Yes, I'm back! I know you missed me but you can relax, take a breath, and carry on with your life. So, let's jump right in to it, shall we?
Tomorrow marks the final day of the Florida Republican primaries. After several days of early voting we are finally going to settle down for the results. This is important because Florida is the largest state to have a primary to date. We will likely be the "make or brake" state for the so called "second tier" candidates like Paul and Santorum.
Now, ask me who I am voting for.. go ahead, ask.. Well, I will tell you anyway! lets take a look at each presidential hopeful.
Romney: This polished turd is the leader of the "good ol' boys club". If he beats out the others he will be forced to run against Obama who used "Romney-care" as a model for "Obama-care". This is tant-amount to having a violent rapist prosecute Jack the Ripper for rape. To believe that it is okay on a smaller level but evil on a larger level is absurd, insane, and irreconcilable. Beyond health care, Romney has shown us through the years that he is willing to believe and espouse whatever he needs to to get elected. He ran against Teddy Kennedy as a "left of Teddy" liberal, then as an "anti-Reagan" Republican. He ran against McCain as "more McCain than McCain". Now He is running against other Republicans as "the moderate" who can beat Obama by stealing votes from Indy's and disgruntled lefties. After he bastardises the Republican brand, third party kooks would help the Dems take over the whole deal for the next eight years and all will be lost.
President Romney? I expect him to be Clinton-esque, in that, he will likely run the executive branch with a finger on the pulse of the voters in hope's of finishing his term with a solid (yet undeserved) legacy. He will surely turn the economy around but at what cost? Since he lacks a moral compass, there is no telling what sacrifices we will be forced to make to help keep his crap from stinking in the nose of the mindless masses.
Newt: This guy is damaged goods. Don't get me wrong, he is brilliant, and probably a sincerely great guy. But the taste he left in the mouths of his foes in the '90s was so wretched that I can still smell it on their collective breath. I remember him then, in fact, he inspired me more than anyone else to really know my history as it pertains to politics. My problem with Newty is that he is the antithesis of Romney. While Mitt is willing to go to any length to land the title of President, Newt is willing to go to even farther to obtain the power of the Presidency. He admired the tyrannical omnipotence of the late FDR and often speaks of him as the "greatest president since the founders". He reckons that the true measure of a president is not what he can convince congress to do, it is what he can do by himself (regardless of Constitutionality). Newt, like Obama, believes that the good of the people is far too complicated for the low life citizenry to comprehend and that he must act on our behalf. While a good portion of what he wants to do could have been ripped right out of the pages of my own book, it is his righteousness that I cannot subscribe to.
President Newt: In like a lion, out like a lamb! If Newt is elected then it is safe to assume that there will be a congressional Republican takeover as well. I mean, for him to win there would have to be a tidal wave of conservative wannabe's voting and indy's would have to stay home, not likely but not impossible. With his arrogance and attitude, even those who voted for him would tire of his banter. By the second year of his administration he would lose both houses of congress and be stuck in a political stalemate for the remainder of his tenure. Though he would likely be able to stop the disasters set in place by Obama (Obama-care, social uprisings like the Occupy movement, WWIII), the backlash would turn Obama's "new deal" into some kind of prophetic crusade for the left. Between the media mafia and the socio-political ground swell, Newt may very well become the first Republican to be Impeached.. and do so in record time. The pendulum will swing hard to the left but the vacuum will draw it quickly back to the right. We would only be looking at about four years of total Democratic control before people come to their senses again.
Paul: He is just plain weird! However, I can get on board with most (*!!!MOST!!!*) of what the funny little man says he believes. Where old Ron and I part is foreign policy. He seems to think that bullies only bully because they are being bullied. This notion is absurd! When one grows large, others want to take what they have, when one stays small others take what they have, didn't this guy ever go to grade school? Everyone wants to beat up the small guy and everyone wants to gang up on the big guy, it happens in school, at work, in jail, in court, and on the National Geographic channel. It is built in to every life form known to man... except for Ron Paul! To think that one nation could build a giant wall and defend itself from the rest of the universe, while being completely self supportive, is tactically absurd. Military bases exist because we keep bringing the fight to the enemies (in small battles) rather than allowing them to pool their resources and attack us from all sides at once. Next time you play hide and seek, try having everyone hide together and let me know how that works out for you.
President Paul: When Obama swore that he would close Guantanamo within his first hundred days, I told everyone that it wouldn't happen. Once a president gets into office he learns all of the truths that only he is privy to, that much reality changes everything. Doctor Paul will get there and be informed that the military will continue doing as it has done for hundreds of years and Paul will be handed a speech explaining why he has changed his mind about foreign policy. How he does on his fiscal policy will hinge solely on what happens with the congressional election. If he rides in on a conservative tidal wave, he might actually be able to convince the powers that be that his policies can work. Under those circumstances I could see him getting some dramatic legislation passed but it will then get tangled in the deadly web of our judicial system. The backlash would be as fierce as Newts but equally short. In the long view, Ron Paul will some day (long after his passing) be thought of as revolutionary who was well ahead of his time.
Santorum: Steeped in faith, tethered to conviction, and guided strictly to his moral compass, This guy says what he believes and believes what he says. Sadly, many people do not believe as he does. Still, I think that if the media mafia would pull the ball gag off of his face and let him out of the trunk of their shiny black '65 caddy, his ideology would resonate with Biblical intensity. The vast majority of Americans carry some part of this guy within their hearts. He, like the rest of us, tries to consider all of the variables when taking a position. When those variables change, or new ones appear, he re-enters the equation and works to improve his position. Santorum has a fundamental platform with which he builds all of his thoughts. He is a Constitutional Constructionist, and longs for the nation that we would have been not for the parasitic infection of the early progressive socialist movement. The only part of his campaign that casts a shadow is his apparent doctrine of crusade. He seems, to most, like the guy who would force people to be good to each other. As harmless as that sounds, the executive branch is meant to be more limited than that. The governments job is to prevent people from being bad to each other, not force them to be nice. If this seems like I'm splitting hairs, just ask and I will lay out the difference.
President Santorum: His highly religious persona will give the Muslim world cause to ramp up their efforts to take down the great Satan (you know, us). To them it will appear as if we have hired a preached to escalate the God vs Allah cage match and they will respond with something resembling a submission hold. Being a man of faith, integrity, and inner strength, Santorum will be forced to play his military hand and we could just set off world war three. By this time, however, he will have made great strides to repair the global economy by shipping low paying menial jobs to the collapsed Euro-nations and ramping up the free market here at home. Europe and middle Asia will be eager to join and fight with us in order to get a glimpse of our new military technology. We will win the war, renew the long lost American pride, and even future democrats will look like the Republicans of today.
Yes, I am sure you know who I support by now. Since I tend to take the long view at things I have decided that Santorum is the only fellow running that I would cast a vote for. If not him, then Obama! (possibly Paul).. I figure Romney and Newt are simply going to allow the infection to fester within and cause a slow painful death. We might as well push Obama back in to office so that the fever peaks, the wound tears open, the puss flows out, and the disease is exposed quickly and violently so that everyone realizes just what needs to be done.
Monday, January 30, 2012
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
New Direction
If you've noticed my lack of blog movement lately, it's because things have changed. I am changing with the times and moving into the future. I am now part of IPN, an internet radio network, and can often be heard on the Fritch Show. I am also working on getting my own show which will totally replace this blog. I ask that you go to WWW.FritchShow.com on weekdays from 10:00am eastern till noon and listen to this amazing new forum. While you're at it, check out all of the programming that IPN has to offer!
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Return the Beacon
Roughly 240 years ago a small group of self educated, self reliant men gathered in pubs to spread an idea. These guys new that their idea would never be accepted by a majority because the necessary action would require a level of bravery and sacrifice unlike any witnessed in recorded history. Another thing these fellows knew, beyond doubt, was that there would be enough rugged individuals who embodied the American spirit and would be willing to pay any price to earn their freedom. A freedom to be responsible for their own futures based on their own merits, this is real freedom. Modern Americans seem to have lost touch with the very same rugged individualism that earned them the freedoms that they have since forsaken in the name of comfort and security.This complacency has been chipping away at everything from education to social interaction and represents one of the biggest problems with modern society.
After winning the Revolutionary War, our founders gathered to create a new style of government. This government would be the first of its kind, in that; the citizens would be the focus of the entire system. They realized that the war would never have happened, and freedom would never have been gained, if the decision had been left to democracy and the majority. The American Revolution was, after all, only supported by about 30% of Americans. Knowing the inherent oppression created by Democracy, our founders turned to a near facsimile of the Roman Republic. In this system, Republicanism, the minority has power equal to the majority rather than being subject to the whim of the masses. In his first inaugural address, Thomas Jefferson said “though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect”. Jefferson also said “a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits”. The idea of Americanism, at least until Andrew Jackson introduced Democracy, was that the federal government would have very limited powers and only be responsible (on a social level) for preventing citizens from interfering in each other’s personal freedoms. Under this system our nation blossomed at inconceivable rates and the rest of the world rode on its coat tails.
The global rise of socialism (a byproduct of democracy), at the end of the nineteenth century, brought with it a new sense of entitlement. Many self proclaimed socialists were entering the political horse race with promises of financial security- a chicken in every pot. The cost of that financial security, according to the new progressives, would fall on an unpopular minority; the rich. This oppression of a minority set precedence for future generations who learned that they could forgo their personal obligations as long as the majority had democratic power. With each passing generation the lessons of self reliance slowly turned into lessons on social reliance and the individual grew ever weaker. Ridiculous is the premise that a society comprised of the weak and held together by strict governance is stronger than a society of strong individuals who find communal adhesion through shared religious and philosophical beliefs. America is now following the rest of the world into the downward spiral created by the vacuum that results when productivity is replaced by consumption.
The political battle between the ideologies has boiled to a bubbling head with American progressive leaders claiming that their opponents are “clinging to their guns and religion” while constructionists suggest that the weak and unsuccessful are clinging to social programs and mob rule. The purpose of this essay, however, is much less political than it might seem at this point. The solution to the societal woes, so rooted in political dependency, starts, not with a political movement, but at home. Public education plays a role but a role which is not as vast as most would expect. The term teacher, as it refers to our sanctioned education system, is a colossal misnomer: the better term might be tellers. These are the folks who have generally been taught what to teach, irrespective of their own rational influence. As teachers tell students what is known (or accepted as known) by others, it is up to the student to run the information through his/her own system of rationalization; that system is built at home. Parents have the primary responsibility of creating a foundation for the philosophy of their children and teaching them how to measure new information against their philosophy while measuring their philosophy against the new information. This process defines rationalization and keeps the power of learning in front of the power of teaching.
Past generations, the now relic rugged individuals, learned how to fend for themselves. From a very young age these Americans were exposed to the skills necessary to provide every basic necessity, and thus, were instilled with the confidence that they would always have total control over their own survival. Personal responsibility allowed the individual to assign his or her own worth rather than having the community assign it for them. Parents today could have a tremendous affect on the future of this nation, as well as the world, if they would take time to teach their children self reliance and personal responsibility. By teaching these kids the kind of life lessons that can only be learned through real experience, giving them the opportunity to fail “safely”, and passing on the concept of integrity, the tide of dependency can be turned.
There is no time better than the present to honor that small minority of brazen insurgents who risked everything to lay the foundation for a nation that they would never live long enough to enjoy. As a nation, we should let our children see us as we take care of our neighbors. We should, as families, join social groups and churches and get out of our houses. Expose our youth to nature, teach them to hunt and gather, teach them how to survive as individuals and to thrive in groups. Politicians are subject to the market forces, just as private industry is, so we must stop looking to them to “change” things for us and begin to change ourselves so that the politicians are forced to follow. With a little bit of gumption and some personal responsibility, we Americans can take back our freedom and return the beacon to that long lost hill that Ronald Regan once spoke so proudly of.
After winning the Revolutionary War, our founders gathered to create a new style of government. This government would be the first of its kind, in that; the citizens would be the focus of the entire system. They realized that the war would never have happened, and freedom would never have been gained, if the decision had been left to democracy and the majority. The American Revolution was, after all, only supported by about 30% of Americans. Knowing the inherent oppression created by Democracy, our founders turned to a near facsimile of the Roman Republic. In this system, Republicanism, the minority has power equal to the majority rather than being subject to the whim of the masses. In his first inaugural address, Thomas Jefferson said “though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect”. Jefferson also said “a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits”. The idea of Americanism, at least until Andrew Jackson introduced Democracy, was that the federal government would have very limited powers and only be responsible (on a social level) for preventing citizens from interfering in each other’s personal freedoms. Under this system our nation blossomed at inconceivable rates and the rest of the world rode on its coat tails.
The global rise of socialism (a byproduct of democracy), at the end of the nineteenth century, brought with it a new sense of entitlement. Many self proclaimed socialists were entering the political horse race with promises of financial security- a chicken in every pot. The cost of that financial security, according to the new progressives, would fall on an unpopular minority; the rich. This oppression of a minority set precedence for future generations who learned that they could forgo their personal obligations as long as the majority had democratic power. With each passing generation the lessons of self reliance slowly turned into lessons on social reliance and the individual grew ever weaker. Ridiculous is the premise that a society comprised of the weak and held together by strict governance is stronger than a society of strong individuals who find communal adhesion through shared religious and philosophical beliefs. America is now following the rest of the world into the downward spiral created by the vacuum that results when productivity is replaced by consumption.
The political battle between the ideologies has boiled to a bubbling head with American progressive leaders claiming that their opponents are “clinging to their guns and religion” while constructionists suggest that the weak and unsuccessful are clinging to social programs and mob rule. The purpose of this essay, however, is much less political than it might seem at this point. The solution to the societal woes, so rooted in political dependency, starts, not with a political movement, but at home. Public education plays a role but a role which is not as vast as most would expect. The term teacher, as it refers to our sanctioned education system, is a colossal misnomer: the better term might be tellers. These are the folks who have generally been taught what to teach, irrespective of their own rational influence. As teachers tell students what is known (or accepted as known) by others, it is up to the student to run the information through his/her own system of rationalization; that system is built at home. Parents have the primary responsibility of creating a foundation for the philosophy of their children and teaching them how to measure new information against their philosophy while measuring their philosophy against the new information. This process defines rationalization and keeps the power of learning in front of the power of teaching.
Past generations, the now relic rugged individuals, learned how to fend for themselves. From a very young age these Americans were exposed to the skills necessary to provide every basic necessity, and thus, were instilled with the confidence that they would always have total control over their own survival. Personal responsibility allowed the individual to assign his or her own worth rather than having the community assign it for them. Parents today could have a tremendous affect on the future of this nation, as well as the world, if they would take time to teach their children self reliance and personal responsibility. By teaching these kids the kind of life lessons that can only be learned through real experience, giving them the opportunity to fail “safely”, and passing on the concept of integrity, the tide of dependency can be turned.
There is no time better than the present to honor that small minority of brazen insurgents who risked everything to lay the foundation for a nation that they would never live long enough to enjoy. As a nation, we should let our children see us as we take care of our neighbors. We should, as families, join social groups and churches and get out of our houses. Expose our youth to nature, teach them to hunt and gather, teach them how to survive as individuals and to thrive in groups. Politicians are subject to the market forces, just as private industry is, so we must stop looking to them to “change” things for us and begin to change ourselves so that the politicians are forced to follow. With a little bit of gumption and some personal responsibility, we Americans can take back our freedom and return the beacon to that long lost hill that Ronald Regan once spoke so proudly of.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Ballot Initiatives are UnConstitutional!
Many states have found a way of circumventing their state legislatures and putting bills (laws) directly on the ballot. Florida, for example, has a statewide indoor smoking ban that totally offends me. For the record; I’m not a smoker, nor do I wish to eat my meals where others are smoking.
The problem for me is that these kinds of laws are oppressive to minorities and highlight the fundamental flaw with Democracy as a system of government. I have often ranted about this topic before but the point behind my premise is applicable across the board so I feel compelled to spell it out again.
First let me clarify my position on the specific example of the smoking ban. To take the choice of whether to allow smoking or not away from the proprietor of a privately owned business in the back woods of Plant City and give it to the majority of Floridians who reside in Miami, Jacksonville, and Orlando (people who would never set foot in said business) is simply wrong.
The way these things are supposed to work is based on our free market system, not Democratic “mob rule”. In America (at least as I remember it) we have the right to go to which ever business we choose. Likewise, we can choose to avoid any business for any reason that strikes us. If there is a large demand for places in which smoking is not allowed, that market WILL be met. The beauty of the free market is that a smaller demand for establishments where smoking is allowed would not be denied. This reality is best summed by the old adage: When a conservative wants to stop eating meat he becomes a vegetarian. When a liberal wants to stop eating meat he makes meat illegal.
Beyond the question of right and wrong, there is a Constitutional component to the legality of these ballot initiatives. The concept of bypassing representative legislation and initiating popular government is known as Democracy. Webster’s Dictionary, in fact, defines Democracy as: “government by the people; especially : rule of the majority”.
On the other hand, Webster’s defines a Republican form of government as: “a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law”. The difference should be very clear, Democracy allows the majority to have complete control at the expense of the minority while a Republic requires elected officials to act on behalf of all people at the expense of none.
The reason that these distinct differences are important boils down to the legality of State sanctioned Democracy. Article IV, section 4 of the Constitution states: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government..” . Having seen all of these facts, how is it legal for the States Constitutionally guaranteed Republican government be bypassed by an act of pure Democracy?
If you think that my view of a Republic is flawed then read the words of Thomas Jefferson from his first inaugural address…
“all too will bear in mind this sacred principle, that the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.”
“A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, AND SHALL NOT TAKE FROM THE MOUTH OF LABOR THE BREAD IT HAS EARNED.”
The problem for me is that these kinds of laws are oppressive to minorities and highlight the fundamental flaw with Democracy as a system of government. I have often ranted about this topic before but the point behind my premise is applicable across the board so I feel compelled to spell it out again.
First let me clarify my position on the specific example of the smoking ban. To take the choice of whether to allow smoking or not away from the proprietor of a privately owned business in the back woods of Plant City and give it to the majority of Floridians who reside in Miami, Jacksonville, and Orlando (people who would never set foot in said business) is simply wrong.
The way these things are supposed to work is based on our free market system, not Democratic “mob rule”. In America (at least as I remember it) we have the right to go to which ever business we choose. Likewise, we can choose to avoid any business for any reason that strikes us. If there is a large demand for places in which smoking is not allowed, that market WILL be met. The beauty of the free market is that a smaller demand for establishments where smoking is allowed would not be denied. This reality is best summed by the old adage: When a conservative wants to stop eating meat he becomes a vegetarian. When a liberal wants to stop eating meat he makes meat illegal.
Beyond the question of right and wrong, there is a Constitutional component to the legality of these ballot initiatives. The concept of bypassing representative legislation and initiating popular government is known as Democracy. Webster’s Dictionary, in fact, defines Democracy as: “government by the people; especially : rule of the majority”.
On the other hand, Webster’s defines a Republican form of government as: “a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law”. The difference should be very clear, Democracy allows the majority to have complete control at the expense of the minority while a Republic requires elected officials to act on behalf of all people at the expense of none.
The reason that these distinct differences are important boils down to the legality of State sanctioned Democracy. Article IV, section 4 of the Constitution states: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government..” . Having seen all of these facts, how is it legal for the States Constitutionally guaranteed Republican government be bypassed by an act of pure Democracy?
If you think that my view of a Republic is flawed then read the words of Thomas Jefferson from his first inaugural address…
“all too will bear in mind this sacred principle, that the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.”
“A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, AND SHALL NOT TAKE FROM THE MOUTH OF LABOR THE BREAD IT HAS EARNED.”
Sunday, December 19, 2010
The New Urban Order
“NO HOME, NO JUSTICE, NO PEACE!” These are the words hand painted on a sign in the window of a vacant apartment building that had been forcefully taken over by homeless people in San Francisco. This movement, known as “take back the land”, started a few years ago but has gained much ground (no pun intended) over the past two years. To those who follow it, home ownership is simply a “natural human right”. The contention is that foreclosed homes belong to banks which were bailed out by taxpayers, and thus, owned by the people.
Maybe there is some truth to that statement but there seems to be something missing. For one, I would like to see the amount of taxes paid by the homeless compared to the amount paid by banks. Secondly, these “agents” (who are nothing but liberal activists) are forcing entry into foreclosed homes and showing them to potential squatters without legal authority. The stated intent of these individuals is to create such a huge draw on legal resources, including law enforcement officers, that they create a long term cushion for the squatters. The underlying intent, however, looks a lot more like socialism.
Below is an excerpt from a presentation by one of their leaders, S’bu Zikode, entitled ‘Re-imagining the City: A New Urban Order’.
“It is very nice to re-imagine the city. We can all start to imagine cities with good housing for everyone and then we can imagine affordable public transport and safe streets with beautiful trees, cool shady parks and welcoming schools, clinics, libraries and sports clubs. We can imagine and imagine cities where everyone’s humanity is respected and where everyone counts. It is very nice to imagine a city where no one has to live like a pig in the mud, where everyone is safe from fires, abuse, police raids, disconnections, evictions and political attacks…..Those who are in power today have the power to distribute our land fairly and freely to those who do not have land. Why have they betrayed us today? The answer is simple. If they do so they will be giving away the very power that makes them powerful.”
“In fact of all the people in society our demands are the most legitimat
e and the most reasonable because we are living in the worst conditions. The demands of those with the most money and power are the least legitimate. Logic as well as justice is on the side of our struggle to put the will of the many against the will of the few which is the only way to turn our imaginings of a new urban order into reality.”
If this sounds reasonable to you then there are a few questions you must ask yourself…
1. Do you believe that a house is a fundamental human right?
2. Are you prepared to build this free house yourself?
3. If you cannot build this free house, then who should be forced to build it for you for free?
4. Where do you think the free lumber, hardware, and supplies should come from and who should you enslave to supply them?
5. If you need to relocate, who should be enslaved to help you find a new free house?
6. What happens to all of the Real Estate agents who will now be forced to give away houses? After all, the commission on free is zero.
You see, nothing that must be provided through the labor of another is a “fundamental human right”. That is, of course, unless the provider is not subject to the right of personal liberty. If you are in accord with the ladder then you would have been quite at home in the former Soviet Union. Here in the USA, our personal liberty is guaranteed by the founding documents that form the base of our legal system.
Make no mistake; those who are propagating this movement are violent and dangerous. Although they profess to be a movement of peace, they are taking property from others and refuse to return this property by any means other than a retaliatory act of violence.
Maybe there is some truth to that statement but there seems to be something missing. For one, I would like to see the amount of taxes paid by the homeless compared to the amount paid by banks. Secondly, these “agents” (who are nothing but liberal activists) are forcing entry into foreclosed homes and showing them to potential squatters without legal authority. The stated intent of these individuals is to create such a huge draw on legal resources, including law enforcement officers, that they create a long term cushion for the squatters. The underlying intent, however, looks a lot more like socialism.
Below is an excerpt from a presentation by one of their leaders, S’bu Zikode, entitled ‘Re-imagining the City: A New Urban Order’.
“It is very nice to re-imagine the city. We can all start to imagine cities with good housing for everyone and then we can imagine affordable public transport and safe streets with beautiful trees, cool shady parks and welcoming schools, clinics, libraries and sports clubs. We can imagine and imagine cities where everyone’s humanity is respected and where everyone counts. It is very nice to imagine a city where no one has to live like a pig in the mud, where everyone is safe from fires, abuse, police raids, disconnections, evictions and political attacks…..Those who are in power today have the power to distribute our land fairly and freely to those who do not have land. Why have they betrayed us today? The answer is simple. If they do so they will be giving away the very power that makes them powerful.”
“In fact of all the people in society our demands are the most legitimat
e and the most reasonable because we are living in the worst conditions. The demands of those with the most money and power are the least legitimate. Logic as well as justice is on the side of our struggle to put the will of the many against the will of the few which is the only way to turn our imaginings of a new urban order into reality.”
If this sounds reasonable to you then there are a few questions you must ask yourself…
1. Do you believe that a house is a fundamental human right?
2. Are you prepared to build this free house yourself?
3. If you cannot build this free house, then who should be forced to build it for you for free?
4. Where do you think the free lumber, hardware, and supplies should come from and who should you enslave to supply them?
5. If you need to relocate, who should be enslaved to help you find a new free house?
6. What happens to all of the Real Estate agents who will now be forced to give away houses? After all, the commission on free is zero.
You see, nothing that must be provided through the labor of another is a “fundamental human right”. That is, of course, unless the provider is not subject to the right of personal liberty. If you are in accord with the ladder then you would have been quite at home in the former Soviet Union. Here in the USA, our personal liberty is guaranteed by the founding documents that form the base of our legal system.
Make no mistake; those who are propagating this movement are violent and dangerous. Although they profess to be a movement of peace, they are taking property from others and refuse to return this property by any means other than a retaliatory act of violence.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Taxes, Taxes, Taxes
So the tax rate depends on your income? As far as the left is concerned, the rich deserve to be taxed more, after all, they can afford it. By this logic, if someone makes $250k annually then they deserve to pay 10% more than someone who makes $249,999.99 is required to pay. So the guy making a penny more is evil, more evil that is than the second guy right?
You’re right, that’s absurd. Maybe there should be a cushion for that penny difference right? So let’s let that guy slip under the line, and the guy making a penny less than him, and the guy making less than him etc… The fact is: there can be no fair line between the man with wealth and the poor guy making a penny less.
Another way to look at it is like this: it seems fair to think that someone making more than 10 times your annual income is doing ok, right? Let’s say you earn $25k annually, so 10 times that is $250k which fits the liberal idea of “too rich”. Granted, most people earn more than $25k, but we will work from a low income. Well I think we need to raise taxes on everyone earning more than 10 times my income, would you agree? Not so fast, my disability (my only income) is $2,988 a year. This means that everyone earning more than $30k will see an increase in their taxes. Why not? My number is just as logical as Obama’s is.
Obviously our economy would collapse if we cut middle class income by 10% or more. Even the left admits that simple fact. Since there is no fair way to divide one class of Americans from another, why don’t we stop trying. We could abolish income tax and either establish a universal income tax or a value added tax (national sales tax).
Our federal government is working on a boutique marketing scheme when they should be more like Wal-Mart. Boutiques provide tremendous service at a high price and to a niche market. The left thinks they can provide great service, at a high price, for everyone, and force everyone to use this service at their own expense. The right, on the other hand, wants the government to offer the cheapest crap available, at the lowest possible price, and allow you to choose where you go for your product. For the record, very few boutiques (if any) achieve the level of wealth and provide the number of jobs as Sam Walton has.
You’re right, that’s absurd. Maybe there should be a cushion for that penny difference right? So let’s let that guy slip under the line, and the guy making a penny less than him, and the guy making less than him etc… The fact is: there can be no fair line between the man with wealth and the poor guy making a penny less.
Another way to look at it is like this: it seems fair to think that someone making more than 10 times your annual income is doing ok, right? Let’s say you earn $25k annually, so 10 times that is $250k which fits the liberal idea of “too rich”. Granted, most people earn more than $25k, but we will work from a low income. Well I think we need to raise taxes on everyone earning more than 10 times my income, would you agree? Not so fast, my disability (my only income) is $2,988 a year. This means that everyone earning more than $30k will see an increase in their taxes. Why not? My number is just as logical as Obama’s is.
Obviously our economy would collapse if we cut middle class income by 10% or more. Even the left admits that simple fact. Since there is no fair way to divide one class of Americans from another, why don’t we stop trying. We could abolish income tax and either establish a universal income tax or a value added tax (national sales tax).
Our federal government is working on a boutique marketing scheme when they should be more like Wal-Mart. Boutiques provide tremendous service at a high price and to a niche market. The left thinks they can provide great service, at a high price, for everyone, and force everyone to use this service at their own expense. The right, on the other hand, wants the government to offer the cheapest crap available, at the lowest possible price, and allow you to choose where you go for your product. For the record, very few boutiques (if any) achieve the level of wealth and provide the number of jobs as Sam Walton has.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Thank You
More than a year ago I introduced my readers to an unknown Senatorial candidate named Marco Rubio. At the time he was hardly a blip on the radar of Charlie Crist, or for most voters for that matter. I walked around preaching the word of Rubio and trying to get the common sense voters to look at him before voting for the liberal Republican.
I just want to say THANK YOU! Thanks for listening to me, thanks for listening to him, and thank you for carrying him up that great political hill.
To read my previous post about Rubio go to http://freedomfront.blogspot.com/2009/07/marco-rubio-effect.html
I just want to say THANK YOU! Thanks for listening to me, thanks for listening to him, and thank you for carrying him up that great political hill.
To read my previous post about Rubio go to http://freedomfront.blogspot.com/2009/07/marco-rubio-effect.html
Presidential Tyranny
Have you ever considered what it means to be diabolic? By strict definition the word dia-bolic means: opposing pressure. The concept is that contradictory forces are purposefully applied in order to prevent movement. In social cases this is known as “tyranny of the mind”. The military uses this tactic to create “war like stress” during training. Drill sergeants give orders to the trainees and punish them for following the orders, if the trainee refuses the orders he is punished the same. The stress created by this is known to be the closest facsimile to battlefield stress and prolonged exposure to this stress provides an opportunity to teach the soldiers how to react to situations under such stress.
I realize our government is not (necessarily) maliciously creating such stress but they are actively causing this tyranny over the minds of Americans. Take our new health care legislation for example; when asked about how the federal government would enforce the mandate that every American purchase insurance, Pelosi suggested that it would be “strictly enforced” Meanwhile, the administration hired countless new IRS agents in order to enforce their new federal law within the states.
Regarding the Arizona law that enforced federal immigration laws: Obama and his administration spent tax money trying to prevent enforcement of this established federal law because he does not like it.
When it comes to states like California and Arizona and their legalization of medical marijuana: Obama’s administration has promised not to pursue action against states which legalize the use of federally prohibited narcotics.
To sum it up.. Obama does not like federal immigration laws so he is actively preventing anyone from enforcing them. Obama does like the federal health insurance mandate so he has hired deputies to enforce it at the threat of violence. Obama does not like the federal law that absolutely prohibits the use of marijuana so he refuses to enforce the law at all.
The duty of the executive branch of government is to enforce the laws that are drawn by the legislative branch. If we have an executor who has chosen, based on his own agenda, which laws will or will not be enforced then we have a public official who is acting to purposefully contradict his duties. We also have a public official who has breached the Constitutionally provided separation of powers.
Regardless of whether this is an act of ignorance or malice, this is, by definition, an act of tyranny.
I realize our government is not (necessarily) maliciously creating such stress but they are actively causing this tyranny over the minds of Americans. Take our new health care legislation for example; when asked about how the federal government would enforce the mandate that every American purchase insurance, Pelosi suggested that it would be “strictly enforced” Meanwhile, the administration hired countless new IRS agents in order to enforce their new federal law within the states.
Regarding the Arizona law that enforced federal immigration laws: Obama and his administration spent tax money trying to prevent enforcement of this established federal law because he does not like it.
When it comes to states like California and Arizona and their legalization of medical marijuana: Obama’s administration has promised not to pursue action against states which legalize the use of federally prohibited narcotics.
To sum it up.. Obama does not like federal immigration laws so he is actively preventing anyone from enforcing them. Obama does like the federal health insurance mandate so he has hired deputies to enforce it at the threat of violence. Obama does not like the federal law that absolutely prohibits the use of marijuana so he refuses to enforce the law at all.
The duty of the executive branch of government is to enforce the laws that are drawn by the legislative branch. If we have an executor who has chosen, based on his own agenda, which laws will or will not be enforced then we have a public official who is acting to purposefully contradict his duties. We also have a public official who has breached the Constitutionally provided separation of powers.
Regardless of whether this is an act of ignorance or malice, this is, by definition, an act of tyranny.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Stuck in the Middle Again
The Left wing mantra, as constantly drilled into our heads by every single self proclaimed “progressive” with a microphone, is wrapped around the “rebuilding” of the middle class. The goal, as I understand it, is to create a nation of laborers so that we (America) can take the throne as the international leaders in industry. If you call yourself a progressive then I would love it if you would either tell me how I am wrong or explain how this works.
Based on my understanding of the progressive goal, I have some questions, accompanied by comments, for you lefties…
1. How do you intend to expand the middle class? The only way to force the expansion of the middle class is to either give money to the lower class or take money from the upper class, or both. This leads to the next question..
2. Who has the right, or power, to force the expansion of the middle class? Having read the Constitution, several times, I can tell you that the official answer is: Nobody! However, obviously the progressives have shown little respect for that particular document. This being the case, the only entity with the power to force an expansion of the middle class is the Federal Government (through the IRS).
3. Why would you want to expand the middle class? I have an answer for this question as well: Power! Other than that, creating a massive middle class makes no sense to me at all. It seems to me that you would want to help raise middle classers up to the upper class, thus expanding the upper class. If the majority of Americans are rich, they would have much more money to dedicate to charity. This would also offer more jobs so that the poor would have more opportunities as well.
4. Why would you want a nation of laborers? I can make $10 an hour building widgets, or I can sell 10 widgets an hour and make $20 an hour without the physical stress. Meanwhile, I can be providing jobs for the 10 guys who are doing the labor in some poverty stricken country, thus helping to create a burgeoning economy where there was none. Where is the evil in that?
You see, the widespread belief is that the right supports the rich and the left stands for the little guy. I am willing to accept this premise, are you? Well, both parties desire power, right? Logic then dictates that, in a Democratic Republic, those who gain power through the support of the little guy would necessarily need the majority to be little guys. Adversely, the group whose power depends on the support of the rich would need a majority of rich people. As one who has spent 40 years as the little guy, I am ready to try that rich thing now, therefore, I will be supporting those who need me to get rich.
We right wing not jobs would love to clear this whole mess up, therefore, I invite you, my political opponents, to explain where I am wrong. More to the point, I would love some justification for your political support.
KEEP IN MIND. This is the arena of ideas, politicians under every label have proven time and time again that they do not adhere to ideology. In this arena, there are no parties, just individuals seeking social cohesion.
Based on my understanding of the progressive goal, I have some questions, accompanied by comments, for you lefties…
1. How do you intend to expand the middle class? The only way to force the expansion of the middle class is to either give money to the lower class or take money from the upper class, or both. This leads to the next question..
2. Who has the right, or power, to force the expansion of the middle class? Having read the Constitution, several times, I can tell you that the official answer is: Nobody! However, obviously the progressives have shown little respect for that particular document. This being the case, the only entity with the power to force an expansion of the middle class is the Federal Government (through the IRS).
3. Why would you want to expand the middle class? I have an answer for this question as well: Power! Other than that, creating a massive middle class makes no sense to me at all. It seems to me that you would want to help raise middle classers up to the upper class, thus expanding the upper class. If the majority of Americans are rich, they would have much more money to dedicate to charity. This would also offer more jobs so that the poor would have more opportunities as well.
4. Why would you want a nation of laborers? I can make $10 an hour building widgets, or I can sell 10 widgets an hour and make $20 an hour without the physical stress. Meanwhile, I can be providing jobs for the 10 guys who are doing the labor in some poverty stricken country, thus helping to create a burgeoning economy where there was none. Where is the evil in that?
You see, the widespread belief is that the right supports the rich and the left stands for the little guy. I am willing to accept this premise, are you? Well, both parties desire power, right? Logic then dictates that, in a Democratic Republic, those who gain power through the support of the little guy would necessarily need the majority to be little guys. Adversely, the group whose power depends on the support of the rich would need a majority of rich people. As one who has spent 40 years as the little guy, I am ready to try that rich thing now, therefore, I will be supporting those who need me to get rich.
We right wing not jobs would love to clear this whole mess up, therefore, I invite you, my political opponents, to explain where I am wrong. More to the point, I would love some justification for your political support.
KEEP IN MIND. This is the arena of ideas, politicians under every label have proven time and time again that they do not adhere to ideology. In this arena, there are no parties, just individuals seeking social cohesion.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Don't Blame Obama, Blame the Idiots We Elected in 2006
It’s time I set the record straight for our myopic liberal friends. You morons keep claiming that the mess we are in is because of Bush and that Obama just hasn’t had enough time to fix it. If you are one of these part time, media informed, Dems, I understand your ignorance, but, If you are perpetuating this nonsense then you are a complete dirt bag.
The hard facts only serve to prove just how dangerous it can be to give the left wing nut-jobs control over our media and our economy. While it is true that the economy started its downturn during the Bush era, he only had a small part in the problem. The truth is that the Democrats took over both houses back in 2006 and the president does not write laws, nor does he control the pocket book.
The toughest thing for the left to choke on is the fact that this entire recession happened under their control. I challenge you to look up ANY economic, social or political graph and watch the upward climb shift to a downward collapse upon the election of 2006. Let me give you a couple of examples..
During the republican era, one dollar worth of gasoline got Americans farther than ever before. The price averaged less than $2.00 per gallon and cars had reached new levels of efficiency. Since the Democratic era, gasoline has averaged $3.00 per gallon with marginal increases in fuel mileage.
While the Republicans were in charge, unemployment broke modern era records. After Clinton explained that his unemployment record was perfect, since 5% of Americans would simply never work, the Republicans got the level down to 4.7% by the 2006 election. The following year, after the Democratic congress took control, unemployment began to rise, only to reach levels near 10% (more than twice the worst of the Republican era).
The Republican era also held the record for home ownership at more than 70% but averaged 69%. Since the election of 2006, home ownership has fallen steadily to 66%. The left wing attempt to recover this loss by making credit easier for those who did not earn it was, in fact, mostly responsible for the credit collapse that led to this recession. Their other responses, borrowing money from Americans to give money to Americans, have served as the driving force for the continued collapse of our economy.
This goes on forever, the facts do not lie. I admit that things are a bit more complicated than I’ve explained but I am willing to debate the details if you dispute me. So, as for you lefties, you have tried your ideas for four years, since things were actually good, and you have screwed up everything. Just take some friendly advice and SHUT THE HELL UP!
The other thing I get a kick out of is the “Progressive” mentality that the right is trying to knock America backwards 100 years. For you progressives, this seems like the opposite of progress so you think it would be horrible. Well, let’s look at things 100 years ago compared to what you’ve done to us today.
During the beginning of the 20th century, immigrants were flooding into our country at a rate of roughly 20% per year. Almost 2,000,000 legal immigrants entered in 1909 and we, as a nation, still maintained 3% unemployment. Now the number of unemployed is 300% higher.
GDP was on an unbelievable incline during the early 1900s and has only fallen during periods of total Democratic control; including the great depression and our current recession. There were no income taxes during that time and America became the only country in the world to farm millionaires, that is, more were made here than in the rest of the world combined. Today, the Dems have created a tax system that punishes that kind of success and they proudly work toward forcing anyone who is successful back down to the middle class.
The truth is that left wing ideology has failed everywhere, and every time, it has been tried. Just look at Europe, Canada, South America, and the rest of the world who has run out of other people’s money to spend and are looking at us for help. In fact, look at the Democrats in control who have done exactly the same thing.
The hard facts only serve to prove just how dangerous it can be to give the left wing nut-jobs control over our media and our economy. While it is true that the economy started its downturn during the Bush era, he only had a small part in the problem. The truth is that the Democrats took over both houses back in 2006 and the president does not write laws, nor does he control the pocket book.
The toughest thing for the left to choke on is the fact that this entire recession happened under their control. I challenge you to look up ANY economic, social or political graph and watch the upward climb shift to a downward collapse upon the election of 2006. Let me give you a couple of examples..
During the republican era, one dollar worth of gasoline got Americans farther than ever before. The price averaged less than $2.00 per gallon and cars had reached new levels of efficiency. Since the Democratic era, gasoline has averaged $3.00 per gallon with marginal increases in fuel mileage.
While the Republicans were in charge, unemployment broke modern era records. After Clinton explained that his unemployment record was perfect, since 5% of Americans would simply never work, the Republicans got the level down to 4.7% by the 2006 election. The following year, after the Democratic congress took control, unemployment began to rise, only to reach levels near 10% (more than twice the worst of the Republican era).
The Republican era also held the record for home ownership at more than 70% but averaged 69%. Since the election of 2006, home ownership has fallen steadily to 66%. The left wing attempt to recover this loss by making credit easier for those who did not earn it was, in fact, mostly responsible for the credit collapse that led to this recession. Their other responses, borrowing money from Americans to give money to Americans, have served as the driving force for the continued collapse of our economy.
This goes on forever, the facts do not lie. I admit that things are a bit more complicated than I’ve explained but I am willing to debate the details if you dispute me. So, as for you lefties, you have tried your ideas for four years, since things were actually good, and you have screwed up everything. Just take some friendly advice and SHUT THE HELL UP!
The other thing I get a kick out of is the “Progressive” mentality that the right is trying to knock America backwards 100 years. For you progressives, this seems like the opposite of progress so you think it would be horrible. Well, let’s look at things 100 years ago compared to what you’ve done to us today.
During the beginning of the 20th century, immigrants were flooding into our country at a rate of roughly 20% per year. Almost 2,000,000 legal immigrants entered in 1909 and we, as a nation, still maintained 3% unemployment. Now the number of unemployed is 300% higher.
GDP was on an unbelievable incline during the early 1900s and has only fallen during periods of total Democratic control; including the great depression and our current recession. There were no income taxes during that time and America became the only country in the world to farm millionaires, that is, more were made here than in the rest of the world combined. Today, the Dems have created a tax system that punishes that kind of success and they proudly work toward forcing anyone who is successful back down to the middle class.
The truth is that left wing ideology has failed everywhere, and every time, it has been tried. Just look at Europe, Canada, South America, and the rest of the world who has run out of other people’s money to spend and are looking at us for help. In fact, look at the Democrats in control who have done exactly the same thing.
Friday, October 15, 2010
SERIOUSLY?
Today I decided to risk my sanity and subject myself to a full day of left wing talk radio. I tuned in to American Left on my satellite radio, duct taped my head, and began to work on a few of my projects. Needless to say, my neighbors frequently felt compelled to remind me that the morons talking on the radio could not hear my arguments, regardless of how loud I was.
Since I was unable to convey my ration, reason, and logic to the intellectually challenged elitists who preached their common senselessness, I’ve decided to vent my grievances here. If I have learned anything, however, I have a better understanding of how the libs feel when Rush glosses over the in-depth explanations of his ideology.
There were many statements made that made my skin crawl but one penetrated me like no other. There was a long conversation about the new Tea Party movement and the rise of neo-conservatism. These self proclaimed progressives were convinced that the right wing surge was a “NAZI-like” build up of “fascist socialism”. Yes, the leftists think that Republicans are like Hitler and that they crave socialism. HAVE THESE IDIOTS BEEN PAYING ATTENTION?
It’s not as if their own literature is loaded with socialist propaganda or anything, wait, it’s just like that. Well, it’s not as if the progressives have ever shown any appreciation for Marxism, in fact, they are rooted in the writings of Marx and take pride in being “anti-capitalist”. So clearly the Republicans favor the Hitler campaign agenda which included; nationalized public transportation, heavy federal funding for education, single payer health care, renewable energy, abortion rights, tax increases for the rich, strong labor unions, and social justice.
Seriously, how can these so called intellectuals profess that the right wing is working toward fascist socialism with a straight face? It is freedom, liberty, and opportunity which we crave, not fascism and defiantly not socialism.. morons!
So if you call yourself progressive, liberal, independent, or even conservative, I challenge you to explain and defend your ideology against me. After all, if you support Obama and his agenda, you may have very good reasons for this, but, you are very much un-American! If, on the other hand, you call yourself conservative, you need to know why and be prepared to defend that stance as well.
Since I was unable to convey my ration, reason, and logic to the intellectually challenged elitists who preached their common senselessness, I’ve decided to vent my grievances here. If I have learned anything, however, I have a better understanding of how the libs feel when Rush glosses over the in-depth explanations of his ideology.
There were many statements made that made my skin crawl but one penetrated me like no other. There was a long conversation about the new Tea Party movement and the rise of neo-conservatism. These self proclaimed progressives were convinced that the right wing surge was a “NAZI-like” build up of “fascist socialism”. Yes, the leftists think that Republicans are like Hitler and that they crave socialism. HAVE THESE IDIOTS BEEN PAYING ATTENTION?
It’s not as if their own literature is loaded with socialist propaganda or anything, wait, it’s just like that. Well, it’s not as if the progressives have ever shown any appreciation for Marxism, in fact, they are rooted in the writings of Marx and take pride in being “anti-capitalist”. So clearly the Republicans favor the Hitler campaign agenda which included; nationalized public transportation, heavy federal funding for education, single payer health care, renewable energy, abortion rights, tax increases for the rich, strong labor unions, and social justice.
Seriously, how can these so called intellectuals profess that the right wing is working toward fascist socialism with a straight face? It is freedom, liberty, and opportunity which we crave, not fascism and defiantly not socialism.. morons!
So if you call yourself progressive, liberal, independent, or even conservative, I challenge you to explain and defend your ideology against me. After all, if you support Obama and his agenda, you may have very good reasons for this, but, you are very much un-American! If, on the other hand, you call yourself conservative, you need to know why and be prepared to defend that stance as well.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Food Stamps: Setting the Record Straight
I understand (and share) the commonly held level of disrespect for those who live their lives as wards of the state. That is, those who refuse to pull their weight as they collect welfare, food stamps, and even child support. I also share the desire to force welfare recipients to pass the same drug tests that working folks are subjected to in order to receive the desired benefits. For that matter, I agree that WIC recipients should be held to a certain level of nutritional value as they are being partially supported by taxpayer funds in order to feed their children.
Where I differ from those who I would otherwise agree with is in the area of food stamps. Currently there is a movement towards forcing nutritional value on food stamp recipients. The first step is to ban the purchase of “sugary soft drinks” on the IBT card. I feel that this attempt to control the diets of food stamp recipients is asinine.
In order to support my case I must first explain something that most people do not understand about food stamp distribution. For a great number of the food stamp recipients, the stereotype of “ward of the state” applies, however, this is not nearly universal. Food stamps are also allocated to disabled veterans. In cases where a veteran is in the process of rehabilitation and unable to work, the state provides food stamps as part of the package.
Think about this; for roughly twenty years I was paying into the tax base, handing a portion of my meager earnings to the government as part of the huge safety net. At one point I was making better than $60K annually while paying one third of my income into taxes and one third into child support (neither by choice). The remaining pittance covered my basic needs and left virtually nothing to put away for a rainy day.
As the government ripped one third of my check out from under me, I was given no power over what they did with the money. I could not tell the IRS that certain expenditures were potentially hazardous to our economy or even our collective health. They invested poorly and grew an unprecedented level of debt.
Meanwhile, I enlisted in the military, was seriously injured, and was medically separated. My injury prevented me from working in any field where my skills and experience would provide an opportunity. As a result of this disability, I am enrolled in the Voc-Rehab program and currently working toward an engineering degree. Once I have achieved this degree I intend to re-enter the workforce and once again become a contributor. In the mean time, I am receiving state food stamp benefits in order to help the ends meet.
Is it fair that the government can store my earnings, against my wishes, and when I need some of that money back they can tell me how the money can be spent. Had I been allowed to invest my own money and build a nest egg, I would not need food stamps and I would be able to eat as I choose. So how long will it be before our government decides to take everyone else’s money and allocates their own idea of a healthy diet to you?
Where I differ from those who I would otherwise agree with is in the area of food stamps. Currently there is a movement towards forcing nutritional value on food stamp recipients. The first step is to ban the purchase of “sugary soft drinks” on the IBT card. I feel that this attempt to control the diets of food stamp recipients is asinine.
In order to support my case I must first explain something that most people do not understand about food stamp distribution. For a great number of the food stamp recipients, the stereotype of “ward of the state” applies, however, this is not nearly universal. Food stamps are also allocated to disabled veterans. In cases where a veteran is in the process of rehabilitation and unable to work, the state provides food stamps as part of the package.
Think about this; for roughly twenty years I was paying into the tax base, handing a portion of my meager earnings to the government as part of the huge safety net. At one point I was making better than $60K annually while paying one third of my income into taxes and one third into child support (neither by choice). The remaining pittance covered my basic needs and left virtually nothing to put away for a rainy day.
As the government ripped one third of my check out from under me, I was given no power over what they did with the money. I could not tell the IRS that certain expenditures were potentially hazardous to our economy or even our collective health. They invested poorly and grew an unprecedented level of debt.
Meanwhile, I enlisted in the military, was seriously injured, and was medically separated. My injury prevented me from working in any field where my skills and experience would provide an opportunity. As a result of this disability, I am enrolled in the Voc-Rehab program and currently working toward an engineering degree. Once I have achieved this degree I intend to re-enter the workforce and once again become a contributor. In the mean time, I am receiving state food stamp benefits in order to help the ends meet.
Is it fair that the government can store my earnings, against my wishes, and when I need some of that money back they can tell me how the money can be spent. Had I been allowed to invest my own money and build a nest egg, I would not need food stamps and I would be able to eat as I choose. So how long will it be before our government decides to take everyone else’s money and allocates their own idea of a healthy diet to you?
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Latteral Blast
For most of America, politics is something that other people worry about. The changes in laws and policies, as laid out by our governing body, have a very gradual effect on normal people. So gradual is this effect that most people cannot identify these changes other than by expressing how different things were when they were young. Much like the tremors that emanate from deep inside the Earth along various fault lines, political tremors usually get some amount of public attention but only for a very short time.
These subtle shifts take place as political tectonics create pockets of pressure and then release only to temporary settle until pressure rebuilds. As with our continental plates, the political landscape bears the scars of generations of social upheavals and powerful opposing forces. Where our nation holds the evidence of this constant geographic struggle in the form of mountains and fault lines, our people also carry with them the results of every decision ever made on a governing level.
You see, rarely does one generation get to actually witness the creation or destruction of a mountain. This is a slow and constant process that seems nearly invisible to the untrained individual. Scientists, on the other hand, know what to look for and are watching carefully as the Earth changes shape right before their eyes.
Politics work the same way. For those who know not what to look for, things do not seem to change much. For those who are tuned in, things seem to be changing relatively rapidly. In fact, the minor tremors and subtle shifts seem to be hitting at a record pace.
When Mt Saint Helens erupted back in the 1980s, it had been dormant for quite some time. As the eruption approached, the tell tale tremors and the burps of smoke suggested that something was about to happen. Suddenly the signs began to slow down significantly and volcanologist David A. Johnston was sent to investigate. With Johnston on the mountain, the massive volcano gave way to the pressures beneath it and the giant mountain blew itself apart. Mr. Johnston’s camera was found and pictures of the approaching pyroclastic flow were developed but as for David Johnston, well, “Vancouver!, Vancouver!, this is it!” were his final words and his body was consumed by the Earth.
So the question is: Do you want to be David Johnston and have a building named after you? Or do you want to be the guy that sees this thing coming and pushes others out of its way? The tremors will slow, the smoke will thin, and the noise will fall silent just before the landscape undergoes a catastrophic change that will alter the political landscape forever. Please spread the word, let your friends know that something is brewing and things may soon be different. Pay attention to the signs but may more attention to the signs that seem to go away!
These subtle shifts take place as political tectonics create pockets of pressure and then release only to temporary settle until pressure rebuilds. As with our continental plates, the political landscape bears the scars of generations of social upheavals and powerful opposing forces. Where our nation holds the evidence of this constant geographic struggle in the form of mountains and fault lines, our people also carry with them the results of every decision ever made on a governing level.
You see, rarely does one generation get to actually witness the creation or destruction of a mountain. This is a slow and constant process that seems nearly invisible to the untrained individual. Scientists, on the other hand, know what to look for and are watching carefully as the Earth changes shape right before their eyes.
Politics work the same way. For those who know not what to look for, things do not seem to change much. For those who are tuned in, things seem to be changing relatively rapidly. In fact, the minor tremors and subtle shifts seem to be hitting at a record pace.
When Mt Saint Helens erupted back in the 1980s, it had been dormant for quite some time. As the eruption approached, the tell tale tremors and the burps of smoke suggested that something was about to happen. Suddenly the signs began to slow down significantly and volcanologist David A. Johnston was sent to investigate. With Johnston on the mountain, the massive volcano gave way to the pressures beneath it and the giant mountain blew itself apart. Mr. Johnston’s camera was found and pictures of the approaching pyroclastic flow were developed but as for David Johnston, well, “Vancouver!, Vancouver!, this is it!” were his final words and his body was consumed by the Earth.
So the question is: Do you want to be David Johnston and have a building named after you? Or do you want to be the guy that sees this thing coming and pushes others out of its way? The tremors will slow, the smoke will thin, and the noise will fall silent just before the landscape undergoes a catastrophic change that will alter the political landscape forever. Please spread the word, let your friends know that something is brewing and things may soon be different. Pay attention to the signs but may more attention to the signs that seem to go away!
Monday, October 4, 2010
My Dictionary
We hear a barrage of terms thrown at us like FREEDOM, LIBERTY, CONSERVATIVE, LIBERAL, REPUBLICAN, DEMOCRAT, and many others, but do we really understand what they mean? One of the big ones is “anti-American” and this term is embraced by all side every political debate as a weapon against the others.
Having spent a short time sitting at a bar debating with the lovely young lady sitting next to me, I realized just how muddy political terms really are. I feel compelled to try to filter (or at least skim) some of this mud out of our political pool. Please allow me to define, in my own words, some mainstream political jargon..
These definitions are strictly traditionalist and do not apply to the bastardidation perpetuated by our current political parties.
REPUBLICAN: A government in which a constituency chooses a representative who will make government decisions on behalf of the people, regardless of the popularity of said decisions. This is an outcome based system where the representative is given the benefit of the doubt during his term but is held responsible for his decisions during the elections. This is how most corporations are operated as the boss makes executive decisions but can be deposed if the company shows a loss.
DEMOCRATIC: A government in which each decision made must be done so with popular approval so that everyone takes part in running things. One problem with democracy is that only the majority gets the power. I have never heard of a successful business that is run as a democracy. Imagine if the employees of your company had the right to vote for the rules, the pay would be high, productivity would be low and vacations would be long, but the profit would never be made and the place would collapse.
FREEDOM: If you think you are a liberal then you totally misunderstand this principle. Freedom means that you get to choose how you want to live as long as you do not impede the freedom of someone else. You are not guaranteed the freedom from insults, failure, homelessness, poverty, illness or ignorance. You have the freedom provide a service for whatever price you and the consumer agree on without a portion of that money being taken from you to provide for any other citizen. You also have the freedom to be as useless as you might choose to be.
PATRIOTIC: No, dissent is not the highest form of patriotism. Your forefathers gave their lives to give you the freedom to screw up your own, it is far from patriotic to give up that freedom in the name of security. Patriotic means loving all that your country is made of and working to keep it that that way. Progressives need not apply, you are far from patriotic.
UNAMERICAN: To be “Americanistic” you must be willing to get your hands dirty but eager to find an easier way. You must be willing to accept that score must be kept or the game is not worth playing. You must know that companies are not greedy, consumers are. No company can force you to buy their product without government involvement and the American government is not supposed to have that much power. You must acknowledge that no amount of money is “too much”, and that we all have the same chance to go get that money. You must see that you have no right to anything that must be provided by someone else, that includes health care. If you disagree with any of these premises then you are probably UnAmerican.
CONSERVATIVE/LIBERAL: Conservatives want to make laws telling you what you cannot do, Liberals want to make laws telling you what you can, and must, do.
LIBERTERIAN: These folks just want to be left alone. I lean that way but I feel we need a small amount of governing to keep things working.
LAWYER: One who cannot add 2 and 2 so they have the second two stricken from the evidence and win by default. These guys usually become Democratic politicians.
Feel free to ask about any other definitions in which you may not be clear.
Having spent a short time sitting at a bar debating with the lovely young lady sitting next to me, I realized just how muddy political terms really are. I feel compelled to try to filter (or at least skim) some of this mud out of our political pool. Please allow me to define, in my own words, some mainstream political jargon..
These definitions are strictly traditionalist and do not apply to the bastardidation perpetuated by our current political parties.
REPUBLICAN: A government in which a constituency chooses a representative who will make government decisions on behalf of the people, regardless of the popularity of said decisions. This is an outcome based system where the representative is given the benefit of the doubt during his term but is held responsible for his decisions during the elections. This is how most corporations are operated as the boss makes executive decisions but can be deposed if the company shows a loss.
DEMOCRATIC: A government in which each decision made must be done so with popular approval so that everyone takes part in running things. One problem with democracy is that only the majority gets the power. I have never heard of a successful business that is run as a democracy. Imagine if the employees of your company had the right to vote for the rules, the pay would be high, productivity would be low and vacations would be long, but the profit would never be made and the place would collapse.
FREEDOM: If you think you are a liberal then you totally misunderstand this principle. Freedom means that you get to choose how you want to live as long as you do not impede the freedom of someone else. You are not guaranteed the freedom from insults, failure, homelessness, poverty, illness or ignorance. You have the freedom provide a service for whatever price you and the consumer agree on without a portion of that money being taken from you to provide for any other citizen. You also have the freedom to be as useless as you might choose to be.
PATRIOTIC: No, dissent is not the highest form of patriotism. Your forefathers gave their lives to give you the freedom to screw up your own, it is far from patriotic to give up that freedom in the name of security. Patriotic means loving all that your country is made of and working to keep it that that way. Progressives need not apply, you are far from patriotic.
UNAMERICAN: To be “Americanistic” you must be willing to get your hands dirty but eager to find an easier way. You must be willing to accept that score must be kept or the game is not worth playing. You must know that companies are not greedy, consumers are. No company can force you to buy their product without government involvement and the American government is not supposed to have that much power. You must acknowledge that no amount of money is “too much”, and that we all have the same chance to go get that money. You must see that you have no right to anything that must be provided by someone else, that includes health care. If you disagree with any of these premises then you are probably UnAmerican.
CONSERVATIVE/LIBERAL: Conservatives want to make laws telling you what you cannot do, Liberals want to make laws telling you what you can, and must, do.
LIBERTERIAN: These folks just want to be left alone. I lean that way but I feel we need a small amount of governing to keep things working.
LAWYER: One who cannot add 2 and 2 so they have the second two stricken from the evidence and win by default. These guys usually become Democratic politicians.
Feel free to ask about any other definitions in which you may not be clear.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
The "Electable" Candidate
Listening to talk radio, I have heard conservatives on both sides of the issue. I am glad to finally hear some sense of reason slowly take over the "party first" mentality. There are, however, many morons who are still stuck on the idea that electability is more important than core principles. Sadly, some of these morons are very high profile.
I understand the view, held by these partisans, that a candidate who supports some of your ideals, and has a chance at winning, is better than losing to one who totally disagrees with you. It makes perfect sense to consider a grat, but "unelectable", candidate a non factor and choose to vote against the worst of the evils. This is especially true when the elections are permanent.
The problem comes when these elections are short term, as in our political system. The current state of our country, both socially and economicly, is a direct result of this mentality. Hopefully I can clearly explain my position on this debate, I will try. I will also use conservatism in my example but I would like for you liberals to apply the same logic to your side as well.
Starting with Ronald Reagan, since he represents the closest thing to the perfect Republican, and following through to today, we have seen a stady movement towards the left from Republicans. This has happened because voters have allowed it to.
Think about this, after Ronald the great we had to choose between George H. W. Bush and Dukakis. Nobody knew anything about Bush, other than his having VP to Ronnie, but Dukakis was an easy target. Republicans learned that conservative ideology did not win elections, the fear of liberal ideology wins elections.
In 1992 we saw a three way race involving Bush, Clinton and Perot. Perot drew votes from both sides but mostly the right. This split gave a very narrow win to Slick Willy. This became the "posterchild" election for those who fear a third candidate.
The following election had a Bill Clinton who had suffered the first loss of both houses of Congress in several decades and was presenting himself as a moderate. This crowded Bob Dole and Perot into a small corner of the electorate and taught the Republicans that elections are won in the middle.
After Clinton, Republicans chose a moderate to go against Al Gore, giving us George W Bush. He ran, not as a right wing conservative, but as a compassionate (progressive) conservative. Republicans learned that Unhappy right wingers would hold their nose and support a potentially liberal Republican over a left wing Democrat.The strategy worked and republicans eventually gained both houses as well as the presidency.
As Republicans moved leftwards they gained votes. They only needed to stay just right of the opposition. Whilst many right wingers were vocal about their opposition to this method, they continued to throw their grudging support behind the Republican with the best chance of beating the Dem. This showed up in internal polling and only served to encourage this leftward slide.After all, as long as we keep accepting progressive Republicans at the threat of losing to the socialists, why would the party look for true conservatives?
This phoenamena has a natural oscillation to it. As the over confident Liberals move to the left they will begin to lose votes to the right. When they finally notice the trend they will push back towards the center and the Republicans, who have been easily winning, will start to slide to the right. This cycle will repeat until, either the end of time, or everyone starts reading this blog.
I want to force the tide. We can stop this cycle if we just vote our conscience. If the Republicans start losing two things will happen. First, they will start looking at where their votes are going. When they realize they are losing a great deal of votes to conservatives they will be forced to move towards that direction and regain their base. Meanwhile, the left will be screwing things up so bad that even the moderates will be compelled to try voting for the right wingers.
It will suck during the short term but our kids will love us for it. Oh and I don't want to hear about Supreme Court Justices. SCOTUS can only review law, not make it. The liberal weenies in that branch of government cant force socialism, they can partially stifle capitalism but that is still a short term problem. As time passes, so will the hippies in our Judicial branch.
I understand the view, held by these partisans, that a candidate who supports some of your ideals, and has a chance at winning, is better than losing to one who totally disagrees with you. It makes perfect sense to consider a grat, but "unelectable", candidate a non factor and choose to vote against the worst of the evils. This is especially true when the elections are permanent.
The problem comes when these elections are short term, as in our political system. The current state of our country, both socially and economicly, is a direct result of this mentality. Hopefully I can clearly explain my position on this debate, I will try. I will also use conservatism in my example but I would like for you liberals to apply the same logic to your side as well.
Starting with Ronald Reagan, since he represents the closest thing to the perfect Republican, and following through to today, we have seen a stady movement towards the left from Republicans. This has happened because voters have allowed it to.
Think about this, after Ronald the great we had to choose between George H. W. Bush and Dukakis. Nobody knew anything about Bush, other than his having VP to Ronnie, but Dukakis was an easy target. Republicans learned that conservative ideology did not win elections, the fear of liberal ideology wins elections.
In 1992 we saw a three way race involving Bush, Clinton and Perot. Perot drew votes from both sides but mostly the right. This split gave a very narrow win to Slick Willy. This became the "posterchild" election for those who fear a third candidate.
The following election had a Bill Clinton who had suffered the first loss of both houses of Congress in several decades and was presenting himself as a moderate. This crowded Bob Dole and Perot into a small corner of the electorate and taught the Republicans that elections are won in the middle.
After Clinton, Republicans chose a moderate to go against Al Gore, giving us George W Bush. He ran, not as a right wing conservative, but as a compassionate (progressive) conservative. Republicans learned that Unhappy right wingers would hold their nose and support a potentially liberal Republican over a left wing Democrat.The strategy worked and republicans eventually gained both houses as well as the presidency.
As Republicans moved leftwards they gained votes. They only needed to stay just right of the opposition. Whilst many right wingers were vocal about their opposition to this method, they continued to throw their grudging support behind the Republican with the best chance of beating the Dem. This showed up in internal polling and only served to encourage this leftward slide.After all, as long as we keep accepting progressive Republicans at the threat of losing to the socialists, why would the party look for true conservatives?
This phoenamena has a natural oscillation to it. As the over confident Liberals move to the left they will begin to lose votes to the right. When they finally notice the trend they will push back towards the center and the Republicans, who have been easily winning, will start to slide to the right. This cycle will repeat until, either the end of time, or everyone starts reading this blog.
I want to force the tide. We can stop this cycle if we just vote our conscience. If the Republicans start losing two things will happen. First, they will start looking at where their votes are going. When they realize they are losing a great deal of votes to conservatives they will be forced to move towards that direction and regain their base. Meanwhile, the left will be screwing things up so bad that even the moderates will be compelled to try voting for the right wingers.
It will suck during the short term but our kids will love us for it. Oh and I don't want to hear about Supreme Court Justices. SCOTUS can only review law, not make it. The liberal weenies in that branch of government cant force socialism, they can partially stifle capitalism but that is still a short term problem. As time passes, so will the hippies in our Judicial branch.
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Back in business
Finally I've got my new computer! Now I am immersed in school and doctors appointments but I will try to post more often now. Thank you for your patience and stay tuned!
Monday, August 9, 2010
The Face of Islam
It seems like every time we turn around some Muslim group is making a great effort to piss us off. Meanwhile the other part of the Islamic world, that is the majority, stands by and quietly condones their actions. At least, that is the way it feels.
Just Imagine how you would act if you were a Christian and small but powerful factions of Christians were sweeping the world and forcing, at the point of a sword, every group they encounter to convert to your religion. I would think you would be torn, enough so that you begin rationalizing your response (or lack thereof) in order to ease their conscience. Part of you is afraid of becoming a target of those who are spreading right through wrong. Another part of you may want to stand up for the victims and fight for their right to deny or even hate your religion. For most people, they would turn their eyes from the evils and accept that the ends justifies the means.
This is exactly what happened roughly 500 years ago when the Christians did exactly that, they ran around the world forcing their religion on everyone they met. Meanwhile, millions of "real" Christians stood by and allowed virtual genocide. It is a part of our history that we are afraid to think of because it is downright shameful, at the same time, most of us are kind of, for lack of a better term, happy with the results. The international acceptance of Christianity feels pretty good compared to what people must have experienced a thousand years ago.
Nearly 500 years after Christ brought his message to the middle east, another great profit unified the religions of that territory. The Muslims believe that their profit was sent by God to bring peace to the world but that he was merely human but nearly as perfect as any human could be. They worship his actions not his divinity. Their Bible is very similar to the Christian Bible and they believe in all of the same things, in fact, they consider Christ to be an important profit as well. They are not much different than Christians were at the same time (roughly 1500 years) in their history.
Some time in our future, the Muslims will come to accept Christians as brothers, just as Christians consider Jews to be our brothers now. While Christians have added Christ and his teachings to the Bible of the Jews, Muslims have added their own profit to our Bible. The fact is; we are all in this together, Christians, Jews, Muslims and nearly every other faith that celebrates a single God came from the Zoroastrians that were handed the very first instruction manual so long ago.
Knowing this, it is time to reconsider a few unfounded and unreasonable opinions. First of all, we tend to look at all Islamic people with some level of suspicion. It is hard to tell the good from the bad just by looking into their eyes. Imagine again what it must have been like for good Christians during the Crusades. Maybe we should consider the often repeated phrase "trust but verify" when confronted by this suspicion. It is wrong to condemn people for the actions of those who claim to lead them.
Regarding the proposed building of the Islamic worship center near "ground zero", I refuse to make any effort to stop them. I would be violently opposed to anyone who would prevent me from expressing my right to practice my religion in any place where I choose under the guise of hatred for the actions of some radical christian group. This freedom is Guaranteed by our Constitution and I am not one to pick and choose which rights we protect based on popularity. Having said that, I think it was a senseless move by those who intend to do it. If my religion had been hijacked by a group of radical thugs and crashed into Mecca I would certainly avoid rubbing salt into those wounds. These morons must know that they are starting something with this and it is only driving a bigger wedge between the two cultures.
If you are Muslim I want you to know that I respect your religion but you need to work towards a change in leadership. Believe me, I feel your pain... I would hate to be judged, as an American, by the actions of President Obama and it is very difficult to bring society to help me make that change in leadership. It is, however, vital to the future of America for me, and others like me, to work tirelessly to bring the necessary cultural changes to our nation. It is equally necessary for you to do the same.
Just Imagine how you would act if you were a Christian and small but powerful factions of Christians were sweeping the world and forcing, at the point of a sword, every group they encounter to convert to your religion. I would think you would be torn, enough so that you begin rationalizing your response (or lack thereof) in order to ease their conscience. Part of you is afraid of becoming a target of those who are spreading right through wrong. Another part of you may want to stand up for the victims and fight for their right to deny or even hate your religion. For most people, they would turn their eyes from the evils and accept that the ends justifies the means.
This is exactly what happened roughly 500 years ago when the Christians did exactly that, they ran around the world forcing their religion on everyone they met. Meanwhile, millions of "real" Christians stood by and allowed virtual genocide. It is a part of our history that we are afraid to think of because it is downright shameful, at the same time, most of us are kind of, for lack of a better term, happy with the results. The international acceptance of Christianity feels pretty good compared to what people must have experienced a thousand years ago.
Nearly 500 years after Christ brought his message to the middle east, another great profit unified the religions of that territory. The Muslims believe that their profit was sent by God to bring peace to the world but that he was merely human but nearly as perfect as any human could be. They worship his actions not his divinity. Their Bible is very similar to the Christian Bible and they believe in all of the same things, in fact, they consider Christ to be an important profit as well. They are not much different than Christians were at the same time (roughly 1500 years) in their history.
Some time in our future, the Muslims will come to accept Christians as brothers, just as Christians consider Jews to be our brothers now. While Christians have added Christ and his teachings to the Bible of the Jews, Muslims have added their own profit to our Bible. The fact is; we are all in this together, Christians, Jews, Muslims and nearly every other faith that celebrates a single God came from the Zoroastrians that were handed the very first instruction manual so long ago.
Knowing this, it is time to reconsider a few unfounded and unreasonable opinions. First of all, we tend to look at all Islamic people with some level of suspicion. It is hard to tell the good from the bad just by looking into their eyes. Imagine again what it must have been like for good Christians during the Crusades. Maybe we should consider the often repeated phrase "trust but verify" when confronted by this suspicion. It is wrong to condemn people for the actions of those who claim to lead them.
Regarding the proposed building of the Islamic worship center near "ground zero", I refuse to make any effort to stop them. I would be violently opposed to anyone who would prevent me from expressing my right to practice my religion in any place where I choose under the guise of hatred for the actions of some radical christian group. This freedom is Guaranteed by our Constitution and I am not one to pick and choose which rights we protect based on popularity. Having said that, I think it was a senseless move by those who intend to do it. If my religion had been hijacked by a group of radical thugs and crashed into Mecca I would certainly avoid rubbing salt into those wounds. These morons must know that they are starting something with this and it is only driving a bigger wedge between the two cultures.
If you are Muslim I want you to know that I respect your religion but you need to work towards a change in leadership. Believe me, I feel your pain... I would hate to be judged, as an American, by the actions of President Obama and it is very difficult to bring society to help me make that change in leadership. It is, however, vital to the future of America for me, and others like me, to work tirelessly to bring the necessary cultural changes to our nation. It is equally necessary for you to do the same.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Half Cocked
First, I must apologize for my absence. My computer screen is broken so I have been without for a while (which is not all bad). Soon I will get back to writing.
Considering my computer issue, I have also been subjected to no other source of information, other than TV news and Talk radio. Neither source provides enough real information to make a complete analysis of any topic. So, rather than going off half cocked, I will ask some basic questions that, for me, came to mind when listening to local news reports.
BP..
Is BP responsible for paying Florida for advertising that the oil has had no effect on most of its beaches?
Did BP do anything to drive busines away from Florida?
Did the media portrey massave oil slicks on all of the gulf beaches, even though the mass majority saw no effect at all from the spill?
Should areas who have been economically devistated by the perception of the disaster look toward BP (who did nothing to spread fear) or the media who showed us every drop of oil that touched a grain of sand?
Arizona..
Did the federal government just tell a state that it was not their place to enforce federal laws?
If the fed starts passing laws matching state laws will it become illegal for the states to enforce them?
Is this a pathway to total federal control over the states?
If the federal government has laws that protect states, but refuses to enforce them, while preventing the states from enforcing them, what should the states do? What can they do? How can they protect themselves if the Fed binds their hands?
I am going to look into these and other questions and you are free to shoot me your answers or maybe even ask better questions. So, until I get this screen fixed, consider the possibilities.
PS: I cannot see my screen so if there are errors in my writing, ignore them... Or, close your eyes and post a response of equal length and tell me how hard it is for you!
Considering my computer issue, I have also been subjected to no other source of information, other than TV news and Talk radio. Neither source provides enough real information to make a complete analysis of any topic. So, rather than going off half cocked, I will ask some basic questions that, for me, came to mind when listening to local news reports.
BP..
Is BP responsible for paying Florida for advertising that the oil has had no effect on most of its beaches?
Did BP do anything to drive busines away from Florida?
Did the media portrey massave oil slicks on all of the gulf beaches, even though the mass majority saw no effect at all from the spill?
Should areas who have been economically devistated by the perception of the disaster look toward BP (who did nothing to spread fear) or the media who showed us every drop of oil that touched a grain of sand?
Arizona..
Did the federal government just tell a state that it was not their place to enforce federal laws?
If the fed starts passing laws matching state laws will it become illegal for the states to enforce them?
Is this a pathway to total federal control over the states?
If the federal government has laws that protect states, but refuses to enforce them, while preventing the states from enforcing them, what should the states do? What can they do? How can they protect themselves if the Fed binds their hands?
I am going to look into these and other questions and you are free to shoot me your answers or maybe even ask better questions. So, until I get this screen fixed, consider the possibilities.
PS: I cannot see my screen so if there are errors in my writing, ignore them... Or, close your eyes and post a response of equal length and tell me how hard it is for you!
Friday, July 9, 2010
God, Freedom and America
As I wheeled myself out of the Ambulitary Care Unit and toward the pick up point in front of the James Haley Veterans Hospital, I started to come to a realization that I did not like.
My surgery was very basic, a soft tissue removal from my left foot. I will be back on my feet in a week or so, however, many at the VA are not so lucky. They are bound to their wheelchairs for the rest of their lives.
Rolling through the halls, I noticed the civillians looking away, acting as if I did not exist. I don't know if it was guilt or something else but people were very uncomfortable with my presence. I had two bum shoulders and a seriously bandaged foot, and no offers for help. I had to use short strokes in turning the wheels of my chair and it really hurt.
The designated pick up point was overrun with first timers who had no idea what to do so I decided to go down hill to the SCI (spinal cord injury unit) where my wife could pick me up without waiting for the crowd. It was there where I found God. Not that I did not know him already but it is at the SCI where he lingers with those who had given the most to protect our freedom. You see, many of our veterans have lost the use of their legs, arms and even their ability to speak. In my mind, a lifetime of painful memories and no way to share them or replace them with better ones, is far worse than giving ones life.
Now that I've gained a "Criple's eye view" into the souls of the speechless vets, I understand that, if not for God, they would have no one to talk to at all. Only faith keeps these fellows going. When you are at eye level with these guys, you cannot look away. You are forced to read their eyes and hear the longing for a simple conversation from the heart of a broken soldier.
I saw the local news guy talking about how the supreme court, along with the Constitution, has given every American the right to posess a firearm. He was so wrong! It is God that gives us our rights, all of them. It is our military who puts everything on the line to protect those God given rights. Then, it is our Constitution which prevents our government from taking our God given rights away from us.
Read your Constitution and look for anywhere where it gives us any rights. Our founders were careful to state that our rights were "inalienable" and each amendment points out what rights cannot be taken from us.
The point is.. You have your rights because God gave them to you. You keep those rights because American soldiers sacrifice their own on your behalf. So if you pass by a Soldier or a Vet, and you choose to ignore him rather than look him in the eye, what does that make you? Please, for God's sake, thank them! I don't care if you simply look them in the eye and smile or you reach out and hug them, just show them that they have not given everything for nothing.
My surgery was very basic, a soft tissue removal from my left foot. I will be back on my feet in a week or so, however, many at the VA are not so lucky. They are bound to their wheelchairs for the rest of their lives.
Rolling through the halls, I noticed the civillians looking away, acting as if I did not exist. I don't know if it was guilt or something else but people were very uncomfortable with my presence. I had two bum shoulders and a seriously bandaged foot, and no offers for help. I had to use short strokes in turning the wheels of my chair and it really hurt.
The designated pick up point was overrun with first timers who had no idea what to do so I decided to go down hill to the SCI (spinal cord injury unit) where my wife could pick me up without waiting for the crowd. It was there where I found God. Not that I did not know him already but it is at the SCI where he lingers with those who had given the most to protect our freedom. You see, many of our veterans have lost the use of their legs, arms and even their ability to speak. In my mind, a lifetime of painful memories and no way to share them or replace them with better ones, is far worse than giving ones life.
Now that I've gained a "Criple's eye view" into the souls of the speechless vets, I understand that, if not for God, they would have no one to talk to at all. Only faith keeps these fellows going. When you are at eye level with these guys, you cannot look away. You are forced to read their eyes and hear the longing for a simple conversation from the heart of a broken soldier.
I saw the local news guy talking about how the supreme court, along with the Constitution, has given every American the right to posess a firearm. He was so wrong! It is God that gives us our rights, all of them. It is our military who puts everything on the line to protect those God given rights. Then, it is our Constitution which prevents our government from taking our God given rights away from us.
Read your Constitution and look for anywhere where it gives us any rights. Our founders were careful to state that our rights were "inalienable" and each amendment points out what rights cannot be taken from us.
The point is.. You have your rights because God gave them to you. You keep those rights because American soldiers sacrifice their own on your behalf. So if you pass by a Soldier or a Vet, and you choose to ignore him rather than look him in the eye, what does that make you? Please, for God's sake, thank them! I don't care if you simply look them in the eye and smile or you reach out and hug them, just show them that they have not given everything for nothing.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Gun Control?
The recent SCOTUS decision regarding gun bans and the 14th amendment, along with the tragic murders of two Tampa police officers last night, has driven me to reconsider my position on certain things. I realize this may come as a shock to my right wing brethren but I am ready to support a ban which could drastically decrease the number of innocent Americans being killed at the point of a gun.
Mayor Daley, of Chi-town, made a great case for a ban when he pointed out that 100,000 Americans are shot each year and eight die each day from gunshots. From that I decided to look into Chicago's crime statistics. I found that more than 77% of violent deaths, including domestic murders, shared one key ingredient. I also found that the same ingredient played a large role in forced robberies and personal crimes.
To know that, in the case of robberies, we could have prevented deaths for all but 4% of the victims by simply placing a ban on the specific cause of those death, it helps me put aside my concerns regarding the constitutionality of the ban. In fact, I am willing to forget that little part of the Constitution and enforce a Nationwide ban that would serve to put a stop to the vast majority of crime around the country.
Yes, it is time to put aside your own reservations (as freedom loving conservatives) and stand up for a complete and total ban on African Americans! What did you think I was going to say, ban guns? That would only invite new crimes. The fact is that Blacks commit more crimes than whites. It's true, in Chicago, only 4% of the murders committed during robberies are by white guys. At the same time, more than 77% of all gun crimes in Daley's little corner of Heaven were initiated by the squeeze of a black man's finger on a trigger.
Now back to reality.. For you morons who think that it is okay to forget the second amendment in order to quell crime, you are wrong! For any twisting of evidence that you can show me which gives some level of credence to your theory that gun bans lower violence, I can show you indisputable evidence that banning colored people would have a far greater effect. Let me say that BOTH IDEAS ARE RIDICULOUS!
I know for a fact that guns are no more responsible for crime than the color of a fellow's skin is. People pull triggers, not skin color, and triggers never pull themselves. There is a violent culture out there that has been adopted by the majority of young, poor urbanites. Most of them are black but that is a result, not a cause.
The left has proven to me that they can significantly change the political and economical landscape through social movements so why don't they spend some of that energy in changing the cultural landscape the same way. It is the left that glorifies the "gangsta" lifestyle, it is also the left that celebrates a culture of ignorance on MTV, BET and other social outlets. Seriously, they've convinced kids that capitalism is evil but murder is cool, WTF?
Mayor Daley, of Chi-town, made a great case for a ban when he pointed out that 100,000 Americans are shot each year and eight die each day from gunshots. From that I decided to look into Chicago's crime statistics. I found that more than 77% of violent deaths, including domestic murders, shared one key ingredient. I also found that the same ingredient played a large role in forced robberies and personal crimes.
To know that, in the case of robberies, we could have prevented deaths for all but 4% of the victims by simply placing a ban on the specific cause of those death, it helps me put aside my concerns regarding the constitutionality of the ban. In fact, I am willing to forget that little part of the Constitution and enforce a Nationwide ban that would serve to put a stop to the vast majority of crime around the country.
Yes, it is time to put aside your own reservations (as freedom loving conservatives) and stand up for a complete and total ban on African Americans! What did you think I was going to say, ban guns? That would only invite new crimes. The fact is that Blacks commit more crimes than whites. It's true, in Chicago, only 4% of the murders committed during robberies are by white guys. At the same time, more than 77% of all gun crimes in Daley's little corner of Heaven were initiated by the squeeze of a black man's finger on a trigger.
Now back to reality.. For you morons who think that it is okay to forget the second amendment in order to quell crime, you are wrong! For any twisting of evidence that you can show me which gives some level of credence to your theory that gun bans lower violence, I can show you indisputable evidence that banning colored people would have a far greater effect. Let me say that BOTH IDEAS ARE RIDICULOUS!
I know for a fact that guns are no more responsible for crime than the color of a fellow's skin is. People pull triggers, not skin color, and triggers never pull themselves. There is a violent culture out there that has been adopted by the majority of young, poor urbanites. Most of them are black but that is a result, not a cause.
The left has proven to me that they can significantly change the political and economical landscape through social movements so why don't they spend some of that energy in changing the cultural landscape the same way. It is the left that glorifies the "gangsta" lifestyle, it is also the left that celebrates a culture of ignorance on MTV, BET and other social outlets. Seriously, they've convinced kids that capitalism is evil but murder is cool, WTF?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
