Department of State

2201 C Street, NW

Washington, DC 20520

Dear Ambassador Bolton:

I request that you propose to the U. N. that it rescind Article 29, Paragraph 3 of its Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  This paragraph says, "These rights and freedoms [speech, press, assembly, etc.] may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."  That is, the UN wannabee government wants the people to belong to the government and not the other way around.

This provision is contrary to human rights as defined by the country you represent.


Durham W. Ellis



The Democrats have won the war of ideas, and both major parties have now embraced the concept of an unlimited, intrusive, and counterproductive government.  However, the Democrats have lost some recent battles as to just what form

of big government we have to endure with the Republicans  presently in charge.

Whether you are right-wing, left-wing, or independent, you need to realize that all the cooks at the Big Government Cafe put too much vinegar on the collard greens, and no one is pleased with the results. Most Americans prefer to eat the garbage being served and complain about the “other” side rather than to use our power to force both sides to return to the original recipe of limited government that was keeping us free and making us wealthy.


Why don’t we start a new world organization with serious human rights’ requirements for membership?  It would give everyone a standard by which to judge the behavior of other countries and that of our own.  There would not be many members of the new organization at first, but who on the right or left could object to that form of leadership by American statesmen and women?  We could easily fund the venture by reducing to the absolute minimum the support that the United States squanders in donations to the International Association of Dictators and Tyrants (commonly known by its mislabel as the warm and fuzzy global village of United Nations).


Fellow survivors of Katrina, are you angry about the government ineptitude and resulting chaos?   Well, you should be.  Our government lied to us. We were lied to by our politicians, our government monopoly schools, and our media  that is divided into right-wing and left-wing biases. We have been told for decades that government would do far more than just provide for the common defense and a few other basics.  We have been told repeatedly that government will take care of all of our needs, and it failed miserably—and predictably.  Why are you shocked?

So, who was at fault on the Gulf Coast? Republicans will always blame Democrats, and Democrats will always blame Republicans.  President Bush sent troops to Iraq instead of New Orleans.  FEMA spent your money "making plans" and then did not seem to have many plans or implement them effectively.  But was the problem caused by the Democratic Mayor of New Orleans or the Democratic Governor of Louisiana?  Maybe it was really Clinton’s fault for letting young women divert his attention away from preparing plans for government to deal with inevitable natural disasters.  Maybe it was John F. Kennedy’s fault for spending money on a space program instead of using it to build better levees. 

Or, do we have to assume a large share of the blame for believing that government poverty programs could reduce the number of poor people who would need help during a disaster?  Did the last few decades of government actions increase or decrease the problems caused by a horrible storm?

Government had promised that we did not need to worry; it would take care of us, but all we got was a lot of words and chaotic actions.  Katrina was a huge problem and government was overwhelmed, but poverty, for example, is a huge problem too.  It has been decades since President Johnson declared war on poverty, so why were there still so many poor people in New Orleans who had so little support from family and friends and who needed so much help from strangers during the hurricane?

In fact, just how well has government been satisfying all of our needs during “normal” times?  Not very well, and the sooner we all realize that we have to take personal responsibility for our own lives and for the lives of our family members, the sooner we will be able to reverse the poverty and suffering that is always caused by over-reliance on a nanny government.  The harsh reality is that government is incapable of doing enough, and we need to to look to it for only the functions for which it is capable.  We need to encourage more individual initiative, and one of my heroes is the teenage boy who realized that his survival after Katrina ultimately was in his own hands.  He commandeered a school bus and got out of Dodge, taking some other unfortunates with him.  He was able to become a small part of the solution to the huge problems caused by Katrina instead of waiting for government to do everything.

Am I pointing fingers?  Am I politicizing the misery of the unfortunate people who are still suffering so much?  You’re damn right I am.  So what?  I am angry and do not want to ever see this degree of suffering again.  The next time you promote the lie that government is the solution to all problems, more blood will be on your hands.

P.S.  Before Rita hit the coast shortly after Katrina,  a large number of people tried individual initiative, and they just ended up stuck in traffic.  Ideas, anyone?


The Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States state:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

My questions:

     Where does it state that some of your rights are not really rights at all--that some of them are just privileges to be granted or denied at the whim of the Imperial Government?

     When are you going to defend our Constitution until it has been duly amended?  You can start defending it by visiting the sites linked from this one and buying a copy of :

"Big Government ...Poor Grandchildren"