The Hack- News
1321 East Carson St.,
Pittsburgh, PA 15203
or just email them to:
HACKMASTER
|
|
||
| Beehive Adding On
The Beehive Coffeehouse is adding the former "Penny Pinchers" store to their existing space. The new area sould be open early October.
As with everything the Beehive owners do, there is always an architectural twist. The new space has a circular "floating" seating area suspended from the ceiling. |
||
 |
||
 |
||
|
||
|
 |
||||
|
|
|
On the surface this may sound archaic and less free. But appearances are deceiving. For it was understood by the founders that a system of checks and balances must also account for man's whimsical nature, turbulent passions and the possible ambitions of unscrupulous rulers who might attempt "to alter, for light or transient causes" his forms of government. It was also known that tyranny could be sold to the people with flowery phrases and shiny wrappers, and that a directly elected President could go around the check of the Congress by appealing directly to the people. Or that a directly elected Senator was easier to buy than one who depended upon some hundreds of State congressmen to appoint him, congressmen whose domains were smaller, and closer to the citizenry, and in many cases in conflict with one another. To illustrate this last point, let's take the 2000 election of Hillary Rodham Clinton to U.S. Senate for the State of New York. In days gone by, she would have been sent packing like the carpetbagger she is. She is, after all, originally a citizen of Arkansas with no real ties to New York. There is no way that a state legislature, in the past, would've appointed an outsider to U.S. Senate. They would've feared the loss of their jobs because they knew that citizens voted in that level of election regularly, had a stronger sense of community, and that even many Democrats would have been offended by Mrs. Clintons' blatant political opportunism in becoming a "New Yorker."
But, the Founders knew that the populace must have some representation at the Federal level proportionate to the size of (and directly accountable to) the local populations and so the House of Representatives was created. And, in order to see that it did act as a real check and balance, the House, not the Senate, was given the power of the purse. And it is in that power that we find the real means to reverse the seemingly unstoppable trend towards socialism, moral decay and finally tyranny. For I submit to you that if we all ignored Presidential elections and instead placed all of our attention on Congressional races (including the Senate but primarily on the House) that we would see a genuine shift to more freedom in America. This would work because it is the one thing that hasn't been tried for some time: What we were intended to do in the first place.
Unfortunately, the prevailing sentiment among average citizens today
is that there is nothing that one person can do. You can vote but
how do you make a politician uphold the Constitution after he or
she is elected? Why should a powerful politician listen to me, instead
of wealthy special interests?
TRIM
bulletins & letter writing: Gratifying as step in the right direction would be, it would mean nothing, were it not backed up with concerted effort between elections, by paying close attention to what people do after they get elected. In the past, word spread more slowly and media, like everything else, was smaller and more tied to localities. Countering the deception is daunting. But it can be done. Of all the programs and ad hoc committees I have encountered, TRIM (Tax Relief Immediately, an ad hoc committee of the John Birch Society) has been by far the most successful. It is hated and feared by many big spenders, whom it has removed or restrained. It is equally feared by powerful insiders, who know that it can shake up their hold on government. It is loved by maverick conservative Representatives whom it has indirectly benefited by exposing the liberal, big spending, big government proclivities of the previous inhabitant of their seat. Remember, Congressional pay is around $3000.00 a week, not counting perks! But what is TRIM? Three times a year, TRIM bulletins are published for every congressional district in the United States. Each U.S. Representative is "graded" on eight key spending bills (the same eight bills, regardless of how the representative voted) that had some key significance to the integrity of constitutional government or the freedom and prosperity of Americans. The bulletins are then distributed in the district of the Representative. In order to spark the interest of taxpayers, the often staggeringly huge cost in dollars of the bills is broken down to the much more measurable (and revealing) average cost per household. This has a more powerful effect on the mind of the average voter than an endorsement for or an attack against a particular candidate because it filters out partisan arguments and demonstrates in more personal terms the effects of big government. As someone who has handed out TRIM bulletins outside of a post office on April the 15th, I can tell you that many people will appreciate it when you hand them a bulletin and say, "Happy Tax Day! Here's where your money went!" When they see that the federal government gave money to the Rock 'N Roll Hal of Fame, or the Orangutan Foundation, or the cost per household of foreign aid bills, they stop laughing and start seeing. TRIM's effect on elections is not so funny to many pro-establishment big spenders. And the only bias of TRIM is smaller, constitutionally authorized government, not partisan politics. The many Republicans who pose as conservative receive no soft treatment; and the few Democrats who vote the Constitution instead of the party line are so noted. There was even a man who ran and won as a Socialist in California whose grade was better than many phony conservatives! Another way to regain control of Congress is to stay in touch with your representative. Write regularly about how you feel he or she is performing. Don't like what the president did yesterday? Send a letter to your Rep, and encourage others you know to do the same. They are your means to pressure the president. Don't like foreign aid? Your Rep is the one who actually voted to spend your money on it. Let 'em know how you feel! Feel like powerful corporations own your Rep? Call and threaten to FIRE the son of a bitch! That's what your lost vote is to these people, the choice to give someone else the job. When efforts that oppose attacks on property rights (the Fourth Amendment), rights of gun owners (the Second Amendment), campaign finance reform (the First Amendment), excessive taxation (Federal violation of the Tenth Amendment) they amount to thousands "hacking at the branches of evil" as opposed to "striking at the root", to borrow the words of Henry David Thoreau. Constitutionally limited government is a goal attainable only when Americans "strike at the root" of the problem. Wake up to the demands of true citizenship! That means behaving responsibly and acting most vigorously where we were always intended to: At the level of the United States Congressional district. Only you, as an active, engaged citizen, can give new life to this fading republic. Let us devote ourselves to the tough business of citizenship, and let our fellow citizens know that resistance is not futile. |
|||
 "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." - Lord Acton It is the inherent tendency of governments to try to expand their power. Long ago corrupt politicians had learned the appeal of demagoguery to mob instincts. Since ancient times, evil men have used collectivist rhetoric to convince citizens to give up their freedoms, and with them much of the advancement of their societies. Collectivist policies put into place for ostensibly good causes often came with legal guardrails to insure their stated purposes. But successive rulers would breach those guardrails until programs to help the needy became handouts to the lazy. Bureaucracies to control abuses of private finance & industry turned into cartels enforced by government decree. Corrupt rulers bent upon acquiring more power would always heap new bales of bureaucracy and regulation upon the fire, all the while claiming massive new powers in the name of fighting the fire. Eventually, even the honest, law abiding and productive citizen, rife with dissatisfaction, begins to skirt the law. Lying to revenue authorities becomes justification to increase enforcement powers. Onerous government regulations create financial incentive to break the law. Responding to increased crime becomes the impetus for even more police powers. War or the threat posed by internal dissidents or enemy agents is used to frighten a populace into allowing even more government intervention into their lives. Does any of this sound familiar?
Modern
American Political Geography:
Her definition sounds rather blunt and may offend some, but from the standpoint of specific court rulings & legislative initiatives, it is the truth. But is it the standard applied by the media? More often than not the answer is no. When Senator Robert Byrd (D) opposed the war in Iraq, he was not being the liberal that the media portrays him as. His opposition to the war was on conservative grounds: The usurpation of Congressional war making authority by the Executive branch. When Congressman Newt Gingrich (R) supported NAFTA, he was essentially acting as a liberal: The treaty created a framework for more rules and regulations, not the "Free Trade" its name implies. But the major media portrayed NAFTA as an agreement that removed restrictions on trade. Take the case of the war in Iraq as another example. More of our soldiers are dying as a result of the blatantly liberal policy of "regulating" the Iraqis' personal arms (pistols, rifles, etc.) than were killed when our soldiers were openly fighting the Iraqi army. And yet the ongoing "rebuilding" effort is generally portrayed as merely an extension of the sound military strategy that made the war look so easy. The differences between the two could not be clearer. When our soldiers were acting like soldiers and generally allowing the people to go about their business, they were fairly well regarded and seen by many Iraqis as liberators. Now that our troops have been thrust into a police role, they are seen more and more as meddlesome outsiders, and they are being killed for it. On the surface, this sounds like a mere flip flop, but it goes deeper than that. If you examine the so-called liberal/conservative rhetoric in America today, you will find that it's "center" is actually about 20 degrees to the left of center. In historical terms, that puts us just short of Fascist Italy. Many readers will have a problem with what I just said, but the problem is that they have been misinformed. The major media outlets generally sustain the myth that Fascism & Nazism are right wing philosophies. But the facts don't support that conclusion. Italy and Germany were basically socialist: State run economies with some massively regulated private ownership, huge welfare programs to insure health and full employment, compulsory service in the military, and in general a cooperative relationship between government and industry, rather than the check and balance relationship of a regulated free market economy. Mussolini coined a term for the partnership, "corporatives." Hitler's Nazi Germany was a socialized state to rival only the Soviet Union in terms of state "parentage" over its citizens through a powerful central government. In fact, Nazism is merely a contraction of the term national socialism. The truth is that socialism, fascism and communism are all variants of left wing politics. Extreme right wing politics consists of anarchy; no restriction on merchants, no law beyond that of petty warlords, the biggest bully stays on top until someone bigger knocks him off. A less extreme version of right wing thinking would be embodied in the fiefdoms and kingdoms of bygone eras. Law and Order yes, but an arbitrary law based on the whim of the ruler. Free enterprise yes, but few real protections from fraud or extortion or outright theft. The king was always exempt from the law. And expediency always ruled the hearts of even the best kings. The
Constitutional Republic: The real center of the political spectrum. The Founding Fathers understood the power of free markets and a free humanity to improve materially. But they also recognized that man's rise from barbarism to civilization was based on fundamental principles that placed the individual over the state. As the tides of history rolled, an observable pattern had emerged. With each evolution in principles of government, from the Greek democracies, to the Roman Republic, to the establishments of Parliamentary systems in Europe and the Magna Carta, increasing emphasis was placed on frameworks of government made binding on rulers as well as those ruled. Diffusion of powers between various branches of government with representatives accountable to the people went hand in hand with increased standards of living, and it was during these periods that the most significant developments in science, commerce, hygiene and healthcare were realized. The less government interfered in the day-to-day doings of its citizens, the more dynamic, intelligent, independent, inventive and humane they became. These experiments in liberty culminated in the establishment of The United States Constitution and The Bill of Rights. Under this system of checks and balances man has attained the highest standard of living in history. There was the benefit of a central government, but it was never intended to be powerful enough to pose the threat to liberty embodied in kings and bureaucrats. It is still the best structure of government ever devised by man. Who
you gonna vote for?
Sadly, so many in our beleaguered land do not know that voting is only one small part in the role truly free citizens are meant to play in government. In fact, the founders intended the Federal government to be so insignificant to the daily lives of citizens that people did not even vote for President, or even their Senators. An electorate selected the President; the elected state representatives appointed U.S. Senators. Only U.S. Congressmen were elected directly.
|
|||||
Under
today's system, altered to the point that the founders would not
recognize it, it was relatively easy for Mrs. Clinton to get elected,
using money from many donors, demagoguery in the large urban areas,
and the overall diversity of New York's huge voter pool.
Mark
Twain once wryly observed that: "A lie will go halfway round
the world while the truth is still putting on it's shoes."
In this day of lightning Internet and satellite news wire, this
is more reality than ever. America's growth and relative technical
sophistication have given us a nation of up to the minute news.
On any given day, you can tune in any given cable news channel and
witness "conservatives" and "liberals" argue
and blame one another for the immanent demise of America. But what
do these titles really mean? A high school teacher of mine gave
the most concise, impersonal and accurate definition I've ever heard.
She said that "liberal" means liberal interpretation of
law and use of lawmaking ability, while "conservative"
means conservative use and interpretation of the law. The teacher
taught a one semester elective course in law. 
