Silverwolf has been perusing the synopses of the various State Measures offered to the voters in the former British Colony of Oregon. And one of the more appealing State Measures, number 64, is one banning or more accurately penalizing the current heinous crime of the co-mingling of political and private organizations with the state, by allowing for automatic payroll deductions, set up by the state, to flow to private political, charitable, and union organizations. For the state to be involved in any way with fundraising for private groups that undertake political action is a violation of that “third degree of separation” which Silverwolf feels is axiomatic for the perpetuation of the Republic.
And this takes us to the discussion of what Silverwolf terms the “Three Degrees of Separation”.
Wisechief Jefferson taught us and warned us that we must “build-up a wall of separation” between Church and State, if we wanted to keep our Republic. He knew what mayhem the breakdown of that wall would lead to, and was warning us exactly against people like Bush and Obama whose “Faith-based initiatives” are clearly unconstitutional violation of this principle and a clear danger to the continuance of the Republic, a danger to which both their parties have remained completely mum.
Wisechief-ess Ayn Rand, and her successors Murray Rothbard and Congressman Ron Paul, have taught us that we must have a similar “wall of separation” between economy and state. This is something Rand emphasized in her TV interview with Mike Wallace in the late 50s. And the current collapse of the Keynesian economy, due to the existence of the Federal Reserve (or any National Bank, call it what you will) and a fiat currency, has vindicated their position in spades.
But likewise, Silverwolf strongly feels, we must build up a “wall of separation” between government and private organizations, like charities, private sector unions, trade lobbying groups, and public employee unions. In the arguments section of the Oregon Voter’s Pamphlet for this measure, a former school teacher claims that he was forced to make payments to both the state teacher’s union and a national teachers group, and that if he opted-out, as the opponents of this Measure say any state employee can easily do if they so wish, he would have been forfeiting all his rights as a union member according to the “opt-out” clause in his union contract. In other words, you’re free to opt out of paying those automatic payroll “free-will” donation deductions to your union, you just will lose any rights and privileges you had as a public employee union member if you dare to. No, no coercion there, is there, oh union lovers.
Even the ACLU, an organization that Silverwolf feels has done far more good than harm, and with whom he agrees a large percentage of the time, is on the wrong side of the fence on this one. They maintain in their argument section, that an employee has only to fill out a simple form to be able to “opt-out” of the automatic payroll deduction to the union, but Silverwolf wonders how they can fail to see that such a requirement is a form of involuntary servitude, in excess of the performance of their job for pay, which they are being forced to carry out to maintain their rights under the Bill of Rights. Being forced by the government to fill out a form in order to avoid a non-governmental imposition or impost is tantamount to being forced to stand or say the Pledge of Allegiance, which Silverwolf would remind the public was ruled Unconstitutional over 60 years ago, or being forced to take a Loyalty Oath (except to become a Naturalized American Citizen, or work in the Armed Forces or FBI-like groups). Having to fill out such a form to avoid an Unconstitutional confiscation of ones property rights is a form of slavery, if the confiscation of ones property is for the benefit of a non-governmental agency. And why should the government be in the business at all of collecting funds for private groups, even if it entails a minimal effort from a computer once it is set up? And here also is where we can clearly see the Unconstitutional contradiction Measure 64 abolishes, for who pays to print the forms to opt out, or pays or sets up the automatic payroll options, either on the computer, or at the state printing office? The public pays, obviously, for the labor and ink that benefits these private groups. That is an outrage.
Finally, there is no power under the sun stopping these leeches, that leech off government payrolls, to get their funds by having their supporters mail in checks or donate over the net with their credit cards just as thousands of other American charities and groups have to do, and do so successfully enough to fund their continuing operations. Why should immensely weathy private organizations like public unions, major charities like United Way, and major groups like PTA, be privileged to collect funds with the assistance of publically set-up payment systems, when thousands of other groups have to get their funds directly from their supporters through the mail or online? This amounts to an Unconsitutional privilege extended to a few specific non-governmental groups at the taxpayer’s expense.
It’s clear that Oregon State Measure 64 will defend the Human Rights and Property Rights of the American Individual over and against the Unconstitutional impositions that Collectivist non-governmental organizations try to weedle into the fabric of government. Don’t let them continue to get away with it: the continuation of the Republic requires we stop them at the ballot box.
Vote Yes on Oregon State Measure 64.
Hooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww! — Silverwolf