Rodent Regatta

Klepto-nation
By Craig J. Cantoni
(For Internet publication)

There is a good reason for the Ten Commandments being verboten in the public square: One of the commandments, ”Thou shalt not steal,” is at odds with the klepto-nation that the United States has become.

Astonishingly, transfer payments account for over 40 percent of government spending. One hundred years ago, they accounted for only two percent of government spending.

Of course, the words ”transfer payments” are a euphemism, a fancy way of saying that the government is taking money from some people and giving it to other people. Transfer payments are theft, but not the kind of theft that you can defend yourself against.

If an armed robber breaks into your home in the middle of the night, you can bash him in the head with a baseball bat, you can shoot him between the eyes, or, if time permits, you can call 9-1-1 and have the police bash, shoot or arrest him. It is your God-given right and moral duty to protect your family and property.

But what recourse do you have if a thief has hired a government agent to rob your family? What do you do, for example, if a wealthy, blue-haired elderly neighbor asks the government to take money from your kid for her medicine, as the AARP crowd does through Medicare, a program that depends on intergenerational theft? If you use force to stop the neighbor, the government will throw you in jail. Similarly, the government will throw you in jail if you use force against the government agent.

In both cases, the local media will portray you as the criminal instead of the true miscreants. And if you speak out against such theft, as I am doing now, the media will portray you as an extremist and portray the thieves as moderates or progressives. Morality has been turned on its head. So has the founding principle of this nation.

The nation was founded on the principle of limited government—on the noble idea that the primary purpose of government is to protect people’s lives, property and liberty. Today, 40 percent of government power is directed at stealing people’s property on behalf of other people. Then, if the victims resist, the government takes their liberty and even their lives.

Government-sponsored theft is not any less immoral because it is done through majority vote. Voting to take your neighbor’s property is exactly the same, morally speaking, as putting a gun to his head and taking his property. Both actions are based on force—indirect force when done in a voting booth and direct force when done at the point of a gun.

Why do so few Americans see it this way? Probably because 90 percent of them have been brainwashed in government schools about the general welfare. They believe that the general welfare means government handouts, programs and entitlements that benefit them personally instead of benefiting all citizens equally, as is the case with national defense. They have not been told by schools, the media and politicians that stealing is stealing, regardless of how it is accomplished.

What about the Biblical injunction to help the poor and care for the sick? Well, I happen to believe that people have a moral responsibility to help other people who cannot help themselves, but I do not believe that people have a right to help themselves to other people’s money, no matter what their personal situation may be. And I certainly do not believe that politicians and government bureaucrats know from afar who is deserving of other people’s money.

In any event, it is in the self-interest of politicians and bureaucrats to keep expanding the number of ”deserving” people. And contrary to what George Bush believes, true compassion is voluntary, not coerced by ”compassionate conservatives.”

Since 40 percent of government spending is transfer payments, at least 40 percent of politics is over transfer payments—over who gets other people’s money. This more than anything has fueled special-interest politics, which in turn has injected billions into political campaigns, which in turn has triggered campaign finance legislation, which in turn has restricted the free speech that is necessary to throw the thieves out of office and stop the thievery.

The do-gooders who want to take money out of politics are the same people who make money the raison d’tre of politics through their advocacy of transfer payments. Do-gooders are not good at connecting dots.

Since both Democrats and Republicans now believe in legal theft, the motto of our klepto-nation should be changed from ”In God we trust” to ”In thievery we depend.”

• * *
  Mr. Cantoni is an author, columnist and founder of Honest Americans Against Legal Theft (HAALT). He can be reached at ccan2@aol.com.

AIMS test questions you’ll never see
By Craig J. Cantoni

(For Internet publication)

The results from the 2003 Arizona’s Instrument to Measure Standards test were published on September, 3, 2003, showing that 79 percent of eighth-graders failed the math portion of the test, 45 percent failed the reading portion and 54 percent failed the writing portion.

The AIMS test did not include the following questions but should have.

Question: You have 100 Asians, 100 Hispanics, 100 Blacks, 100 Anglos and 100 Italians. They all have equal family income and attend schools with equal per-pupil spending. Who will get the best test scores?

Answer: The 100 Asians.

Question: Why do Asians get the best test scores?

a) Genetic superiority
b) Kung Pao chicken
c) Race-normed tests
d) Studying encouraged by two married parents

Answer: d) Studying encouraged by two married parents

Question: In his book, ”The Ten Things You Can’t Say in America,” African-American Larry Elder writes about going to a Los Angeles library in a poor neighborhood and finding Hispanic kids outside the library hanging out. What did he find inside the library?

a) Books
b) The homeless
c) Governor Gray Davis looking at help-wanted ads
d) Asian children studying

Answer: d) Asian children studying

Question: In the early 20th century, Italian immigrants faced discrimination and were known as wops, dagos and greaseballs; yet they quickly assimilated and climbed the socioeconomic ladder. What was different back then?

a) Diversity, affirmative action and preferences hadn’t been invented.

b) There was no Head Start, bilingual education, Great Society, School Lunch Program, Social Security, New Deal, Medicare, Medicaid, KidsCare, free preschool, free tutors, U.S. Department of Education, National Education Association, or bike helmets.

c) Class sizes were large, per-pupil spending was low, teacher salaries were low, taxes were very low, and kids who misbehaved got whacked with a ruler by the teacher and then again by their married parents when they got home.

d) All of the above.

Answer: d) All of the above.

Question: If parents refuse to take full advantage of a free education for their children and see that they study and behave, what should public schools do?

a) Give the students free private tutors and preschool.
b) Dumb down the curriculum and ask for more money.
c) Blame the problem on racism and poverty.
d) Let them graduate and get into college through preferences.
e) None of the above.
f) All of the above

Answer: If you have common sense, the answer is e) None of the above. If you’re a liberal Democrat and beholden to teacher unions, the answer is f) All of the above.

Question: What do Cuba and American public education have in common?

a) They both believe in a free lunch.
b) They both depend on coercion and collectivism.
c) English is a second language in both.
d) The poor children of both can’t escape.
e) All of the above.

Answer: e) All of the above.

Final Question: Why aren’t newspapers truthful about the real causes of low test scores?

a) Because it’s easier to copy press releases from the teacher union and the education establishment than research the facts.

b) Because most reporters are liberal Democrats and have a kinship with unionized teachers.

c) Because the truth is the first casualty of political correctness.

d) Because journalism professors are just as leftist as education professors.

e) All of the above.

Answer: e) All of the above.

• * *
  Mr. Cantoni is an author, columnist and the grandson of poor Italian immigrants who whacked their kids. You can whack him, figuratively speaking, at ccan2@aol.com.

Bocce balls for arts welfare queens

By Craig J. Cantoni

Should the city support the arts with taxpayer money? Sure. Send some my way for my favorite art form of movies. And while you’re being generous with other people’s money, you can send me some taxpayer loot for a Roman statue for my backyard.

If there is a social good in hoity-toity chardonnay sippers getting arts welfare and in blue-collar beer guzzlers getting sports welfare in the form of stadium subsidies, then there must be a social good in this Italian drinker of jug-wine getting welfare to put a bocce alley in the backyard next to the Roman statue. The welfare could be justified by cultural diversity. The Supreme Court says so.

There is always a highfalutin justification when people petition the government to steal money from their neighbors for their own use. For example, arts welfare queens rationalize their theft in two ways. First, they say that the arts are important for a civilized society. Yes, indeed. The arts-rich German Weimar Republic became the Third Reich, and arts-rich Russia became the Soviet Union. Together, the two cultured countries killed over 100 million people.

Second, the queens say that art is good for the local economy because it attracts visitors. Although they never explain how it is good for my family’s economy, they may be on to something. Since my wife and I have hosted many business conferences for visitors, we should get a cut of the tax revenue that we have generated. Incidentally, business visitors do not ask about art museums.

Sure, art subsidies are a drop in the vast tax bucket. The problem is that all the small drops add up and become a tax torrent. It is estimated that the cost of government at all levels is $19,000 per household, excluding the $7,000 per-household cost of regulations. But that is still not enough plunder to satisfy larcenous limousine liberals and crooked country club conservatives.

When my poor grandfather immigrated here, taxes were about two-thirds less than today. Consequently, even on his meager income, he could afford to send his kids to Catholic school and still have enough money left over to play bocce at the local tavern.

A former coal miner with huge hands, he would know what to do about thieving elites if he were alive today. He’d shove a bocce ball up their turned-up noses.

Mr. Cantoni is an author, public speaker and consultant. He can be reached at ccan2@aol.com.

The point: Did our nation’s Founders expect that every special interest group in the nation would ultimately have a line item on the budget that forced taxpayers to pay for or subsidize their cause? (Answer: No)

An amazing political quiz

by Craig J. Cantoni

(For Internet publication)

The following quiz is amazing! In nine simple questions, it can determine someone’s political affiliation without fail. To see how it works, answer the following nine questions and then read the scoring key at the end.

1. John is in financial debt from his spendthrift ways, so he burglarizes his wealthy neighbor’s house. Is John’s action moral or immoral?

2. John is in financial debt from his spendthrift ways, so he votes for politicians who will take his wealthy neighbor’s money through progressive taxes and give it to him. Is John’s action moral or immoral?

3. Mary needs medicine but spent her retirement check at the casino. She steals the bike of the kid next door and sells it to buy medicine. Is Mary’s action moral or immoral?

4. Mary needs medicine but spent her retirement check at the casino. She votes for politicians who will buy her medicine and send the bill to future generations. Is Mary’s action moral or immoral?

5. Joe’s neighbor Mike is in dire straits through no fault of his own. Instead of helping Mike himself or donating money to a charity that can help Mike, Joe robs a stranger and gives Mike the money. Is Joe’s action moral or immoral?

6. Joe’s neighbor Mike is in dire straits through no fault of his own. Instead of helping Mike himself or giving money to a charity that will help Mike, Joe votes for politicians who will take money from strangers and give it to Mike. Is Joe’s action moral or immoral?

7. Sue, an unwed mother of four kids, dropped out of school and can only find minimum wage jobs. Resenting the nice house and cars that her boss has, she takes money from the cash register to help pay her bills instead of asking the local charity for help. Is Sue’s action moral or immoral?

8. Sue, an unwed mother of four kids, dropped out of school and can only find minimum wage jobs. Resenting the nice house and cars that her boss has, she votes for politicians who will take money from him through progressive taxes and give it to her in the form of housing subsidies, utility allowances, free health care and school lunches. Is Sue’s action moral or immoral?

9. Ted is a politician who gives other people’s money to John, Mary, Mike and Sue. Is Ted’s action moral or immoral?

* * *

Scoring key: If you answered that all nine actions are immoral, you share the same classical liberal beliefs as the nation’s Founders. If you said that only the actions in questions 1, 3, 5 and 7 are immoral, you are what George Bush calls a ”compassionate conservative.” And if you said that none of the actions are immoral, you are a contemporary liberal.

Mr. Cantoni is an author, columnist and founder of Honest Americans Against Legal Theft (HAALT). He can be reached at ccan2@aol.com.

My diminished patriotism this July 4th

By Craig J. Cantoni

This former Army captain recently buried his W.W.II veteran father in a veteran’s cemetery. Although he had died a patriot, my father’s patriotism had diminished considerably over the years. Regrettably, his son feels the same way.

The United States was founded on the noble idea of limited government and individual rights. That was something to feel patriotic about and even die for.

Now the nation is operating on the ignoble notion of limitless government and group rights. That is not something to feel patriotic about and die for.

When my father was born, taxes were about a third of today’s. As a result, his poor immigrant parents could keep most of the fruits of their labor from marauding government agents, unlike the old country, where socialists considered the fruits of one’s labor to belong to the collective. My dad and my grandparents felt patriotic about that.

They also felt patriotic over the fact that even low-income, working-class people like themselves could build a sizable retirement nest egg over their working lives if they saved money, lived below their means, and invested sweat equity in their very modest homes. They were proud of not becoming a burden on society or on their families in their old age, and they wanted to leave their hard-earned money to their families when they died.

How times have changed! It is very difficult to feel patriotic when my father had to pay an estate attorney to put his money in trust, where the money would be kept from the greedy claws of the tax man, who would otherwise give it to other citizens who have no right to it and are nothing but common thieves.

Now my aging mother is dealing with the same issue. She was raised in a four-flat by a poor aunt who was married to a waiter. The aunt had the foresight to invest in blue chip stocks and to reinvest the dividends in more stock. Those investments have ballooned over the decades to a very sizable nest egg, which makes the return on socialized Social Security look like the bad deal that all socialism is.

Instead of spending the money on a new house, fancy cars, exotic vacations and frequent trips to the casino, my mom wants to do only one thing with it: pass it on to my son. But the government, our government, wants to take a big chunk of it for other people who have no right to it. Where does a supposedly free society get the moral authority to tell a grandmother what she can give to her grandson? Why is that anyone else’s business?

One of the politicians who believes in government theft, Dick Gephardt, owns commercial real estate a few blocks from the humble bungalow that my mom has lived in for over a half-century. He calls himself a patriot. I call him a thief.

Politicians of his ilk—and most Democrats and Republicans are like him—no longer represent people who work hard and save money. Instead, they use the tax code to punish frugality and to reward those who spend every penny they earn and who clamor for ever-increasing entitlements to compensate for their spendthrift ways.

A majority of Americans now get more back in entitlements and government services than they pay in taxes. That is a nice way of saying that they are mooching off of other people. Many of them call themselves patriots but do not pay enough federal income taxes to even support their share of the military.

The next time you sing the National Anthem at a sporting event or recite the Pledge of Allegiance at a public meeting, look around at your fellow citizens. Brimming with patriotism, half of them use the power of the government to take their neighbor’s money.

The Pledge contains the words, ”and to the republic for which it stands.” The words mean that the nation is supposed to be constitutional republic, not an unconstitutional democracy governed by majority rule, which is the same thing as mob rule. The words do not mean that politicians can violate the supreme law of the land for the benefit of the majority at the expense of the minority.

I certainly would not feel patriotic and sing La Marseillaise at a French soccer game, for I detest the socialism of France. Since the United States is now half-socialist, I wonder if I should sing only half of the Star Spangled Banner.

Granted, Americans are very fortunate not to have police breaking down their doors in the middle of the night—unless they are doing something that does not harm anyone else but is illegal, such as smoking pot, or, like my grandfather during Prohibition, making wine in the cellar.

And sure, we have the right to vote, a right that does not exist in much of the world. But do we really have any choices? Voting for a Republican president results in double-digit increases for the Department of Education and unconstitutional federal education standards. And having a Republican controlled congress results in a spending increase that rivals the spending increase under Lyndon Johnson. Worse, because the Supreme Court departed from its constitutional mandate long ago, there is nothing to stop the Founders’ vision of limited government from morphing into the nightmare of unlimited government.

We also have the right of free speech. Unfortunately, to fully exercise that right, I have had to become a plaintiff in a lawsuit against Arizona’s clean elections law, a law that restricts what private citizens can say before an election but gives the media carte blanche authority to say whatever it wants.

I will still put up a flag on July 4th, but with diminished patriotism.

Mr. Cantoni is an author and founder of Honest Americans Against Legal Theft (HAALT). He can be reached at ccan2@aol.com.