Monday, February 3, 2014
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
"I can see that discussing economics with you will be like discussing evolution with a creationist. You won’t let facts and evidence get in the way of your beliefs.
Problem is, the facts don’t go away just because you ignore them. If you want to claim wikipedia is wrong, you must know there are other sources right? And you must have figured out that tax rates in the last couple of hundred years are known right? So why deny what is easily searchable?
And I already told you, unlike you, I am a capitalist. You’re a day dreamer." - Insane Liberal
Wow friend, you are the one who seems to have beliefs in a government managed economy that has failed. Try reading real history. Start with the debate between Patrick Henry and James Madison over the ratification of the Constitution. Patrick Henry feared the Constitution would create the over bearing tyrannical type central government we have today. He even describes it and it sounds like what we have today as evolved from the 1930s. Madison states there are two protections to prevent it, the Federal Government banned from direct taxation and the State legislatures voting their Senators. The reason for the latter was to ensure one house remained unaffected by popular actions/mob rule and the former was to ensure the Feds never could get enough money to be a tyranny. Both protections were removed just before 1920 and by the 30s the effects of that loss of protection took hold. In other letters you will find Madison describing how Feds take over. Starting with creating public schools, then the curriculum, taking over postal services, roads and he says eventually the feds will follow that path to take over everything for a variety of benevolent reasons.
Your nonsense is what we live today. In the 1930s a series of laws were passed to "prevent" the supposed crimes of the 1920s and to "protect" the people from risk of all types. Since crime cant ever be prevented and the definition of what an individual considers a base sort of living cant be defined, this task is as impossible as socialist desires for equal results for all.
When the original laws dont work because they do not prevent the excesses of the politicians and others who really committed the crimes or mistakes, they instead attack the innocent and free, the government adds more laws. As politicians, rich friends and their sycophants do everything the can to get around these laws, including exempting themselves from them(as in today with the politicians exemption on insider trading) these actions to get around the laws eventually cause more problems, making the people upset and yet more laws are passed to prevent the crimes caused by the actions of the 4th, 3rd, 2nd and 1st sets of laws either ignored or considered not strong enough. So now today we have 2006, the politicians scamming everyone left and right, insider trading, crazy laws to allow for the existence of nonsense like trading derivatives on unrealized capital, crony capitalism that takes tax or borrowed money to put in companies, the democrats in congress kill an economy, take over damage it even more and then come out with even more laws like obamacare, dodd frank, sarbox and heck lets pull in other insanity like the patriot act and its effects and we have what we have today. All of this because the protections Madison described were removed allowing FDR to step in and basically create what we have today because the state were and still are defenseless against the feds and the people also defenseless because individually can't ever defend their money and property from the feds.
It is you Sir who needs to look at history and see what is really there. Taking on more and more and more regulation after regulation after regulation in the name of preventing crime or preventing risk has the exact opposite effect. It is no better than a doctor prescribing a pill for an unknown disease, the prescribing 40 more pills to counteract the side effects of all other pills.
I do not fear the government, I fear people like you who read the Declaration of Independance, see the words Unalienable Rights and the 3 rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness which encompass all rights an individual can define for himself and are in fact unalienable, then you believe that the government we have today with its insane taxation, even more insane spending and so many regulations on you that you are likely breaking a dozen fed, state or local laws at any moment because those laws demand everything from your money, to what is acceptable to read, if you are allowed to work or not, what lights you can have and likely which hand you can masturbate with. Yeah maybe that is a joke but considering there are laws on the books going back a couple centuries that have many crazy ones, you really can't say which hand is legal to use. You and I both are right this second breaking a law, unknowingly and you thing I am the one not paying attention or reading history? It is people like you we should all fear, you actually believe your progressive socialist insanity and you don't even know that it is the path you are following.
Friday, November 18, 2011
Newt Gingrich and the author of the Economist article are both incorrect about what creates American exceptionalism. The author of the article is of course disparaging Gingrich because the Author is a liberal and he is expected to attack republicans wherever possible.
It would have been more effective to disparage Gingrich for dragging in God to what is otherwise the correct answer about American exceptionalism.
It is 100% correct to conclude American Exceptionalism comes from Americans understanding we are endowed with individual unalienable rights. It has nothing at all to do with God. The world creator was chosen to encompass any concept, idea or myth about the individuals existence to merely put forth the understanding that you existing is why you have those rights.
What needed to be explained better by Gingrich is ALL rights an individual can imagine are his unalienable rights. The Right to Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness really do define any right possible and ensure it is not possible to define a right that would deny the same to all other individuals.
The individual on his own or in cooperation with others now can become exceptional, once the individual realizes he is the owner of his rights as well as the one who defines his rights along with the most important concept of the rights being unalienable, the individual is not even able to voluntarily give up his rights, let alone have them taken.
The Federal government or more specifically the liberals, progressives and religious conservatives do not understand the true concept of owning ALL unalienable rights by the individual. Evidence for this lack of understanding is the incorrect Supreme Court ruling that created the unconstitutional concept of Privilege. Rights defined by the individual and unalienable are never a privilege. The government has no authority to create or grant rights and it has no authority to alienate an individual from his rights and that includes declaring rights privileges. Another example of this is the entire socialist/liberal varieties of welfare. A person has the right to his life and pursuit of happiness, which includes the property and wealth he creates. There is no condition available to alienate an individual from the right to the fruits of his labors in the name of giving it to others. Gay marriage is another example. The right to happiness in life and the freedom to pursue what makes an individual happy is entirely defined by the individual, which would include who this individual associates with and the definition of that relationship. There is no authority in the concept of unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that allows the government or a society to define the types of acceptable relationships for happiness to be pursued.
What makes America exceptional is the fact that all rights are owned by the individual upon his existence and are unalienable. Knowing you can define your own rights, which includes by default defining and owning your entire existence plus doing as you will with your existence, including keeping what you produce is what allows America to be the best country in the world.
It has nothing at all to do with God. Even if God could be proven to exist as the sole grantor of rights, the fact that God is unable to take those unalienable rights away is what makes those rights only part of the individual.
Gingrich is wrong to make it appear as if God is the arbiter of rights. The reason it is a mistake is both a lack of understanding the declaration's words correctly but also this God sourced rights concept creates a false condition of control over rights outside the individual. Meaning God, or more specifically, priests, ministers and imams who claim to speak for god, will being to determine your rights based on bibles, korans or their own delusions and use those same sources to alienate rights as well. It is the same effect we have now with the various American governments believing they have authority to alienate the individual from his rights. The more dangerous outcome of this is eventually the secular and theocratic political class will begin to grants its own class "rights" to itself that contradict or even attempt to alienate the individual from his rights, including life. Effectively the political class will create its own group rights which do not have the natural control individual unalienable rights have. The control is the individual is unable to grant himself a right that alienates others from their own rights. The political class granted rights have no natural protection from this dangerous concept.
Still Gingrich at least understands we do have unalienable rights, which is significantly better than the liberals in the democrat party who believe the individual has no rights at all beyond what they grant to the collective.
Sunday, July 10, 2011
The post describes the protections Madison said protected us. Specifically they are the Senate elected by state legislature and the feds Barred from all forms of direct taxation of the people.
The reason for both are simple. Senators having to answer to states for federal costs is easier for the people to control. Our impact on the state legislature is for more direct than a federal senator. Madison said specifically one part of congress needs to be protected from mob rule, which was supposed to be the senate.
The second part is the money. In effect, Madison said without the money, the Feds can't become tyrants. It costs a lot of resources to oppress people. Also, the states governments, who the feds were to bill for most expenses and the Corporations, who the feds could tax are in a much better position to fight off Federal abuses and encroachment on the rights of the individual.
Had the amendments passed in 1913 failed to be ratified, NONE of the socialism, over taxation, regulation or anything else insane the feds do today would have happened. At least at the federal level, which is the point of this post.
The right of the individual person to define his own rights and have them protected by the Federal Government is the sole reason for the Federal Government to exist. That is the only mandate. Anything that gets in the way of an Individual's freedom, property, life and self defined happiness is wrong and against the constitution.
However, Nothing bars a state government from imposing welfare, insane taxation, regulation or anything else. The Feds are supposed to ensure no state gets out of control. BUT if each state was in fact operating under the original constitution of the United States in regards to taxation, welfare and other programs, then each state is an automatic check on all others.
The concept here is each state would pass laws that would be designed to provide whatever the people of that state desired. If for example, the people of New York want to continue to buy into the socialist utopia, then they are free to tax themselves to oblivion in the name of free healthcare, government handouts or whatever else they think a socialist utopia can provide. At the same time a different state, such as Texas, might have no socialism at all and instead have it be every man is free to earn all the money they want and take care of themselves and anyone they freely choose.
The people of America would then move to which ever of the 50 states provided the best combinations of freedom, social programs, healthcare, regulation or whatever. The check or protection is each state could not get too out of control for fear of losing population. The bottom line is any individual would have 50 different choices to move to and live in the type of state that best suits the individual.
With the Federal Government controlling everything and imposing its undesired will on all, we have no choice. All 50 states are in effect the same. The slight differences in taxation or services is just that slight and not really enough to make much of a difference. Really, the 5% income tax in Illinois, compared to Zero in Texas or 10% in California. Who cares, the Feds are taking at a minimum 15% from everyone working in Payroll(no the employer part is in fact yours, FDR made this an illusion) for anyone who hits the lowest tax bracket, you are now at 25% and it goes up. So 5% differences at the state level mean very little.
Remember, Madison was against all of this tyrannical behavior. He knew then that the people individually would never have the ability to fight of an over reaching federal government. The Corporations and States do have the ability to defend the people from the Federal Government. As of 1913, the Feds are enjoying unchecked power and it will never change as long as they can directly take your property with impunity.
All states are in effect the same and have no ability to stop the Federal Government. The only real option an American has is to leave America entirely for any country that does not tax the hell out of productive members of the society. Since this is not really a good option, lets propose eliminating the 16th and 17th amendments, so we can again have states that are a check on the Federal Government. States free and able to tax whatever they feel their people want to pay for and compete against each other for population to ensure no state is over doing anything. Relegating the Feds back to their mandate of ensuring standardized commerce, justice, security, foreign policy and protecting the Individual rights of the people. Sure the Feds have a few more useful responsibilities but none of them would include education, welfare, housing, what toilet I can buy or even how much money I can carry around in my pocket.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
How is it right for people who live off of welfare to be granted the authority over those who earn that money?
I am starting to see why the original constitution only affirmed voting rights to land owners. Not for any reason other than the insanity it is to let people who would live off welfare be granted a majority vote to allow them to steal their welfare money from the people who earned that money or prevent politicians from stealing wealth from producers to purchase the votes from recipients of the pillaging. Both conditions are what we have today.
Whatever happened to the right to your own freedom and life? When did the unalienable rights of free people get taken away by those unwilling to exercise their own freedom to live?
Monday, February 21, 2011
Forced Unionism - the Debate between right to work laws that prevent unions from forcing people to join
The Declaration of Independence affirmed all men because of they exist have the right to life, liberty and pursuing happiness. Freedom is the most basic of natural rights affirmed and protected by the constitution. There should not have to be Right to Work laws to prevent unions from forced membership because the unions should not be able to force anyone to join them. In fact, the unions should not be able to compel an individual to acknowledge them or to vote for or against them. The right to work is inherent in the freedom declared in the Declaration of Independence.
The validity of the unions is questioned when it has to use force to compel membership, threaten your employment if you do not comply with their demands and force these same victims to pay for it all. How is this different from any past or present theocracy that used force to compel membership in the religion. It has long been established that forcing an individual into a group, religion or tribe is a crime and the fact that Unions must use force to compel membership and compliance shows the union is in fact a fallacy.
If a Union is legitimate it should be able to inspire membership through providing members with some kind of benefit the members feel is important or useful enough to pay for. Using force of government and threats of financial impact or even physical threats is nothing more than thugs using law to steal money and force victims to continue paying for it.
A free individual has the right to work, has the right to collectively bargain and has the right to bargain with his employer on his own. Anything that takes away a citizens right to freedom is illegal and against the freedom this country was founded on.
Monday, February 14, 2011
The US Federal Government has no rights at all. It has only obligations to defend the country, set up a means to resolve disputes and crimes, standardize certain aspects of commerce to facilitate the economy and above all protect the rights of each individual.
No where in the Constitution does it declare a set of rights to the government. It has no RIGHT to your money, it has no right to tell you how to live, it has no right to dictate what you do with your life or your progeny.
Today and for the last 100 years, the US Federal Government has assumed rights to itself at the expense of individual rights. Such as the "right" to tax the people directly, the "right" to dictate to states regulations like speed limits, environmental regulation of the people directly and the right to know anything and everything an individual does in life.
The fact is the individual should be able to exist in America and have no interaction at all with the federal government beyond voting, juries and a census.
America will recover and prosper as soon as we can reestablish individual and state rights and remove the false rights of the Federal Government.
The Federal Government was explicitly barred from direct taxation of the people. They could only tax commerce and states with apportionment. This was done on purpose. Madison argued this was one of the two protections in the constitution to prevent the Federal Government from becoming a tyranny or some entity that governs by decree without any concern at all for the people.
The reason Madison considered this a protection is because it takes money to have a tyranny. There would be no way for the Feds to steal enough money to become a tyranny, With the State governments in between the people and the Feds. The Progressives removed this just before 1920 and 90 years later we now have a Federal Government feared by Patrick Henry.
So what is a fair tax? Simple, no tax at all from the federal level. Go back to the original tax code mentioned in the Constitution which specifically says the feds must effectively send a bill to the states and leave it up to each state on how to pay it. There is also argument supporting corporate taxation. Both are safer because it places at the hands of the people the power of state governments and big business to keep the Federal Spending in check.
There is no way the President or Congress could deficit spend, ear mark spend or spend to the levels of today, if state governments were there to tell the feds to take a hike, every time they attempt to get out of control.
Corporate taxes work because any of the larger companies have the resources to battle Uncle Sam to keep those taxes low.
With the current tax system, the Feds are able to do what is done today, class warfare between income levels, bypass state governments with spending and no individual person is able to stop the government from doing whatever it wants with each individuals money.
There was a reason the Founding Fathers barred the Federal Government from most Tax sources, perhaps we should consider these reasons and protect ourselves by putting this protection back in force.
US Budget 3.7 Trillion and growing - America how much do you plan to let those parasites confiscate from you?
At no point does the President or any other politician give any indication they plan to stop this unsustainable spending binge they have been on for years.
Calls for a balanced budget are pointless because all these calls demand a balanced budget primarily through increasing taxes to confiscate as much of the fruits of the labor of American citizens.
How about demands the budget become balanced by the Politicians being forced to spend less than what they take in revenue. Simply removing political corruption and waste from incompetence could potentially achieve a 50% reduction in spending and fit withing the amount of revenue forcibly taken each year.
Is it really such a complex concept to force politicians to spend as a normal person would, not waste our money and actually spend significantly less?
The Policy of the progressive liberal in dealing with tyrants began in the 1930s with the League of Nations and the US as a policy of just letting tyrants do whatever atrocity they committed under the guise of internal politics. While Germany, Italy and Japan spent most of the 1930s, invading and occupying countries like Czech, Ethiopia and Korea the US and League under Neville Chamberlain simply believed these leaders like Hitler were benign people that just need to be understood and negotiated with while they are occupying nations and killing people.
This policy transferred to the UN, this concept that all nations are equal in the UN regardless of the fact that many are tyrannies run by thugs and in many cases have religious leaders bent on killing every other person on the planet.
The UN and US support these tyrants if they leave American interests alone. Past examples are US support of the Saddam to combat Iran, Mubarak, Saudi royals and others. The UN "peace keeping" efforts merely result in stalemates and refugee camps with occasional rape gangs as seen in Africa.
The UN is incapable of choosing the side of right and peace. Actions and places such as the occupation attempt of east Timor, North Korea (a UN stalemate), Iran, Syria, Venezuela and many other countries are in no way operating under any kind of natural right or with consent of the people. The UN should be banning these countries from world commerce not negotiating with them. Mubarak should never existed, Iranian Ayatollahs should never have been in power just as Hitler should and could have been stopped years before he invaded Poland.
The results are seen today. After years of these UN supported tyrannies oppressing their people, the people are finally rising up and throwing off the shackles of their oppressors. The UN and member nations can't even understand what is happening. To the UN, the people are just irrelevant plebeians who have no say, no individual rights or even any direct involvement in the world.
The UN either needs to acknowledge the fact that all countries are not equal. Some Tyrants are in fact Tyrants and they are not legitimate just because their thugs confiscated some geographic space and enslaved the population.
It is time to end the UN sponsored "peace" where civil wars, genocide, tyranny, rape and violence endures for decades with UN refugee camps and UN peace keeping forces ensure the status quo.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
The facts are CO2 has gone up AFTER the rise in temperature, just as it has for every warming period between ice ages going back a billion years.
Myths of your ideology are there is no actual reason to accept some kind of "global" temperature or its meaning. WE humans do not know enough about the atmosphere to even guess what is happening and less than 100 years of temperature data from parts of America, Europe and a few other locations amounting to less than 1000th of a percent of all temperature on land, sea and in the air we would need to take to even begin to understand the biosphere we live in.
The facts are you human caused warmists have chosen a nonexistent problem to to demonize and given it a cause called CO2 which conveniently can't be measured, we dont know what actually can be in the atmosphere and it will always be there as long as life exists. In effect a cause you can always state is still a cause and never have to worry about a solution.
With a final problem with your religion. We cant falsify your claims, as long as every atmospheric phenomenon, earthquake and bird dropping is always a justification to claim global warming is a problem and is human caused. With everything that happens "proof" and no condition exists to falsify it, you people are just spouting a belief and ideology with no science to back it up.
I suppose you morons will claim global warming is proven again when it is HOT in LA, a hurricane occurs in the atlantic, a volcano erupts on the sea floor, the caribou choose a migration path 30 ft north of last year past a fallen pine tree, the tarot cards come out in numeric order, hell freezes over, god smites the planet and the Obamanation continues another 4 years.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
This makes sense. The Democrats want to stick it to millions of Americans in order to supposedly punish a few hundred "wealthy" people
No thank you Democrats, this blogger does not care about the wealthy but I do care about you stealing even more of my money.
The make this almost amusing the Democrats claim this will just add to the deficit. Again, the Democrats in their infinite wisdom actually believe a Tax cut is a cost. Also, why would they count this as money in hand before it is, they should have assumed these Bush Tax Cuts would be extended. However, the obvious must be pointed out to the Democrats. Flagrant out of control spending adds to the deficit. NOT raising taxes never adds to a deficit.
So it is back to a very basic plan the politicians seem to fail to grasp. Don't spend so much damn money on every idiot scheme thought of. Don't spend so much money on over priced products and services and stop spending on so much the government should not even be involved in.
Then perhaps we may see an improvement in the economy.
Still back to the original Topic. The reality is the Democrats want to stick it to America. They are not actually going to raise taxes on the wealthy. This is because most of the Democrats themselves are multi millionaires, Their buddies in Hollywood and many other supporters are all wealthy and the Democrats are hardly going to tax themselves and punish their comrades. This is just another scheme where the Democrats claim they will do one thing, shaft the wealthy when in reality that shaft is meant for the rest of the American people.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
The Democrats were smacked down in 1994 for similar reasons like over spending and raising taxes and of course restricting freedoms. So the question is why in the world did they think they could do far worse that 1994 in forcing their liberalism down American throats and spending insanely.
This happens to be a single example of it being a Good thing anyone who does not read history is doomed to repeat it.
Thank you Democrats for repeating 1994, perhaps American will survive.
Friday, August 6, 2010
Banning blackberries in parts of the world, the question is where do governments get the right to need your data?
America is not yet attempting this but the American government is also under the false belief that they have a right to our data whenever they feel the need. This need is always couched under the umbrellas of law enforcement and security.
Liberty in American means to live free without interference from the government or society. The government has no right to demand that data be accessible to them forever, in case they need it. There is a need to perform law enforcement, they can obtain a warrant and can make a law that days companies like blackberry should provide the ability to decrypt or provide data after the warrant is in place. Otherwise, data should be entirely inaccessible to the government or anyone else.
We the people have a right to privacy, a right defined by us, it does not have to be in the constitution to be a right. The government is specifically prohibited from watching us like we are all criminals and having access to our data anytime is in effect monitoring us like big brother.
The fact that the data is accessible to the government means features exist to allow access, which can then be exploited by actual criminals as well. Making identity theft easier, because it is easier for the government to control your identity.
The people should demand that everything about themselves is owned by them and the government has no right to it.Our name, data, ID cards, money, clothing, whatever owned or is part of a person's identity or life should be entirely controlled by the individual and the government should have no authority to remove it, control it, access it or do anything with it. In truth, the government should not have to know anything about me except the fact I represent a number in the census count.
Today, the governments in america lay claim to own all of your IDs, such as a passport. The government should issue a passport but short of criminal investigation, the government should have no authority to revoke or take back a passport for any reason, it is yours, your name and as a free individual, you have the right to receive and keep your passport at all times. The government does not need to know when , where or how you transfer your money. The government does not need to know you travel to many different countries, at least when it comes to friendly countries or ones that are at least not antagonistic to the US. The government does not need to know where you work or why.
The bottom line is you and your identity are yours. Identity theft is prevalent because it is the fact the government refuses to make laws protecting your claim to yourself to provide the government access to your data and your activities, which allows for Identity theft to occur. If they made you the sole owner of your own identity, you would be able to protect yourself from criminals and government intrusion because in both cases it is access provided to the government, which gives criminals access as well.
Other countries are claiming similar reasons for bans on blackberries but another unspoken reason is censorship. These less than free countries want to be able to scan and search for those who disparage their governments. America is almost there. The US government already tracks everything you do, anywhere in the world or at least they are trying. Already they are trying to pass laws that makes it impossible to have a blog such as this one or TV stations, or radio or other sources of information which disparages the democrats and their socialist agenda.
When the government already has access to everything you say and do, , giving themselves the power to take over anything they wish, how long before they are banning blackberries here?
Sunday, March 21, 2010
We the people who are patriots of America are patriots of the idea of government created by the people as defined by the Founding Fathers of this country. We are not obligated to stay in a place where the Constitution no longer applies. I am a patriot of the America where freedom is assured, with a government based on the Constitution created from natural law, my rights are mine to define, the government protects my rights and I can pursue my happiness and live my life anyway I choose. America is not this land, it is the people. It is the 45% of the population that still believes the founding fathers created the best country in history.
Ms Rand has a good idea. Why not have Americans take their skills and money to a place that welcomes us. Everyone wants to come to America. What most don't realize is America is the people. It is our attitude, our morals and our culture. We can bring America to any country we adopt and perhaps we should. We can always move back once the progressives and their supporters collapse in their own misery. Why should we stay and let them take everything from us and follow them into the oblivion of socialism they want so much.
Perhaps we could appeal to some country in the world, that is willing to take Americans in and let us transform them into the America people want to immigrate too.
Isn't the saying that home is where ever you and your loved ones are? America is it's people and we can form this government anywhere in the world. Perhaps we should do something as daring as the Founders and separate ourselves from our oppressors so we can again follow the path leading to the American dream. We should want to have the dream back. The democrats and their supporters have a different dream, one where everyone is equally miserable. The American dream is still alive, it just needs a home because clearly the Democrats have decided to alienate and make unwelcome the American dream and anyone who still believes in that dream.
Any government reading this outside of the the United States, consider this idea. If you make laws that welcome Americans as immigrants, you will likely find many willing to relocate. We have money, ethics, skills, morals, fortitude and always do everything possible to help as evidenced by our worldwide generosity. If you believe as we do, that America is a great country, perhaps you can make a second America one based on the original ideas of America and have the American people move to your country and help you create a new and potentially a country that exceeds the greatest nations that have existed in the past.