Monday, February 21, 2011

Forced Unionism - the Debate between right to work laws that prevent unions from forcing people to join

It is shocking there is a debate about freedom vs a group declaring itself a union being able to force anyone to join or even be affected by their existence.

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 Government has no rights in the US Constitution

There are no rights in the Constitution for any person or entity. The people have unalienable rights that exist as soon as the individual exists, no government grants rights nor can a government remove them. Unalienable rights can't be taken or removed by any means. A person can't sign them away, give them up, nor can a group of people vote them away. God can't remove them any more than judgments from a supreme court. The individual defines what they are and no method exists to change rights into privileges to allow the Government to take it away.

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 Original Fair Tax is still fair

The original constitution had a fair tax before the progressive liberals changed it.

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?

The White House released a budget estimate today for 3.7 Trillion USD.
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?

Muslim tyrants fall

Events in Tunisia and Egypt with currently occurring protests in Algeria, Bahrain and Yemen to remove Muslim Tyrants all show the failure of the UN and progressive liberal policies of moral equivalency as justification to form any kind of diplomatic relationship with tyrants.

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.