State of The Union 2015

Nearly every member of Congress, nearly every pontificator of political punditry, nearly every newscaster, and nearly every political party in America has responded to the 2015 State of the Union Address.  I guess I should take a turn.

While the president’s message was again a conquest of conceit the Republican response by Senator Joni Ernst was a  measured memory of the conquest of courage and facing the future.  The question for you is which do you prefer?

Being labeled a conservative by those that misread this blog, many of those people will obviously side with the Republican response.  It was a good and worthy vision in the face of the divisiveness of the main speaker, no doubt.  Yet, there are alternatives unmentioned and unwhispered.

The State of the Union report started with the customary self-aggrandizing flattery. Then it quickly drifted away from the “state of things” into the realm of the necessity of state programs.  Senator Ernst’s response was unfortunately similar, though the tone was appropriately different.

Both the speech and regale that followed were burdened with statism.  Statism is nothing less than the errant idea that nation or state knows better how a man should live than does the man himself.  Unlike religions, which do the same, governments have the power to enforce their collective “wisdom.”  It results in the downfall of each man (the generic “man”, which includes women) and consequently and ultimately the social fabric.

The president boasts about winning the war in Iraq and Afghanistan with declaration that the war was over…with only 15,000 troops remaining on Foreign soil.  One!  Just one soldier, anywhere away from his family and home, against his desires is inherent evidence the conflict is not over.


In the middle east there are thousands of years culture of unrest and bloodshed.  It is a mindset of animosities solve by decapitation.  We know that from the biblical stories of the Old Testament.  We also know that loyalties can “spin on a dime.”  The mild exception is Israel.  We have had such a long and loyal friendship with them, until our current president intervened with insults, which has created a confidence of camaraderie.

Israel is a part of the culture, and tangentially because of other hate-mongering choices of history, tied closely to our culture.  As a friend and mutual ally we should let Israel be our guide in middle eastern engagement.  NO, absolutely not under any circumstance should we defer our decisions or military might to any foreign nation, friend or foe.  However, the resources of our nation should be dispensed with prudence not simply power.

Our resources should be applied here on American soil to prevent terrorist invasion from any sector of the world.  Our economic and prudent political influence should be felt worldwide.  Our mission should not be entangled with alliances that have proven to ultimately fail.  Our mission should be to allow the world to witness our greatness because of our ideas of personal liberty.

When that mission is paramount and forefront we CANNOT but win the hearts and minds of all people everywhere.

Next the president spoke equity, “imposed” by a government program or tax.  Senator Ernst responded by offering up equity “implied” by a government program.  Much of the collateral commentary bent in either of these two directions.  All hack at the branches of the true evil, while none chop at the root.


The real solution is not encapsulated in extended governmental reach.  The real and best answer is woven into the history nearly completely overlooked.  That solution is less government intrusion and more preservation of personal liberty.

Do not be mistaken.  Licentiousness is not liberty.  Liberty is the allowance of a man to pursue his own unfettered interest…whether it leads to equity or not!

Governments never have and never will give men equity.  To believe otherwise is a foolish notion proven false through the entire recorded history of mankind.  Again, we learn from the Old Testament, when kings (which were initially discouraged) began to arise in Israel likewise did war and contentions increase.  Societies of every realm have a similar record.

There is an old sentiment often that says “That government governs best which governs least.”  I offer my own assessment, that government GOVERNS best, which GOVERNS not at all.  There is no need for new or revised government programs.  The need rest in dissolving as many government equity programs as possible.

A government that gifts…also requires gifts in return.  If not voluntarily given the focus become on how to take!  It is the main cause of government today to focus not on its duty, but on collecting a “duty” from every citizen.  That is wrong!

Governments exist for one reason; to provide protection.  A thousand politicians will define it otherwise but at the end of the conversation the result is always government protecting the individual.

The greatest protection for any man is to allow him to live his life in liberty away from the compulsion of others.  That includes the compulsion of government.  That government governs best which governs not at all.

What the speaker of the State of the Union Address should have said is “Government has become too intrusive and overbearing.  We are weaker because of that.”  The Republican (and all other responses) should have been “Government has become too intrusive and overbearing.  We are weaker because of that.”

In conclusion, the best foreign policy is, if you will excuse the word, “envy.”  We live in an information world.  Once the world was left to the kings because they had all the facts.  Now, each of us has an abundance of facts nearly before the kings themselves have them.

We as a nation should live by liberty.  When it become as engendered in our hearts and minds as firmly as non-emotionalism is to the proverbial Vulcans, it is then that the people of the world will see a happy prosperous United States of America and emulate us.  Of their own desire they will move forward to become cultures of freedom.

The opponents to this idea will use some version of “That’s too simplistic”, or, “That has been tried before, and failed.”  It is simplistic…Because it is simple.  It has failed before, not because the idea was wrong but, because the implimentors were impatient and unworkable.

The State of the Union is that the union is no longer united toward success but rather toward which version of government dependency will be applied.  The failures do not rest in inequality.  The failures rest in a demand for government imposed equality.

That Is The Way I See It.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s