Most conservatives will probably vote for John McCain in the coming election. The reason most often given for supporting McCain, in spite of his liberal approach to so many issues important to conservatives, is “homeland security”. Although I too will probably vote for McCain, I have to give him an F- as far as our real homeland security needs are concerned.
The real threat to the future security of our homeland is not the Islamic terrorists of Al Qaeda and the other “rag-tag” bands of international terrorists. If we endured a terrorist attack every day for a year, it would not have the lasting effect on our future security as one session of Congress or one term with a socialist President in the White House, or one session of the Supreme Court dominated by a liberal/socialist majority. The real threats to the future security of America are those in our government and elsewhere who are working diligently, on a daily basis to destroy our Constitution, or at least, render it impotent.
As I pointed out in an earlier article, our Constitution is really the only thing standing between us and tyranny. For the past one hundred years, the “progressive/socialist” movement has been trying to remake our government into a democratic socialist state. The modern models for their efforts are the democratic socialist governments of Western Europe. The proponents of socialism in America either admire European socialism, and think we should be just like them, or they have convinced themselves they will do a better job at it once they are in power.
The precepts of socialism are incompatible with our form of government as a constitutional republic and can only be implemented by ignoring the Constitution or destroying its effectiveness. As individuals, under our form of government, there is little we can do to stop the progress of socialism in America. We can write our congressman. We can blog to our hearts content. We can demonstrate in the streets. We can melt our computers with e-mails. In the end, it will all come to naught as long as we keep electing the same politicians in election after election.
We are forced to depend on our elected officials to protect our Constitution and the way of life it enables us to enjoy. Every official in every office in the land has taken an oath to do just that. Yet, either from malice or ignorance most fail to do so. John McCain is one example out of thousands who, when it seems politically expedient, will ignore the Constitution for their own personal agenda. Last Tuesday McCain appeared on NBC’s “Today Show”. One sentence from his interview illustrates the problem we face.
“The point is, oil companies have got to be more participatory in alternate energy, in sharing their profits in a variety of ways, and there is very strong and justifiable emotion about their profits,” McCain said.
There are only two words in this sentence he got correct, OIL companies. That’s right John, it’s Exxon Oil, not Exxon Ethanol. It’s British Petroleum, not British Biodiesel. Their business is the location, extraction, refining and sale of oil products. It is not their business to farm corn and soy beans and distill it into ethanol.
When he says, oil companies “have got to be more participatory in alternate energy”, that may be okay, if he is merely expressing his opinion. However, we know from countless statements he has made elsewhere that he believes government should institute rules and policies to force them to do so.
That is a decision that should be left up to the company management and shareholders, not government. If the company decides it is in their best business interest to seek out and/or develop alternative sources of energy they will do so voluntarily, as many are doing already.
There is nothing in the Constitution, including the “commerce clause” that gives the government the power to tell private industry what types of products they must develop or market. There is nothing that allows government to force a company to develop competitive products that might be instrumental in putting them out of business. When the market demands it, we will have alternative fuels, most likely developed by a lone entrepreneur who will make a fortune competing with the oil companies. That’s the way our market economy works and always will as long as we remain a free country.
When John says, “oil companies have got to be more participatory…in sharing their profits”, alarm bells should go off in the head of every patriotic American. Companies exist for the purpose of generating profits for their owners or shareholders. They do not exist to provide jobs, support social programs, or carry out experiments on behalf of the government—unless they are contracted to do so, for a profit.
Nothing is more directly opposed to the American principles stated in our founding documents than the mandatory “sharing of profits” alluded to in John’s statement . The phrase, “pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration of Independence, according to political writers of the time, literally meant, “the pursuit of prosperity”. The constitutional concept of “property rights” extends not only to our homes and tangible personal property, but to our wages and profits as well. Thomas Jefferson in his first inaugural address in 1801 listed as one of the three necessary components of good government, “one that does not take from the mouth of labor, the bread it has earned”.
How much profit a company earns is determined by the marketplace, and what they do with those profits are determined by the company itself, not by the autocratic decrees of Congress or the President. McCain’s brand of profit sharing by the oil companies is pure, unambiguous socialism, differing only in degree from that suggested by Congresswoman Maxine Waters, or practiced by Hugo Chavez, the “elected” dictator of Venezuela, in respect to the oil companies.
If John is do determined to dictate to the oil companies how much profit they should make, what they should do with those profits and what products they should develop and market, why not go all the way and simply nationalize the oil companies. Of course, that is something the American people would not allow him to do any more than they allowed Hillary Clinton to nationalize healthcare in 1992.
However, incrementally and in response to rising prices enough people seeking relief for their budgets may be persuaded to go along with it to permit him to put his plan into practice. That is where the real danger to our country’s future lies.