I am going on the record to say that this is the last post on this particular topic, unless something major comes about. It is just a topic that pokes in the eye of the plan of the elite government and how they feel they are a better parent than you. They believe that if they take the kids away from the parents, then they have the ability to indoctrinate and brainwash the children of this country and then they have the next generation right where they want them. Why do you think they want to do away with the traditional 2 parent family (they have payouts known as welfare and wic to help further the single parent family, i mean they dangle that in front of the family and then tell the women "leave the family we'll help you out, you don't Need to work anything out". Then they have you, because if they are good enough to help to take care of you, then certainly they have your best interest, right?), do away with Homeschooling (thus making you kids be brainwashed by the government, plaster the media at all times about the government (they bombard with a vast array of confusing viewpoints to confuse you enough to where you will blindly follow)?
Well i veered off course a little, but it was a point i wanted to make. My main point is another story about boys being abused at the Mormon Sect that was raided. They say now that they boys show signs of abuse because there are signs of some of the boys have suffered broken bones. Well duh, they are young boys. How many young kids do you know that have suffered broken bones? Does that mean that there was abuse? No! Again Hell No!
It is yet another attempt for the government to disrupt these peoples lives and take the kids to a place where they can brainwash them, into how good the government is. These are people that stayed away from the normal happenings of life to "shield" themselves from the evils as they they feel them to be. And i guess if you don't immerse yourself in tv, radio, or government sanctions books and magazine, they have to do what is necessary to get in your head.
Lets hear it for the Nazi youth of today! We have got to demand an end to this while there is still a chance.
Viva Liberty!
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Stop The Bleeding!
Stop the Bleeding of Americans!
It seems these days that politicians think they can do as they please with our money and have no consequences for their actions. Well i am going to call them out, and hopefully everyone that reads this blog will do the same. It is time to stand up and show them who they work for. Yes they are employed by the government but who pays the paychecks. WE DO! It is our money that they pillage from us by way of taxes. And the sad part is we have given them the ability to do as they please, without repercussion. They believe it is their money to do with as they see fit. When in actuality they are the stewards of the money.
I also think it is time to call a boycott of sorts of the politicians that overstep their bounds as a politician, escpecially when it comes to our money. It is time to stop voting for these people at all cost. I have the "lesser of 2 evils" approach of voting that most people do. However if you vote for the lesser of two evils, guess what, you are still voting for an evil. No other way around it. It is time to withhold our vote for the major candidates and change the scenario to where we are voting for the greater of 2 goods. This means voting for someone other than the Republicrats and Democans. This means voting for a third party. One who has morals, not just verbal morals, but actual morals. Even if this envolves doing a right in for the likes of Ron Paul, or voting for the Libertarian Candidates like Dr Mary Ruwart. We must do it before we continue down the highway to Socialist Beach Resort called Hell!
What gets me on this topic is this. hillary clinton (i refuse to caplitalize her name, that should only be used for respectable people) is in a report about earmarks. These are pet projects that Congressman try to slip into legislation to get passage. Like if there is a bill on Military spending, the Congressman will slip in an earmark for $150,000 for a local swim park in their voting district. It is basically wastefull spending that would get passage if it was in a bill by itself. Well for next year clinton wants to put in atleast $2.3 billion in earmarks.
It is wastefull spending like this that needs to be reigned in. It is time for us to stand up and put people in place do be stewards to us, not the other way around. Join with me people and take a stand!
Viva Liberty!
It seems these days that politicians think they can do as they please with our money and have no consequences for their actions. Well i am going to call them out, and hopefully everyone that reads this blog will do the same. It is time to stand up and show them who they work for. Yes they are employed by the government but who pays the paychecks. WE DO! It is our money that they pillage from us by way of taxes. And the sad part is we have given them the ability to do as they please, without repercussion. They believe it is their money to do with as they see fit. When in actuality they are the stewards of the money.
I also think it is time to call a boycott of sorts of the politicians that overstep their bounds as a politician, escpecially when it comes to our money. It is time to stop voting for these people at all cost. I have the "lesser of 2 evils" approach of voting that most people do. However if you vote for the lesser of two evils, guess what, you are still voting for an evil. No other way around it. It is time to withhold our vote for the major candidates and change the scenario to where we are voting for the greater of 2 goods. This means voting for someone other than the Republicrats and Democans. This means voting for a third party. One who has morals, not just verbal morals, but actual morals. Even if this envolves doing a right in for the likes of Ron Paul, or voting for the Libertarian Candidates like Dr Mary Ruwart. We must do it before we continue down the highway to Socialist Beach Resort called Hell!
What gets me on this topic is this. hillary clinton (i refuse to caplitalize her name, that should only be used for respectable people) is in a report about earmarks. These are pet projects that Congressman try to slip into legislation to get passage. Like if there is a bill on Military spending, the Congressman will slip in an earmark for $150,000 for a local swim park in their voting district. It is basically wastefull spending that would get passage if it was in a bill by itself. Well for next year clinton wants to put in atleast $2.3 billion in earmarks.
It is wastefull spending like this that needs to be reigned in. It is time for us to stand up and put people in place do be stewards to us, not the other way around. Join with me people and take a stand!
Viva Liberty!
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Yet Another Sign of Government Failures
The government has failed us and themselves once again. I know it shouldnt really surprise us that much, after all it is a daily occurance now a days. However the failure has permeated into a criminal empire and that has bled into the low lifes that have vowed our demise, the governments favorite enemy (besides our rights of course) Terrorists.
It seems that after all this talk of the dangers of Tobacco, and the governments self-righteous belief that they need to shelter us from all harm, it has spawned into something the government couldn't even imagine.
There is a story on Fox News today about Cigarette Smugglers are sending some of there profits to groups such as Hamas and Al Qaida. It seems that criminal organizations are buy cigarette products in New York from Indian Reservations that can sell them tax free and at a non-government regulated price and the bringing them into large cities in New York and selling them for a much higher regulated price.
As always when the government tries to put their hand on something to artificially regulate something, it always goes wrong. This is the governments attempt to outlaw tobacco products, they regulate the products or service to manipulate the price high to stifle demand, but demand doesn't go down, they just acquire the product illegally. Need an example, look no further that another failed attempt of a Socialistic agenda of Alcohol Prohibition in this country in the early part of the last century.
It is time to call for the governments end to price manipulation and regulation. Let the free market handle things for itself. When true competition is allowed to run free everyone wins because value increases, prices decreases, and government can't righteously screw things up.
In this case, governments screw up only funds the exact organization that they have "sworn" to defeat. How can you defeat an enemy that you help fund (even indirectly)? That would be like the US giving money to England in WWII to give to the Nazi's that they were also at war with. Just doesn't make sense, But its the government, so why should it!
Viva Liberty!
It seems that after all this talk of the dangers of Tobacco, and the governments self-righteous belief that they need to shelter us from all harm, it has spawned into something the government couldn't even imagine.
There is a story on Fox News today about Cigarette Smugglers are sending some of there profits to groups such as Hamas and Al Qaida. It seems that criminal organizations are buy cigarette products in New York from Indian Reservations that can sell them tax free and at a non-government regulated price and the bringing them into large cities in New York and selling them for a much higher regulated price.
As always when the government tries to put their hand on something to artificially regulate something, it always goes wrong. This is the governments attempt to outlaw tobacco products, they regulate the products or service to manipulate the price high to stifle demand, but demand doesn't go down, they just acquire the product illegally. Need an example, look no further that another failed attempt of a Socialistic agenda of Alcohol Prohibition in this country in the early part of the last century.
It is time to call for the governments end to price manipulation and regulation. Let the free market handle things for itself. When true competition is allowed to run free everyone wins because value increases, prices decreases, and government can't righteously screw things up.
In this case, governments screw up only funds the exact organization that they have "sworn" to defeat. How can you defeat an enemy that you help fund (even indirectly)? That would be like the US giving money to England in WWII to give to the Nazi's that they were also at war with. Just doesn't make sense, But its the government, so why should it!
Viva Liberty!
Monday, April 28, 2008
The Fall Out Continues
As most of you already know, i am not all impressed with the major political candidates. Frankly i think that Barack and Hillary would take us down the cliff to Socialist Bay faster than FDR did in the '30's. Now don't get me wrong, McCain with him coming close to senility, might drive the car there faster than the other two. So you know that i do not like Barack and would not vote for him even if he was the only candidate running.
However, there is some flak he is taking right now that i do not agree with. This deals with his former minister Rev Wright. Remember this is Obama's preacher that was secretly video taped giving a sermon about what he thought of America, remember "G-d bless America, Well i say G-d D**n America". So needless to say this created a humongous backlash in the media. And Obama is still feeling the pressure for it.
I feel this pressure is misplaced. Now i will go on record stating emphatically that i do not agree with the words Rev. Wright used. If i ever step into a church where. what i would look at as hatred, were being spewed i would leave and never return to that church. Mainly because words such as that are devisive and go against my beliefs. But they are not words that are from Barack.
But the more important thing here on this topic is this THE CONSTITUTION.
The constitution guarantees us the right to the freedom of speech. So in this instance i have to stand up with Rev. Wright for that simple fact. Many people will toute freedom of speech all day long as long as no one says anything that offends them. The Constitution defends all speech, even speech that offends. We as citizens can not sit around and think that when people say something that we don't like, that they should not be allowed to say such words. Even if i don't agree with the things coming out of your mouth, i still have to fight for your right to say it. The constitution of this great country is a document that guarantees freedoms to everyone, not to just the people we like or agree with.
Its time we get back to the basics on what this country means to us. Stand up for each others rights, regardless of what they say. If you let your neighbors rights be violated because what he said offends you, how long wil it take for your rights to be violated also?
As i believe Voltaire once said "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. "
Viva Liberty!
However, there is some flak he is taking right now that i do not agree with. This deals with his former minister Rev Wright. Remember this is Obama's preacher that was secretly video taped giving a sermon about what he thought of America, remember "G-d bless America, Well i say G-d D**n America". So needless to say this created a humongous backlash in the media. And Obama is still feeling the pressure for it.
I feel this pressure is misplaced. Now i will go on record stating emphatically that i do not agree with the words Rev. Wright used. If i ever step into a church where. what i would look at as hatred, were being spewed i would leave and never return to that church. Mainly because words such as that are devisive and go against my beliefs. But they are not words that are from Barack.
But the more important thing here on this topic is this THE CONSTITUTION.
The constitution guarantees us the right to the freedom of speech. So in this instance i have to stand up with Rev. Wright for that simple fact. Many people will toute freedom of speech all day long as long as no one says anything that offends them. The Constitution defends all speech, even speech that offends. We as citizens can not sit around and think that when people say something that we don't like, that they should not be allowed to say such words. Even if i don't agree with the things coming out of your mouth, i still have to fight for your right to say it. The constitution of this great country is a document that guarantees freedoms to everyone, not to just the people we like or agree with.
Its time we get back to the basics on what this country means to us. Stand up for each others rights, regardless of what they say. If you let your neighbors rights be violated because what he said offends you, how long wil it take for your rights to be violated also?
As i believe Voltaire once said "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. "
Viva Liberty!
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Calling for Assistance
Well as most of you know the news these days have been rather slow news days. Each days headlines are pretty much a regurgitation of the story's from the day before. Also most of my blog entries here are based on the headlines of the day, it just makes sense to do so because "the now" are what most people are concerned about. I refuse to regurgitate my same thoughts over and over on the same topic. I don't mind blogging on the same topic if it deals with the a different part of the topic that i might not have dealt with fully with before. Anyways, i would like for some topics to write on. So please send me your topics of interest, or if you want to do a guest post just send it to me and i might put it up if it fits in with the other types of items. The only thing i ask is that it deal with politics.
Viva Liberty!
Viva Liberty!
In The Paper Yet Again
I sent in a letter to the Stroller in our local paper dealing with the new DUI law here in SC. So i am going to post my initial letter, followed by a response from another person, and then a response to his letter.
My Initial Letter:
'NOT THE ANSWER': Jamie A. Steele of Lyman declares South Carolina's new driving under the influence law unconstitutional. "DUI is out of control in this state, however, stomping on the Constitution to bring it under control is not the answer," he argues. "The new law allows a past DUI charge to be taken into account when there is a new DUI charge, thus making a new conviction carry more punishment. This basically is punishing you twice for the same crime."
The response from another citizen:
'OFF HIS ROCKER': Nick Reed of Campobello says Jamie A. Steele is "off his rocker" with his assessment of the state's new driving under the influence law. "Not checking for past DUI offenses is why this state has had so many get away with keeping their driving privileges, going out and killing and maiming again and again," responds Mr. Reed. "Habitual DUI violators should not be allowed to hide behind the liberal interpretation of the Constitution."
Now my yet to be published response:
In response to Nick Reed, The Constitution can not be changed on a case by case basis. There is a problem with habitual DUI's in this state, but not adhering to the Constitution is not the answer. When you base future punishment on past completed convictions you are being punished twice for the same crime, this is also known as Double Jeopardy. The Constitution protects everyone, not just people who are not convicted felons.
Viva Liberty!
My Initial Letter:
'NOT THE ANSWER': Jamie A. Steele of Lyman declares South Carolina's new driving under the influence law unconstitutional. "DUI is out of control in this state, however, stomping on the Constitution to bring it under control is not the answer," he argues. "The new law allows a past DUI charge to be taken into account when there is a new DUI charge, thus making a new conviction carry more punishment. This basically is punishing you twice for the same crime."
The response from another citizen:
'OFF HIS ROCKER': Nick Reed of Campobello says Jamie A. Steele is "off his rocker" with his assessment of the state's new driving under the influence law. "Not checking for past DUI offenses is why this state has had so many get away with keeping their driving privileges, going out and killing and maiming again and again," responds Mr. Reed. "Habitual DUI violators should not be allowed to hide behind the liberal interpretation of the Constitution."
Now my yet to be published response:
In response to Nick Reed, The Constitution can not be changed on a case by case basis. There is a problem with habitual DUI's in this state, but not adhering to the Constitution is not the answer. When you base future punishment on past completed convictions you are being punished twice for the same crime, this is also known as Double Jeopardy. The Constitution protects everyone, not just people who are not convicted felons.
Viva Liberty!
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Former President... Failed Yet Again
I have been reading lately alot about the big bad former president Jimmy Carter going on a whirlwind rampage through the middle east to bring peace. Well atleast that is what he and his mindless cronies are calling it. In fact the only thing he did accomplish is to meet with the head of a terrorist organization. The same organization that lobs deadly projectiles into a foriegn country to see the citizens die.
Well today i read a headline today that read "Carter didn't achieve anything" talking on his trip to the middle east. What makes this failure think he is going to change anything. He was a failure as a politician, he was a failure as the president, and he is now showing he can excel even more as a failure as a diplomat. Not a true diplomat, just a self appointed diplomat.
To tell you the truth i am sick and tired of ex presidents doing everything they can to keep their name in the papers by making themselves think that they are important to the people of this country. Clinton and Carter both have turned into nothing more than media whores. I mean do they really think the American people think that much of them.
Whats happened to the day where ex-presidents left office gracefully and went quietly into retirement to enjoy their life? Well gone are those days.
Anyways Mr Former President Of Unfathomable Failures. Politics left you behind before you even came into office, there it is time for you to leave politics. The current government is doing just fine at failing, it doesn't need your help or support!
Viva Liberty!
Well today i read a headline today that read "Carter didn't achieve anything" talking on his trip to the middle east. What makes this failure think he is going to change anything. He was a failure as a politician, he was a failure as the president, and he is now showing he can excel even more as a failure as a diplomat. Not a true diplomat, just a self appointed diplomat.
To tell you the truth i am sick and tired of ex presidents doing everything they can to keep their name in the papers by making themselves think that they are important to the people of this country. Clinton and Carter both have turned into nothing more than media whores. I mean do they really think the American people think that much of them.
Whats happened to the day where ex-presidents left office gracefully and went quietly into retirement to enjoy their life? Well gone are those days.
Anyways Mr Former President Of Unfathomable Failures. Politics left you behind before you even came into office, there it is time for you to leave politics. The current government is doing just fine at failing, it doesn't need your help or support!
Viva Liberty!
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Stomp on the Constitution....Yet Again
It seems today that more and more politicians and judges feel that the Constitution is only important in a few instances at best and a doormat the rest of the time. I will go on the record stating that it can not be this way. The Constitution is the most important Governmental Paperwork ever written, it gives us "the commoners" (as the elitist politicians believe us to be) rights to keep the government from getting out of hand. I have said it many times, the Constitution is there to protect the people from the government, NOT to protect the government from the people.
The reason i say it is this. There is a case that went to the Supreme Court. It all happened in Virginia, where a man named David Lee Moore was pulled over for a suspended license, which in Virginia is a minor crime that results in a ticket for court and being released on your way. Well the police arrested the man and searched his vehicle were drugs were found. He was subsequently convicted to 3 1/2 years in prison.
He took it to court, the Virginia state Supreme Court where it was ruled that the arrest was invalid, therefore the search and conviction for drugs were to be thrown out, because the initial arrest was illegal therefore the drug charge was in turn illegal. Not to be outdone, the gestapo took it to the US Supreme Court.
Well have no fear, the Supreme Court didn't let us down. They took their cue and stomped on the Constitution just like a Samoan man in golf shoes. They ruled that the search was legal and constitutional. Now i have a problem seeing how it can be. If the steps that the police took were in fact illegal then any resulting findings and subsequent charges and convictions are also illegal.
When will the raping of our Constitution quit? And when will those sworn to uphold the constitution be Forced to Uphold it?
Viva Liberty!
The reason i say it is this. There is a case that went to the Supreme Court. It all happened in Virginia, where a man named David Lee Moore was pulled over for a suspended license, which in Virginia is a minor crime that results in a ticket for court and being released on your way. Well the police arrested the man and searched his vehicle were drugs were found. He was subsequently convicted to 3 1/2 years in prison.
He took it to court, the Virginia state Supreme Court where it was ruled that the arrest was invalid, therefore the search and conviction for drugs were to be thrown out, because the initial arrest was illegal therefore the drug charge was in turn illegal. Not to be outdone, the gestapo took it to the US Supreme Court.
Well have no fear, the Supreme Court didn't let us down. They took their cue and stomped on the Constitution just like a Samoan man in golf shoes. They ruled that the search was legal and constitutional. Now i have a problem seeing how it can be. If the steps that the police took were in fact illegal then any resulting findings and subsequent charges and convictions are also illegal.
When will the raping of our Constitution quit? And when will those sworn to uphold the constitution be Forced to Uphold it?
Viva Liberty!
Finally The Truth on Oil
This is an article that i got in my email.
Economics 101: The Price of Gas
by Sterling T. Terrell, sterling.terrell@ttu.edu
Gas prices are up and oil executives are once again testifying before
Congress. Clearly, many politicians, pundits, and consumers lament the
rising cost of gas. Before we join them in their chorus, let us take a step
back and ask this question: Are gas prices really all that high?
A change in price can be a result of inflation, taxes, changes in supply and
demand, or any combination of the three.
First, we need to take into account inflation. The result of the Federal
Reserve printing too much money is a loss of purchasing power of the dollar:
something that cost $1.00 in 1950 would cost about $8.78 today. As for gas
prices, in 1950 the price of gas was approximately 30 cents per gallon.
Adjusted for inflation, a gallon of gas today should cost right at $2.64,
assuming taxes are the same.
But taxes have not stayed the same. The tax per gallon of gas in 1950 was
roughly 1.5% of the price. Today, federal, state, and local taxes account
for approximately 20% of gas's posted price. Taking inflation and the
increase in taxes into account (assuming no change in supply or demand) the
same gallon of gas that cost 30 cents in 1950 should today cost about $3.13.
Neither have supply or demand remained constant. The world economy is
growing. China and India are obvious examples. At the same time, Americans
continue to love driving SUVs and trucks. As for supply, we are prohibited
(whatever the reasons may be) from using many of the known oil reserves in
our own country. Furthermore, due to government regulation, the last oil
refinery built in the United States was completed in 1976. In addition, the
Middle East is politically unstable which leads to a risk premium on the
world's major source of oil. It is obvious that the demand for oil has grown
while supplies have been restricted.
The average price of gas in the United States today is approximately $3.25.
The question is, why are gas prices not higher than they are?
Blaming greedy oil companies on the rising price of gas is simply
irresponsible. The profit margins of a few selected industries are as
follows:
Periodical Publishing 24.9%
Application Software 22.5%
Tobacco 19%
Shipping 18.8%
Water Utilities 10.2%
Major Integrated Oil and Gas 9.5%
Drugstores 2.8%
Hospitals 1.4%
The water utility industry has higher profit margins than major oil and gas
firms! Why isn't every CEO with profit margins above that of the oil
companies made to testify before Congress for "price gouging"?
Clearly, greedy corporate profits are not the issue.
Again, while just over nine percent of the price of a gallon of gas goes to
oil company profits, approximately twenty percent of the price of a gallon
of gas is composed of federal, state, and local taxes.
Those who want the government to step in and do something about the high
price of gas are either forgetful of recent history or too young to remember
the oil crisis of 1979. During that time, restrictions on the price of
gasoline led to the inability of some to find gas at all. Price ceilings
always lead to shortages. The only thing worse than having to pay "too much"
for gas is not being able to find gas at any price.
Let us not be swayed by politicians out for power or by reporters out to
create news where none exists. Facts and economic logic should prevail
rather than rhetoric.
Sterling T. Terrell is a Ph.D. candidate in the department of agricultural
and applied economics at Texas Tech University.
Economics 101: The Price of Gas
by Sterling T. Terrell, sterling.terrell@
Gas prices are up and oil executives are once again testifying before
Congress. Clearly, many politicians, pundits, and consumers lament the
rising cost of gas. Before we join them in their chorus, let us take a step
back and ask this question: Are gas prices really all that high?
A change in price can be a result of inflation, taxes, changes in supply and
demand, or any combination of the three.
First, we need to take into account inflation. The result of the Federal
Reserve printing too much money is a loss of purchasing power of the dollar:
something that cost $1.00 in 1950 would cost about $8.78 today. As for gas
prices, in 1950 the price of gas was approximately 30 cents per gallon.
Adjusted for inflation, a gallon of gas today should cost right at $2.64,
assuming taxes are the same.
But taxes have not stayed the same. The tax per gallon of gas in 1950 was
roughly 1.5% of the price. Today, federal, state, and local taxes account
for approximately 20% of gas's posted price. Taking inflation and the
increase in taxes into account (assuming no change in supply or demand) the
same gallon of gas that cost 30 cents in 1950 should today cost about $3.13.
Neither have supply or demand remained constant. The world economy is
growing. China and India are obvious examples. At the same time, Americans
continue to love driving SUVs and trucks. As for supply, we are prohibited
(whatever the reasons may be) from using many of the known oil reserves in
our own country. Furthermore, due to government regulation, the last oil
refinery built in the United States was completed in 1976. In addition, the
Middle East is politically unstable which leads to a risk premium on the
world's major source of oil. It is obvious that the demand for oil has grown
while supplies have been restricted.
The average price of gas in the United States today is approximately $3.25.
The question is, why are gas prices not higher than they are?
Blaming greedy oil companies on the rising price of gas is simply
irresponsible. The profit margins of a few selected industries are as
follows:
Periodical Publishing 24.9%
Application Software 22.5%
Tobacco 19%
Shipping 18.8%
Water Utilities 10.2%
Major Integrated Oil and Gas 9.5%
Drugstores 2.8%
Hospitals 1.4%
The water utility industry has higher profit margins than major oil and gas
firms! Why isn't every CEO with profit margins above that of the oil
companies made to testify before Congress for "price gouging"?
Clearly, greedy corporate profits are not the issue.
Again, while just over nine percent of the price of a gallon of gas goes to
oil company profits, approximately twenty percent of the price of a gallon
of gas is composed of federal, state, and local taxes.
Those who want the government to step in and do something about the high
price of gas are either forgetful of recent history or too young to remember
the oil crisis of 1979. During that time, restrictions on the price of
gasoline led to the inability of some to find gas at all. Price ceilings
always lead to shortages. The only thing worse than having to pay "too much"
for gas is not being able to find gas at any price.
Let us not be swayed by politicians out for power or by reporters out to
create news where none exists. Facts and economic logic should prevail
rather than rhetoric.
Sterling T. Terrell is a Ph.D. candidate in the department of agricultural
and applied economics at Texas Tech University.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Getting Ready for the Backlash
I already anticipate to get alot of heat from some readers for this post. But i have to say what i have to say, and stand up for the rights of our citizens, even if they don't want to stand up, and even if people don't agree. We all have the freedom of speech, regardless to if we agree with the speech or not.
Well alright, now i will unleash the floodgates.
I'm sure we have all heard today about the young man in Chesterfield, SC that was arrested over the weekend for plotting to blow up his school. For those that haven't heard, his parents turned him in after a 10lb package of Ammonium Nitrate arrived at their house. Ammonium Nitrate is used as a fertilizer, but also, more sinisterly used to create bombs, such as the one used in Oklahoma City. Now when the police responded, they found a diary that talked about his plans to create another Columbine.
Now he is sitting in jail, on charges of attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction, facing a possible life sentence.
Now i would like to say kudos to the parents for stepping up and helping to keep this terrible tragedy from becoming a reality.
However i think the road that the authorities are taking are wrong. This young man did have a terrible plan that he wanted to execute. I do not deny this one bit, and i think that is why most people will side with punishing him as much as possible. The problem i have is this, it is illegal to put some one on trial for planning on doing something. If i plan to speed, is that a reason to give me a ticket. In these situations i agree that something needs to be done to stop these problems from happening, but locking people up for something they were planning is not the answer. This creates a situation where if you are thought to have been thinking of planning something like this, then you could be punished for it.
I think people need not rush to judgment on items such as this and think of what alternatives could be taken without government involvement. When government gets involved more rights are lost.
It seems to me that more work needs to done by parents to help ensure that these problems don't keep arising. Communication is key.
Viva Liberty!
Well alright, now i will unleash the floodgates.
I'm sure we have all heard today about the young man in Chesterfield, SC that was arrested over the weekend for plotting to blow up his school. For those that haven't heard, his parents turned him in after a 10lb package of Ammonium Nitrate arrived at their house. Ammonium Nitrate is used as a fertilizer, but also, more sinisterly used to create bombs, such as the one used in Oklahoma City. Now when the police responded, they found a diary that talked about his plans to create another Columbine.
Now he is sitting in jail, on charges of attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction, facing a possible life sentence.
Now i would like to say kudos to the parents for stepping up and helping to keep this terrible tragedy from becoming a reality.
However i think the road that the authorities are taking are wrong. This young man did have a terrible plan that he wanted to execute. I do not deny this one bit, and i think that is why most people will side with punishing him as much as possible. The problem i have is this, it is illegal to put some one on trial for planning on doing something. If i plan to speed, is that a reason to give me a ticket. In these situations i agree that something needs to be done to stop these problems from happening, but locking people up for something they were planning is not the answer. This creates a situation where if you are thought to have been thinking of planning something like this, then you could be punished for it.
I think people need not rush to judgment on items such as this and think of what alternatives could be taken without government involvement. When government gets involved more rights are lost.
It seems to me that more work needs to done by parents to help ensure that these problems don't keep arising. Communication is key.
Viva Liberty!
Local Politicians With A Brain?
I know my heading is more of an oxymoron these days, but it is true.
After the recent ruling by the SC State Supreme Court stating that smoking bans by government are not unconstitutional , more and more local governments are starting to usurp their own authority to force smokes out of public places such as restaurants and bars.
Now i have stated here before of what my thoughts are on this. I believe this is completely wrong and the Supreme Court here in this state are completely off of their rockers, or wheelchairs.
Anyways, i do have to say that they City Council here in Spartanburg used their brains in at least this situation. They could have ruled, like so many other city's and county's and trampled on the smoking citizenry's rights. However they decided to turn the decision over to the business's to decide. This is exactly the way it should be. It is private property is it not! With the businesses in control, they are the ones who will pay if it is the wrong decision will they not, not the government. They should hold the key to their own prosperity, not the government.
So i just want to say congrats, the politicians that actually decided to do the right thing and give the people the power back, at least in this situation.
Viva Liberty!
After the recent ruling by the SC State Supreme Court stating that smoking bans by government are not unconstitutional , more and more local governments are starting to usurp their own authority to force smokes out of public places such as restaurants and bars.
Now i have stated here before of what my thoughts are on this. I believe this is completely wrong and the Supreme Court here in this state are completely off of their rockers, or wheelchairs.
Anyways, i do have to say that they City Council here in Spartanburg used their brains in at least this situation. They could have ruled, like so many other city's and county's and trampled on the smoking citizenry's rights. However they decided to turn the decision over to the business's to decide. This is exactly the way it should be. It is private property is it not! With the businesses in control, they are the ones who will pay if it is the wrong decision will they not, not the government. They should hold the key to their own prosperity, not the government.
So i just want to say congrats, the politicians that actually decided to do the right thing and give the people the power back, at least in this situation.
Viva Liberty!
Legal Robbery
Imagine this scenario for me. You work in a bank, a person comes in and tells you "Give me your money". Now what do you do? You give them the money. But why do you give them the money? It is because it is the right thing to do? No, you know it is far from being the right thing to do. Is it because you are pressured into to doing it? Well sort of. The main reason is because you do not want to receive the "punishment" that this person may give you for not obeying their order. You give in because if not you will be made to submit to this persons will be way of force.
Now this is an abstract scenario, but i ask you this for a reason. Where is it right to force ably make someone to obey orders? This spits in the face of what we teach our children, do what is right, don't be mean to others, don't take things that don't belong to you, the list goes on and on.
The main reason for getting you to think hard of the previous scenario is to present you with this. It has been proven to be wrong to forcefully take something from someone else. Would you sit around and let this happen to someone you know. Hopefully not. Then why do we all sit around and passively let the government of this country do that to us on a constant basis. One of the main ways they do it is with taxes. They forceably take money from you each year and there is nothing you can do about it. Sure you can not file your taxes, but there will come a day when you will have to and they take from you the back taxes and fines and fees. How do the force you to pay? By throwing you in jail, taking your money, garnishing your wages, taking your possessions. So they make you pay them by fear of force.
The Congressmen and the Director of the IRS have it all wrong when they make the idiotic statements that the tax system is a voluntary system. Giving to charity is a voluntary system, going to church is voluntary. When did a church force you to attend? Never, because it is then a forced system not a voluntary system. If you do not pay your taxes you are punished BY FORCE. Therefore it is Not a voluntary system.
It is time to stand up to this legalized thievery and oppression by force, it is time to demand the pillaging to cease. It is time to let the government know that we will not stand by and let them take what is ours by force.
"People should not fear the government, Government should fear the people"
Viva Liberty!
Now this is an abstract scenario, but i ask you this for a reason. Where is it right to force ably make someone to obey orders? This spits in the face of what we teach our children, do what is right, don't be mean to others, don't take things that don't belong to you, the list goes on and on.
The main reason for getting you to think hard of the previous scenario is to present you with this. It has been proven to be wrong to forcefully take something from someone else. Would you sit around and let this happen to someone you know. Hopefully not. Then why do we all sit around and passively let the government of this country do that to us on a constant basis. One of the main ways they do it is with taxes. They forceably take money from you each year and there is nothing you can do about it. Sure you can not file your taxes, but there will come a day when you will have to and they take from you the back taxes and fines and fees. How do the force you to pay? By throwing you in jail, taking your money, garnishing your wages, taking your possessions. So they make you pay them by fear of force.
The Congressmen and the Director of the IRS have it all wrong when they make the idiotic statements that the tax system is a voluntary system. Giving to charity is a voluntary system, going to church is voluntary. When did a church force you to attend? Never, because it is then a forced system not a voluntary system. If you do not pay your taxes you are punished BY FORCE. Therefore it is Not a voluntary system.
It is time to stand up to this legalized thievery and oppression by force, it is time to demand the pillaging to cease. It is time to let the government know that we will not stand by and let them take what is ours by force.
"People should not fear the government, Government should fear the people"
Viva Liberty!
Monday, April 21, 2008
From the Duh! Files
There is a story in the local paper over the past few weeks about a former pastor from here in Spartanburg, that is imprisoned in Russia. He is imprisoned in Russia for bringing hunting ammunition into the country from the US. He was on a mission trip to Russia. Now he has been locked up in Russia awaiting trial on these charges. Today in the paper it says he was convicted to 3 years for bringing the ammunition.
Now in this article, it says he was bringing the ammunition for a friend. Now i do not know this former preacher and have never met him. With this , i would like to say that his reasoning does not make sense. It really sounds like an answer a teenager would give when they are caught. I mean it sounds like the time my parents found alcohol in my car when i was in high school. Guess what my answer to my parents was, If you guessed i told them it belonged to a friend of mine, you would be right.
In closing, this has to be the craziest thing i have ever read. One i don't think the former pastor is being truthful. I also don't see how this would even seem to be alright. I would never even think about taking anything weapon related on a plane, much less one leaving the country. What begs explanation is this, with security the way it is in airports, why is not ok to take a fingernail file on a plane but it is ok to take ammunition?
Utterly ridiculous!
Viva Liberty!
Now in this article, it says he was bringing the ammunition for a friend. Now i do not know this former preacher and have never met him. With this , i would like to say that his reasoning does not make sense. It really sounds like an answer a teenager would give when they are caught. I mean it sounds like the time my parents found alcohol in my car when i was in high school. Guess what my answer to my parents was, If you guessed i told them it belonged to a friend of mine, you would be right.
In closing, this has to be the craziest thing i have ever read. One i don't think the former pastor is being truthful. I also don't see how this would even seem to be alright. I would never even think about taking anything weapon related on a plane, much less one leaving the country. What begs explanation is this, with security the way it is in airports, why is not ok to take a fingernail file on a plane but it is ok to take ammunition?
Utterly ridiculous!
Viva Liberty!
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Slippery Slope of Societal Norms
Now i want to start off saying that my intent here is to not slam the Christian Faith, I am part of this faith. But i will be a little critical of some Christians and their attitudes of closed mindedness toward others.
Now i want to remind these Christians of the Societal Norms and government of the Ancient Romans. During this time, Christians were persecuted by the government because they were not understood and did not fit the societal normal behavior. Because of this, many religious leaders were falsely imprisoned and put to death for their beliefs, for the basic reason that they were a misunderstood minority.
Skip ahead to recent history. Now today we have Christianity intertwined in our Constitution, and alot of our laws. Why, some may ask? It is because in this country it is the Society Norm.
The only problem with that is this. The people in the Societal Norm tend to push their beliefs on those without. And can alienate the minority. The other problem is that Societal Norms are constantly changing and evolving. So what was the Societal Norm in the 1930's are not the same as the Societal Norm of today.
Now today i feel that those in the majority of the Societal Norm can and do pass laws against those that aren't. Basically, in a small way, persecuting the minority for their beliefs. Whether it be for Drug Use, Alcohol Use, Polygamy, Smoking, Gambling, or any of the litany of other things.
Just remember that the times will change, and if history does nothing else it will change. Now with change comes the altering of Societal Norms. What will happen when the Norms change to the point to where the Christians are once again in the minority. ? What will happen then? Who will guard the freedoms of you?
Remember that just because we do not agree with someone or their beliefs, it is their constitutional right to have those beliefs. It is like i believe Benjamin Franklin said (paraphrased): I might not agree with what you have to say, but i will fight to the death for your right to say it! Pretty strong words.
We must be considerate of others beliefs. I mean some Christians forget the golden rule when it comes to this subject. Do unto Others as you would have them do unto you! If you don't want others taking away your rights, don't take them away from them!
Viva Liberty!
Now i want to remind these Christians of the Societal Norms and government of the Ancient Romans. During this time, Christians were persecuted by the government because they were not understood and did not fit the societal normal behavior. Because of this, many religious leaders were falsely imprisoned and put to death for their beliefs, for the basic reason that they were a misunderstood minority.
Skip ahead to recent history. Now today we have Christianity intertwined in our Constitution, and alot of our laws. Why, some may ask? It is because in this country it is the Society Norm.
The only problem with that is this. The people in the Societal Norm tend to push their beliefs on those without. And can alienate the minority. The other problem is that Societal Norms are constantly changing and evolving. So what was the Societal Norm in the 1930's are not the same as the Societal Norm of today.
Now today i feel that those in the majority of the Societal Norm can and do pass laws against those that aren't. Basically, in a small way, persecuting the minority for their beliefs. Whether it be for Drug Use, Alcohol Use, Polygamy, Smoking, Gambling, or any of the litany of other things.
Just remember that the times will change, and if history does nothing else it will change. Now with change comes the altering of Societal Norms. What will happen when the Norms change to the point to where the Christians are once again in the minority. ? What will happen then? Who will guard the freedoms of you?
Remember that just because we do not agree with someone or their beliefs, it is their constitutional right to have those beliefs. It is like i believe Benjamin Franklin said (paraphrased): I might not agree with what you have to say, but i will fight to the death for your right to say it! Pretty strong words.
We must be considerate of others beliefs. I mean some Christians forget the golden rule when it comes to this subject. Do unto Others as you would have them do unto you! If you don't want others taking away your rights, don't take them away from them!
Viva Liberty!
Mormon Sect Raid - More Unconstitutional Happenings
There seems to be more news everyday since the raid on the Yearning For Zion (YFZ) Mormon Religious Sect. The more i read, the more Unconstitutional Things are coming out. Now if you read this blog on a regular basis, you will know that i have been very critical of this situation, and very vocal for these people, even though i do not believe their beliefs.
Thats the thing with rights, and protection of those rights. Just because i do not believe what they do is right, i still have a moral obligation to fight for their rights anyway. Unfortunately, the moral majority in this country do not believe this way. But how the tune will change when the current majority changes and starts to attack those that are currently in the norm. Then they will wonder why there is no one there to stand up for them.
Anyways, There are reports that the ladies at the Ranch that were taken, had their cell phones taken away, and have not been charged with any crimes. But the authorities are still refusing to release them even though they have not been charged. This SCREAMS with being Unconstitutional. You can not hold any one with out charging them with a crime. Not only is it illegal, it is Kidnapping or Abduction. No matter what it is called, IT IS WRONG.
So here is my prediction of the outcome of these events of this compound. The Men taken into custody will be released without charges, the women will eventually be released without charges, and the children will ultimately be put into Foster Care by the state even though no charges will be filed against any of the adults.
We will just have to wait and see the outcome.
Viva Liberty!
Thats the thing with rights, and protection of those rights. Just because i do not believe what they do is right, i still have a moral obligation to fight for their rights anyway. Unfortunately, the moral majority in this country do not believe this way. But how the tune will change when the current majority changes and starts to attack those that are currently in the norm. Then they will wonder why there is no one there to stand up for them.
Anyways, There are reports that the ladies at the Ranch that were taken, had their cell phones taken away, and have not been charged with any crimes. But the authorities are still refusing to release them even though they have not been charged. This SCREAMS with being Unconstitutional. You can not hold any one with out charging them with a crime. Not only is it illegal, it is Kidnapping or Abduction. No matter what it is called, IT IS WRONG.
So here is my prediction of the outcome of these events of this compound. The Men taken into custody will be released without charges, the women will eventually be released without charges, and the children will ultimately be put into Foster Care by the state even though no charges will be filed against any of the adults.
We will just have to wait and see the outcome.
Viva Liberty!
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Release the Children..... Now!
I just read a story that to me blows the top off of the whole incident with the Mormon sect raid. There is a report that the Texas Rangers are after a lady for making false reports to a Crisis Helpline that resulted in the raid on the Religious Compound.
It seems that this lady called the Hotline acting as a teenage girl named "Sarah" saying she was force to marry a much older man and that she was abused. Well now it looks like none of it was true. So this makes the search warrant baseless and invalid. So the children should be returned to their parents and the investigation should stop immediately.
So my question is... Why is the "All Knowing" government not giving the children back to this sect? Because it is the government, and the government believes it knows best what everyone needs.
It is time for the government to stop this, now proven, unconstitutional raid.
Step up America, Stand Up for Others America, Whether you believe in their beliefs or not!
Viva Liberty!
It seems that this lady called the Hotline acting as a teenage girl named "Sarah" saying she was force to marry a much older man and that she was abused. Well now it looks like none of it was true. So this makes the search warrant baseless and invalid. So the children should be returned to their parents and the investigation should stop immediately.
So my question is... Why is the "All Knowing" government not giving the children back to this sect? Because it is the government, and the government believes it knows best what everyone needs.
It is time for the government to stop this, now proven, unconstitutional raid.
Step up America, Stand Up for Others America, Whether you believe in their beliefs or not!
Viva Liberty!
Friday, April 18, 2008
Time Out for some Fun At Politicians Expense
Now it is time to take a break from the norm here. I was browsing through the news sites like i normally do to see if there was a topic that caught my attention as a topic to write on here. And i came across one that made me say to my self, lets have a good laugh today. Hey its Friday, everyone needs a good laugh especially on a Friday. So Here Goes
Sexually Related Laws from the Annals of Political Stupidity:
— If you’re in Idaho, you’re not allowed to engage in any type of public display of affection for more than 18 minutes.
— In Iowa, you've got a five-minute time limit to make out. But that’s an eternity when you consider that it’s illegal to smooch for more than one second if you’re in Halethorpe, Md.
— An ancient law in Alabama bans men from attempting to seduce "a chaste woman by means of temptation, arts, deception, flattery or a promise of marriage."
— Connecticut has a law forbidding any "private sexual behavior between consenting adults." We have to give them credit, though, for at least making this law pretty clear. An old Florida statute states that two people cannot commit "unusual acts" together, but there’s no specification as to what that means!
— An old law in California made it illegal for either partner to reach climax before the other during foreplay. ( I don't think i would want to be the Cop to witness this crime in progress)
— Florida once made it illegal to have sexual relations with a porcupine. (How did this become a law, really?)
— You can’t marry the same man three times in some Kentucky townships. (If you marry the same person 3 times, you are A) a glutton for punishment, B) Out of Your Freaking Mind, or C) Need to be locked up)
— It is illegal for men in Minnesota to have intimate sexual relationships with a live fish. ( I am not even going there!)
— If you’re a member of the Nevada legislature, you cannot conduct business, while in session, wearing a penis costume. (Ok, How Did This even get thought of to be a law. Did it actually happen?)
— In North Carolina, it’s an offense to have sex in a graveyard. ( What are the perpetrators trying to do, have the spawn of Satan!)
— Women in Dyersburg, Tenn., cannot call a man for a date.
— If their car is in motion, male drivers in Detroit are banned from "ogling" women.
— It is illegal to serenade your girlfriend in Kalamazoo, Mich. ( This one actually makes Sense after the way some people sing!)
— In Oblong, Ill., it’s illegal to have sex on your wedding day if you’re fishing or hunting. (If you wait until the day after, is it legal then.)
— A man in Ames, Iowa, cannot take more than three swallows of beer while holding his wife in his arms in bed. (What i can't have a beer bong while benchpressing my wife in bed, those bastards!)
— Alexandria, Ariz., once banned husbands from having sex with their wives if their breath smelled of sardines, garlic or onion. (Funny enough, all of those have been considered aphrodisiacs at one time or another!)
— Husbands in Willowdale, Ore., can be fined for talking dirty during intercourse, but their wives can say whatever they please. (Once again, i don't want to be the one enforcing this one)
— An old statute in Florida banned a man from kissing his wife’s breasts.
— A man cannot seduce a woman by promising to marry her in Mississippi. ( I bet its also illegal to hit a woman over the head with a club and drag her back to your cave)
— While up to 120 men can live together in Pennsylvania, it is illegal for more than 16 women to do so, since this could constitute a brothel. ( What about the prisons in the state? I'm sure they house alot more than that at one time)
— It is illegal in Utah to marry your first cousin before the age of 65.
— In Nebraska, couples sleeping at a hotel must wear the clean, cotton nightshirt provided by the hotel, even when they have sex.
— Florida has a statute making it an offense to shower in the nude. ( Taking into account the way some people smell here, i bet they abide by that statute here in SC)
— Women in New York cannot be seen wearing "body hugging clothing." (Doesn't that narrow it down to just about all of them then)
— An old Mississippi edict holds that men cannot become sexually aroused in public. (Get them off of the Viagra then)
— If you’re unmarried in North Carolina and you and your lover register yourselves as a "Mr. and Mrs." when checking into a motel, then you’re legally considered husband and wife.
— In Oklahoma, if you’re arrested for soliciting a prostitute, your name and picture will be shown on TV.
— Sex with an animal is perfectly legal for men in Washington state, as long as the animal weighs less than 40 pounds. (Another one for the "What The Hell Were They Thinking" File)
— It is illegal for a man to fire his gun in Connersville, Wis., when his lover reaches climax. ( Do What!)
— Having sex in a walk-in meat freezer is banned in Newcastle, Wyo. ( That sounds like a Cool experience.... Uh.... Um.... Thats was just wrong)
— The Arizona State Supreme Court considered it perfectly all right for women to go topless in public, since breasts weren’t deemed private parts. ( I don't think they are considered to be Public Parts)
— You can streak in Louisiana as long as you can prove to a court beyond a doubt that you had no "lascivious intent." ( I would say it would be more self-humiliating intent than Lascivious Intent)
— Couples in Carlsbad, N.M., can have sex in their parked car during their lunch break, as long as the curtains are drawn. (Where exactly do you hang the Curtain Rods? Are they talking about a Car or an RV?)
— Women in New York can go topless in public, unless it is for "business" reasons.
Now one of the first things i think of is What made these laws even a thought in a Politicians mind. The second is I wonder how much taxpayer money was wasted in the the introduction and passage of each of these laws.
Unbelievable!
Viva Liberty!
Sexually Related Laws from the Annals of Political Stupidity:
— If you’re in Idaho, you’re not allowed to engage in any type of public display of affection for more than 18 minutes.
— In Iowa, you've got a five-minute time limit to make out. But that’s an eternity when you consider that it’s illegal to smooch for more than one second if you’re in Halethorpe, Md.
— An ancient law in Alabama bans men from attempting to seduce "a chaste woman by means of temptation, arts, deception, flattery or a promise of marriage."
— Connecticut has a law forbidding any "private sexual behavior between consenting adults." We have to give them credit, though, for at least making this law pretty clear. An old Florida statute states that two people cannot commit "unusual acts" together, but there’s no specification as to what that means!
— An old law in California made it illegal for either partner to reach climax before the other during foreplay. ( I don't think i would want to be the Cop to witness this crime in progress)
— Florida once made it illegal to have sexual relations with a porcupine. (How did this become a law, really?)
— You can’t marry the same man three times in some Kentucky townships. (If you marry the same person 3 times, you are A) a glutton for punishment, B) Out of Your Freaking Mind, or C) Need to be locked up)
— It is illegal for men in Minnesota to have intimate sexual relationships with a live fish. ( I am not even going there!)
— If you’re a member of the Nevada legislature, you cannot conduct business, while in session, wearing a penis costume. (Ok, How Did This even get thought of to be a law. Did it actually happen?)
— In North Carolina, it’s an offense to have sex in a graveyard. ( What are the perpetrators trying to do, have the spawn of Satan!)
— Women in Dyersburg, Tenn., cannot call a man for a date.
— If their car is in motion, male drivers in Detroit are banned from "ogling" women.
— It is illegal to serenade your girlfriend in Kalamazoo, Mich. ( This one actually makes Sense after the way some people sing!)
— In Oblong, Ill., it’s illegal to have sex on your wedding day if you’re fishing or hunting. (If you wait until the day after, is it legal then.)
— A man in Ames, Iowa, cannot take more than three swallows of beer while holding his wife in his arms in bed. (What i can't have a beer bong while benchpressing my wife in bed, those bastards!)
— Alexandria, Ariz., once banned husbands from having sex with their wives if their breath smelled of sardines, garlic or onion. (Funny enough, all of those have been considered aphrodisiacs at one time or another!)
— Husbands in Willowdale, Ore., can be fined for talking dirty during intercourse, but their wives can say whatever they please. (Once again, i don't want to be the one enforcing this one)
— An old statute in Florida banned a man from kissing his wife’s breasts.
— A man cannot seduce a woman by promising to marry her in Mississippi. ( I bet its also illegal to hit a woman over the head with a club and drag her back to your cave)
— While up to 120 men can live together in Pennsylvania, it is illegal for more than 16 women to do so, since this could constitute a brothel. ( What about the prisons in the state? I'm sure they house alot more than that at one time)
— It is illegal in Utah to marry your first cousin before the age of 65.
— In Nebraska, couples sleeping at a hotel must wear the clean, cotton nightshirt provided by the hotel, even when they have sex.
— Florida has a statute making it an offense to shower in the nude. ( Taking into account the way some people smell here, i bet they abide by that statute here in SC)
— Women in New York cannot be seen wearing "body hugging clothing." (Doesn't that narrow it down to just about all of them then)
— An old Mississippi edict holds that men cannot become sexually aroused in public. (Get them off of the Viagra then)
— If you’re unmarried in North Carolina and you and your lover register yourselves as a "Mr. and Mrs." when checking into a motel, then you’re legally considered husband and wife.
— In Oklahoma, if you’re arrested for soliciting a prostitute, your name and picture will be shown on TV.
— Sex with an animal is perfectly legal for men in Washington state, as long as the animal weighs less than 40 pounds. (Another one for the "What The Hell Were They Thinking" File)
— It is illegal for a man to fire his gun in Connersville, Wis., when his lover reaches climax. ( Do What!)
— Having sex in a walk-in meat freezer is banned in Newcastle, Wyo. ( That sounds like a Cool experience.... Uh.... Um.... Thats was just wrong)
— The Arizona State Supreme Court considered it perfectly all right for women to go topless in public, since breasts weren’t deemed private parts. ( I don't think they are considered to be Public Parts)
— You can streak in Louisiana as long as you can prove to a court beyond a doubt that you had no "lascivious intent." ( I would say it would be more self-humiliating intent than Lascivious Intent)
— Couples in Carlsbad, N.M., can have sex in their parked car during their lunch break, as long as the curtains are drawn. (Where exactly do you hang the Curtain Rods? Are they talking about a Car or an RV?)
— Women in New York can go topless in public, unless it is for "business" reasons.
Now one of the first things i think of is What made these laws even a thought in a Politicians mind. The second is I wonder how much taxpayer money was wasted in the the introduction and passage of each of these laws.
Unbelievable!
Viva Liberty!
Thursday, April 17, 2008
When Life Insurance Is Not Enough!
Before i get to explaining myself, here's the story:
" A woman whose husband died after receiving a liver transplant infected with a rodent virus is suing PetSmart Inc., claiming the chain should have warned customers that hamsters can carry the virus.
The federal lawsuit alleges Thomas Magee, 54, and two other organ recipients died after transplants from a woman who had contracted a virus from a hamster she bought at a PetSmart store in Warwick, R.I.
In her lawsuit, Nancy Magee says PetSmart had a duty to warn its customers that hamsters could carry the virus and that people with weakened immune systems could die from it.
Magee, who sued on behalf of herself and the couple's three children, declined to comment when reached at her home. She referred questions to her attorney, Richard Bickelman, who did not return a call Wednesday. "
Ok, now its my turn, I think it is ridiculous and just example of the frivolous lawsuits that take place in this country.
First of all, Petsmart did sell the animal. However once the animal leaves the property what responsibility is of them. Does this mean that the animal can only catch such diseases at their facility? NO, the animal could have caught the disease anytime after the point of sale. Also this woman was not the customer of Petsmart, she wasn't even the customer of the organs.
Second of all, it seems to me like who ever handled the dead woman's body should have checked to see if her death was contributed from this disease. If it was, the organs shouldn't have been donated.
Third of all, It is Common Sense (i know that is a rare occurance these days) that ANIMALS CARRY DISEASES. Now these stores do the best they can to take every precaution to keep animals with these diseases "off the shelf", but they can't get them all, just because the sheer fact that most diseases have a dormancy period. During these periods, you can test untill you are blue in the face and majority of the time not notice the disease. Lets be realistic, how long does AIDS lay dormant before it is noticable? 7 - 10 years. When i go buy a fish for my kids, can i sue the store for selling a product, and not telling me directly that there is a potential possiblity that it could have the Salmonella virus? No, because it is common knowledge that fish carry the disease.
Face it, if this was to become the norm, you would need to have a 10 page disclaimer for every animal you bought or acquired, stating all of the potential diseases or defects said product could have, it doesn't make sense.
Its time for people to wise up and use some Common Sense, unfortunately the legal system has created (with the Politicians help, thats right i wasn't going to give them a free ride on this one) a Society of Mindless Idiots, that think a good compensation for a lack mental capacity is to get FREE money from others.
Politicians, its time to close the ability to clog the courts with lawsuits that should never see the light of day.
In criminal cases, the prosecutor has to prove its case against the defendant. In this case the defendant is the store, so this lady should have to prove her case before it makes it to the court.
Hopefully in the court of public opinion this lady will prove to be the idiot that she truly is.
Viva Liberty!
" A woman whose husband died after receiving a liver transplant infected with a rodent virus is suing PetSmart Inc., claiming the chain should have warned customers that hamsters can carry the virus.
The federal lawsuit alleges Thomas Magee, 54, and two other organ recipients died after transplants from a woman who had contracted a virus from a hamster she bought at a PetSmart store in Warwick, R.I.
In her lawsuit, Nancy Magee says PetSmart had a duty to warn its customers that hamsters could carry the virus and that people with weakened immune systems could die from it.
Magee, who sued on behalf of herself and the couple's three children, declined to comment when reached at her home. She referred questions to her attorney, Richard Bickelman, who did not return a call Wednesday. "
Ok, now its my turn, I think it is ridiculous and just example of the frivolous lawsuits that take place in this country.
First of all, Petsmart did sell the animal. However once the animal leaves the property what responsibility is of them. Does this mean that the animal can only catch such diseases at their facility? NO, the animal could have caught the disease anytime after the point of sale. Also this woman was not the customer of Petsmart, she wasn't even the customer of the organs.
Second of all, it seems to me like who ever handled the dead woman's body should have checked to see if her death was contributed from this disease. If it was, the organs shouldn't have been donated.
Third of all, It is Common Sense (i know that is a rare occurance these days) that ANIMALS CARRY DISEASES. Now these stores do the best they can to take every precaution to keep animals with these diseases "off the shelf", but they can't get them all, just because the sheer fact that most diseases have a dormancy period. During these periods, you can test untill you are blue in the face and majority of the time not notice the disease. Lets be realistic, how long does AIDS lay dormant before it is noticable? 7 - 10 years. When i go buy a fish for my kids, can i sue the store for selling a product, and not telling me directly that there is a potential possiblity that it could have the Salmonella virus? No, because it is common knowledge that fish carry the disease.
Face it, if this was to become the norm, you would need to have a 10 page disclaimer for every animal you bought or acquired, stating all of the potential diseases or defects said product could have, it doesn't make sense.
Its time for people to wise up and use some Common Sense, unfortunately the legal system has created (with the Politicians help, thats right i wasn't going to give them a free ride on this one) a Society of Mindless Idiots, that think a good compensation for a lack mental capacity is to get FREE money from others.
Politicians, its time to close the ability to clog the courts with lawsuits that should never see the light of day.
In criminal cases, the prosecutor has to prove its case against the defendant. In this case the defendant is the store, so this lady should have to prove her case before it makes it to the court.
Hopefully in the court of public opinion this lady will prove to be the idiot that she truly is.
Viva Liberty!
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Your DNA Is Now The Governments
I just read a story that makes me cringe. The Congress has just given the Feds the right to extract DNA from anyone they arrest. Now this means that if they arrest you for something, lawfully or unlawfully, they now have the right to extract as much information as they could possibly want. This is an extreme violation of our civil liberty's. DNA samples should only be allowed to be taken upon conviction, but as usual our government thinks they are all powerful, all knowing, supreme ruler over us all.
Now i am not an alarmist or conspiracy theorist, that sees a government conspiracy behind every bush, or a surveillance camera behind every blade of grass. But humor me here. Now lets say you are falsely arrested for an alleged crime that you did not commit, they take you in for booking and charges, take a DNA Sample, then release you on bail, and shortly after drop all of the charges. Now skip ahead a few years when this nation has furthered down the Socialist road. Now the government is out to stop people from speaking out with fear of punishment. Whats to say during this time, you say a few things that the All Knowing Great Government takes offense to, and they decide to shut you up. Whats to say they arrest you for a trumped up charge of Murder or something else, now all they have to say is that your DNA matches the DNA found on the body. Regardless of what proof you have to show your innocence, it will not matter, its your word against the Government. Now you will face in court a judge that works for the government, a prosecutor that works for the government, Fed witnesses that work for the government, and if your not wealthy, your defense attorney will also be working for the government, and don't forget the jury will be appointed and paid by the government. Do really think you will be able to beat the charge? Now this is strictly a fictitious example, but wrap your mind around that scenario.
It is a must that we as citizens and the rightful owners of this great nation take back this nation from the greedy Politicians before it is too late.
In The words of a great man....
Get Up! Stand Up! Stand Up For Your Rights!
Get Up! Stand Up! Don't Give Up The Fight!
Viva Libertarian!
Now i am not an alarmist or conspiracy theorist, that sees a government conspiracy behind every bush, or a surveillance camera behind every blade of grass. But humor me here. Now lets say you are falsely arrested for an alleged crime that you did not commit, they take you in for booking and charges, take a DNA Sample, then release you on bail, and shortly after drop all of the charges. Now skip ahead a few years when this nation has furthered down the Socialist road. Now the government is out to stop people from speaking out with fear of punishment. Whats to say during this time, you say a few things that the All Knowing Great Government takes offense to, and they decide to shut you up. Whats to say they arrest you for a trumped up charge of Murder or something else, now all they have to say is that your DNA matches the DNA found on the body. Regardless of what proof you have to show your innocence, it will not matter, its your word against the Government. Now you will face in court a judge that works for the government, a prosecutor that works for the government, Fed witnesses that work for the government, and if your not wealthy, your defense attorney will also be working for the government, and don't forget the jury will be appointed and paid by the government. Do really think you will be able to beat the charge? Now this is strictly a fictitious example, but wrap your mind around that scenario.
It is a must that we as citizens and the rightful owners of this great nation take back this nation from the greedy Politicians before it is too late.
In The words of a great man....
Get Up! Stand Up! Stand Up For Your Rights!
Get Up! Stand Up! Don't Give Up The Fight!
Viva Libertarian!
Monday, April 14, 2008
SC Lawmakers - Constitutional Retards?
A law has just been passed to "toughen" the DUI laws in this state. Under this law "The bill punishes drivers according to how much alcohol they have in their system and how many times they are convicted."
I'm sorry, the number of times you are convicted should have nothing to do with future convictions. Once you have paid your debt to society for a crime, why should you be punished at a later date for it? I mean, am i wrong? Now don't get me wrong, are there people who commit the same crime over and over and over again. Yes. But different means should be put in place to curb the numerousness of the crimes committed by said person. This falls under the 3 Strikes rule that some states have inacted. This is totally unconstitutional as far as i can see it. Basically you are creating a society to where the government can punish you for a crime and then come back later (after you have fulfilled your punishment) to say you need to be punished more because you did this other thing. Utterly Ridiculous!
"Also under the proposal, drivers who refuse to take a breath test will have their license suspended for six months. The current punishment for refusing the test is a three-month license suspension."
Once again, utterly ridiculous, why should i be FORCED to potentially incriminate myself.
Here is the 5th amendment to the Constitution:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Now isn't the ability to drive a right of sorts.... Yes it is ( i mean everyone in this country over a certain age, that meets a certain set of criteria has the right to get a drivers license) , so this new law means that you can forfiet your driving ability for a certain length of time simply for refusing to incriminate yourself, when there hasn't been a trial to prove your guilt.
Once again what happened to the Innocent until proven Guilty, that we are supposed to have in this country.
Well it went out the window when the socialist took over, however unlike the Nazis of old, today they look uncannily like the Republicrats and Democans. When will the citizens learn, only after it is too late, I fear!
Viva Liberty!
I'm sorry, the number of times you are convicted should have nothing to do with future convictions. Once you have paid your debt to society for a crime, why should you be punished at a later date for it? I mean, am i wrong? Now don't get me wrong, are there people who commit the same crime over and over and over again. Yes. But different means should be put in place to curb the numerousness of the crimes committed by said person. This falls under the 3 Strikes rule that some states have inacted. This is totally unconstitutional as far as i can see it. Basically you are creating a society to where the government can punish you for a crime and then come back later (after you have fulfilled your punishment) to say you need to be punished more because you did this other thing. Utterly Ridiculous!
"Also under the proposal, drivers who refuse to take a breath test will have their license suspended for six months. The current punishment for refusing the test is a three-month license suspension."
Once again, utterly ridiculous, why should i be FORCED to potentially incriminate myself.
Here is the 5th amendment to the Constitution:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Now isn't the ability to drive a right of sorts.... Yes it is ( i mean everyone in this country over a certain age, that meets a certain set of criteria has the right to get a drivers license) , so this new law means that you can forfiet your driving ability for a certain length of time simply for refusing to incriminate yourself, when there hasn't been a trial to prove your guilt.
Once again what happened to the Innocent until proven Guilty, that we are supposed to have in this country.
Well it went out the window when the socialist took over, however unlike the Nazis of old, today they look uncannily like the Republicrats and Democans. When will the citizens learn, only after it is too late, I fear!
Viva Liberty!
Sunday, April 13, 2008
The Tobacco Inquisition
Now everyone remembers the Spanish Inquisition. If not, please do a search on Google or Wikipedia to familiarize yourself to the massive injustice on a population from the annals of history. Well during these days there have been many Inquisitions of sorts against factions of our own populace. One of the ones that gets me is the one against Tobacco.
Now i am not a smoker, but i was in the past. So i can see this topic from both sides. It is true that it is not good for your health, and if sickness does set in, it can put a burden on the Health care System. But it is ultimately a persons right to smoke. Now i know i will get the argument that is the theme of everyone that is anti smoking. It is that second hand smoke kills, it is more dangerous than firsthand smoke, so we need to do away with smoking. I personally have a hard time believing that idea. You mean to tell me that it more dangerous to be around diluted smoke in the air than it is to directly putting smoke into your body. Now if you are in a 10' by 10' closed room with 10 chain smokers for decades without being able to leave, then it would be dangerous.
But there is a continuous infringement on smokers and tobacco company's. Now remember back a few years ago when there was a big lawsuit on Tobacco company's by the US and the states. The states won money that was supposed to go toward Anti-smoking campaigns. Now in my own corrupt state, South Carolina, they only used somewhere around 30% of the money for what it was supposed to go for. Where they spent the rest, only the corrupt ones know. This happened in almost every state involved. Now what happened after they misappropriated all the blood money. They sued again. Now they are talking of raising the taxes on cigarettes to basically further bleed the smokers dry.
Now they are trying to ban smoking in restaurants and bars. I have a MAJOR problem with this. It is not the governments job to do this. Once again i feel the government is tightening the noose around the neck of liberty. This is another slippery slope that we must stop while we can. It is up to property owners to decide whether to allow smoking on their property, whether it be a bar, restaurant, home, etc. If an owner wants to allow it, ITS HIS/HER RIGHT. If the business suffers because of that decision, once again it is the owners decision.
It is time to stop this governments over bearing tendencies while we can.
How long before they turn their corrupt hand to strangle other rights of ours.
Its time to take a stand America, before the America we love will disappear.
Viva Liberty!
Now i am not a smoker, but i was in the past. So i can see this topic from both sides. It is true that it is not good for your health, and if sickness does set in, it can put a burden on the Health care System. But it is ultimately a persons right to smoke. Now i know i will get the argument that is the theme of everyone that is anti smoking. It is that second hand smoke kills, it is more dangerous than firsthand smoke, so we need to do away with smoking. I personally have a hard time believing that idea. You mean to tell me that it more dangerous to be around diluted smoke in the air than it is to directly putting smoke into your body. Now if you are in a 10' by 10' closed room with 10 chain smokers for decades without being able to leave, then it would be dangerous.
But there is a continuous infringement on smokers and tobacco company's. Now remember back a few years ago when there was a big lawsuit on Tobacco company's by the US and the states. The states won money that was supposed to go toward Anti-smoking campaigns. Now in my own corrupt state, South Carolina, they only used somewhere around 30% of the money for what it was supposed to go for. Where they spent the rest, only the corrupt ones know. This happened in almost every state involved. Now what happened after they misappropriated all the blood money. They sued again. Now they are talking of raising the taxes on cigarettes to basically further bleed the smokers dry.
Now they are trying to ban smoking in restaurants and bars. I have a MAJOR problem with this. It is not the governments job to do this. Once again i feel the government is tightening the noose around the neck of liberty. This is another slippery slope that we must stop while we can. It is up to property owners to decide whether to allow smoking on their property, whether it be a bar, restaurant, home, etc. If an owner wants to allow it, ITS HIS/HER RIGHT. If the business suffers because of that decision, once again it is the owners decision.
It is time to stop this governments over bearing tendencies while we can.
How long before they turn their corrupt hand to strangle other rights of ours.
Its time to take a stand America, before the America we love will disappear.
Viva Liberty!
Obama doesn't get it
I read an article in the local paper that i feel shows that Obama doesn't get America (well DUH, not many politicians do). Obama made some comments about small town America. Here's the comments:
"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothings replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are going to regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising, then, that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Ok this is almost too easy to respond to. Frankly, the Administrations of past and present have nothing to do with the jobs of this country. Name one president that has created one job through out history. Um.... lets see, the answer is none. The current thought is that the presidential administration holds the employment of us in their hands ( they might be blood covered, corrupt hands, but they are hands nonetheless). The reason the thought is the current mantra is because it is the propaganda to use to get the feeling like you actually are important, when IN REAL LIFE your really not that important.
The only time that an administration has created jobs, was the Roosevelt administration with the whole New Deal Communist agenda, that we are still paying for. Don't know what i mean, look at welfare and Medicare. Both were part of the Socialist/Communist train, both are failed experiments that have held people in bondage for decades.
People cling to their guns not because of jobs. It is because they are worried about government taking their guns. This government thinks that the best alternative to crime is to take the right to bear arms away, then the criminals won't have the ability to use them. When this happens, the only ones that will have the guns ARE the criminals. People in small towns are clinging to their guns because it is a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, that all three of presidential candidates could care less about.
People cling to religion, because they believe in the morals of that religion. Something that the government doesn't understand. The Elitist Politicians believe that they are the appointed givers of morality. Governments do not give morality, they corrupt it.
People cling to anti-immigration. No! No! HELL NO! Contrary to what you and Hitlary believe, they are not against immigration. THEY ARE AGAINST ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION! We have no problem with people immigrating here. Thats how we ALL got here. But we have a problem with people coming here illegally and plundering the citizens of this country. If you want to partake in the buffet of greatness here, come here the right way and pay your way like everyone else.
People cling to Anti-Trade. They are only anti trade when it comes to them losing their jobs because of that trade. Look at the greatly touted, yet miserably failed NAFTA that the Clintonian Institute of American Destitution presidential administration put into place.
People are bitter because:
Mr Obama don't get it, Mrs Hitlary, and Mr McSocialist have no clue what Americans want. They want their rights! They want government to butt out of their lives. They want the freedoms that are guaranteed to them. They want a non-intrusive government. They want Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Not what the government think happiness is.
Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death!
Viva Liberty!
"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothings replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are going to regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising, then, that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Ok this is almost too easy to respond to. Frankly, the Administrations of past and present have nothing to do with the jobs of this country. Name one president that has created one job through out history. Um.... lets see, the answer is none. The current thought is that the presidential administration holds the employment of us in their hands ( they might be blood covered, corrupt hands, but they are hands nonetheless). The reason the thought is the current mantra is because it is the propaganda to use to get the feeling like you actually are important, when IN REAL LIFE your really not that important.
The only time that an administration has created jobs, was the Roosevelt administration with the whole New Deal Communist agenda, that we are still paying for. Don't know what i mean, look at welfare and Medicare. Both were part of the Socialist/Communist train, both are failed experiments that have held people in bondage for decades.
People cling to their guns not because of jobs. It is because they are worried about government taking their guns. This government thinks that the best alternative to crime is to take the right to bear arms away, then the criminals won't have the ability to use them. When this happens, the only ones that will have the guns ARE the criminals. People in small towns are clinging to their guns because it is a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, that all three of presidential candidates could care less about.
People cling to religion, because they believe in the morals of that religion. Something that the government doesn't understand. The Elitist Politicians believe that they are the appointed givers of morality. Governments do not give morality, they corrupt it.
People cling to anti-immigration. No! No! HELL NO! Contrary to what you and Hitlary believe, they are not against immigration. THEY ARE AGAINST ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION! We have no problem with people immigrating here. Thats how we ALL got here. But we have a problem with people coming here illegally and plundering the citizens of this country. If you want to partake in the buffet of greatness here, come here the right way and pay your way like everyone else.
People cling to Anti-Trade. They are only anti trade when it comes to them losing their jobs because of that trade. Look at the greatly touted, yet miserably failed NAFTA that the Clintonian Institute of American Destitution presidential administration put into place.
People are bitter because:
Mr Obama don't get it, Mrs Hitlary, and Mr McSocialist have no clue what Americans want. They want their rights! They want government to butt out of their lives. They want the freedoms that are guaranteed to them. They want a non-intrusive government. They want Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Not what the government think happiness is.
Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death!
Viva Liberty!
Friday, April 11, 2008
Obama bin Socialist
Now my title may be enough to garnish interest in what i am about to write. Now let me start off to the now pissed off Obama supporters, i am not grouping your chosen one in with the likes of Osama Bin Laden, or any type of terrorist. There has been enough trying to group Obama with muslim terrorists, that i am not trying to do here. i just did to get people attention to this so that i could get a point across.
Now that i have your attention, now for the real story. I just read that Obama is trying to get a bill passed that would put more scrutiny on CEO's in this country and the big pay checks they receive, while normal americans are struggling.
Well Mr Obama i think all you are doing is trying to further the Socialist ideals through this country. And the non-thinking lowlifes in this country will blindly follow you like sheep over the cliff to dictatorship.
This country was founded on capitalism. No if you don't have a good understanding of what capitalism is LOOK IT UP, research it. Every company in this country is here because of Capitalism. Basically business is a gamble. You put up the money to start something without a guarantee that it will work. When it doesn't work you are left broke, and noone is there to bail you out. That is what has made this country as great as it is for as long as it has been.
So if a company opts to pay its CEO a huge salary package, it is thier right to. The owners or shareholders hold the risk if the company goes under, not the government, not the employees. Frankly if the owners wanted to pay the CEO $5 billion a year and pay everyone else in the company minimum wage, it is thier right to do that. It might not be smart, it might not be what i would do, but it is the owners right.
And i am sorry Mr Presidential Hopeful, it is the companys right, NOT THE GOVERNMENTS responsibility. Government needs to get out of peoples lives and the businesses lives. Let them take care of themselves.
It has been proven numerous times to the fact that the more Government involvement there is, the less business there is. The higher taxes there is an area the lower the employment rate. Do you think that is merely coincedence, I don't. Business is going to go where they can make more money, and if taxes cut into the profit, they will go someplace where it won't.
If you want to truly make a change in this country, lower taxes, reduce government, get government out of peoples live, get rid of "public good" programs that Robs from Peter to pay Paul, and stand back in amazement with the amount prosperity and good that will abound from this great nation.
Viva Liberty!
Now that i have your attention, now for the real story. I just read that Obama is trying to get a bill passed that would put more scrutiny on CEO's in this country and the big pay checks they receive, while normal americans are struggling.
Well Mr Obama i think all you are doing is trying to further the Socialist ideals through this country. And the non-thinking lowlifes in this country will blindly follow you like sheep over the cliff to dictatorship.
This country was founded on capitalism. No if you don't have a good understanding of what capitalism is LOOK IT UP, research it. Every company in this country is here because of Capitalism. Basically business is a gamble. You put up the money to start something without a guarantee that it will work. When it doesn't work you are left broke, and noone is there to bail you out. That is what has made this country as great as it is for as long as it has been.
So if a company opts to pay its CEO a huge salary package, it is thier right to. The owners or shareholders hold the risk if the company goes under, not the government, not the employees. Frankly if the owners wanted to pay the CEO $5 billion a year and pay everyone else in the company minimum wage, it is thier right to do that. It might not be smart, it might not be what i would do, but it is the owners right.
And i am sorry Mr Presidential Hopeful, it is the companys right, NOT THE GOVERNMENTS responsibility. Government needs to get out of peoples lives and the businesses lives. Let them take care of themselves.
It has been proven numerous times to the fact that the more Government involvement there is, the less business there is. The higher taxes there is an area the lower the employment rate. Do you think that is merely coincedence, I don't. Business is going to go where they can make more money, and if taxes cut into the profit, they will go someplace where it won't.
If you want to truly make a change in this country, lower taxes, reduce government, get government out of peoples live, get rid of "public good" programs that Robs from Peter to pay Paul, and stand back in amazement with the amount prosperity and good that will abound from this great nation.
Viva Liberty!
Guilty Until Proven Innocent
I might be confused, but isn't it true that in this country you are innocent until proven guilty? Please, Please correct me if i am wrong on that!
So i ask myself, how can you be punished for something in this country if you haven't had your day in court?
The reason i ask this puzzling question is this:
I know someone who was arrested for list of alleged crimes. It all stemmed from an altercation with his significant other. Anyway, he was arrested, taken to jail, booked, went before the magistrate, given a bond, and the normal arrest items that happen. However when he posted his bond, he was required to go on house arrest and GPS monitoring until his trial, by the Office of Probation and Parole. Now as of this point it has been close to three years since he was arrested and he has still not been tried for the alleged crimes. Really makes you wonder about the right to a speedy trial we are afforded in the Constitution.
He is now tracked 24 hours a day 7 days a week, given drug tests, pay a $90 a week monitoring fee, among other things. All while having not been convicted in a court of law.
My question is this, How is it legal to make someone go through all of this when they haven't been given the chance to go before a jury of their peers to have the case heard? My answer, it is not legal, far from it. He is being punished for a crime he ALLEGEDLY committed, it hasn't been proven, it is alleged.
However with the government we have today, the Constitution only applies to them when they want it to, the citizens (like us) are pissed on in a moments notice without any thought by our government.
Innocent until proven guilty.... Not with this government.
Its time for a change!
Viva Liberty!
So i ask myself, how can you be punished for something in this country if you haven't had your day in court?
The reason i ask this puzzling question is this:
I know someone who was arrested for list of alleged crimes. It all stemmed from an altercation with his significant other. Anyway, he was arrested, taken to jail, booked, went before the magistrate, given a bond, and the normal arrest items that happen. However when he posted his bond, he was required to go on house arrest and GPS monitoring until his trial, by the Office of Probation and Parole. Now as of this point it has been close to three years since he was arrested and he has still not been tried for the alleged crimes. Really makes you wonder about the right to a speedy trial we are afforded in the Constitution.
He is now tracked 24 hours a day 7 days a week, given drug tests, pay a $90 a week monitoring fee, among other things. All while having not been convicted in a court of law.
My question is this, How is it legal to make someone go through all of this when they haven't been given the chance to go before a jury of their peers to have the case heard? My answer, it is not legal, far from it. He is being punished for a crime he ALLEGEDLY committed, it hasn't been proven, it is alleged.
However with the government we have today, the Constitution only applies to them when they want it to, the citizens (like us) are pissed on in a moments notice without any thought by our government.
Innocent until proven guilty.... Not with this government.
Its time for a change!
Viva Liberty!
Response to A Comment
This is a response to a comment received from my previous post on the Mormon Sect Raid. Now i am not calling this person out because of what they said, I just feel i need to clarify something. The Comment was "To paraphrase South Park: Dude, they have sex with children."
My Question, What defines a child? In this sect, they believe adulthood starts at puberty. Most religions throughout history have believed this, it wasn't until recent history that it changed. Just look at Christianity and even Judaism, both of these religions believed that until recent History, it was perfectly fine for teenage girls to marry. Just because you are told it is wrong, is it really? Just because it is something you wouldn't do, doesn't make it wrong. Some religions still have arranged marriages, Just because you don't personally believe it is right, doesn't mean it is wrong.
I just think it is a slippery slope to go down, when people start trying to push their own ideals as the rule, and want to change the rules to match. What happens when another group comes in power and starts to say that the things you like or do are wrong and start punishing you for it.
Now don't get me wrong. If there were rapes going on, then that is something that is totally wrong, and the people performing this act are breaking the law and need to be punished accordingly. I have read in the reports that there were some rapes taking place, the men doing these acts needed to be put in jail, and in my opinion the book needs to be thrown at them. But that doesn't justify raiding a ranch, arresting all of the adults, and the state taking away the children.
Let me try to put it into a little perspective. Lets say you have a family of 4 children, and the oldest son goes out and rapes a teenage girl, does that give the state the right to come in and take all of the children away from your house. Now add in that your particular religion is not of the norm. Does it make it right for the state to act in this manner? No! The perpetrator needs to be punished, not everyone else.
Now to explain how my mind works with items such as this, it is quite simple. It is the basic Libertarian Mantra. It is also what i use for my Litmus Test for any subject. It is simply:
If it involves hurting another person, or involves infringing on another persons right, IT IS WRONG. This second one explains my gripes and dislikes of our government.
But thanks for the comment, i appreciate the feedback, and it also lets me know what people are thinking. It lets me know if i need to further my comments, just as in this case, to further explain my view.
Thanks for viewing and i challenge more people to think outside the societal box.
Viva Liberty!
My Question, What defines a child? In this sect, they believe adulthood starts at puberty. Most religions throughout history have believed this, it wasn't until recent history that it changed. Just look at Christianity and even Judaism, both of these religions believed that until recent History, it was perfectly fine for teenage girls to marry. Just because you are told it is wrong, is it really? Just because it is something you wouldn't do, doesn't make it wrong. Some religions still have arranged marriages, Just because you don't personally believe it is right, doesn't mean it is wrong.
I just think it is a slippery slope to go down, when people start trying to push their own ideals as the rule, and want to change the rules to match. What happens when another group comes in power and starts to say that the things you like or do are wrong and start punishing you for it.
Now don't get me wrong. If there were rapes going on, then that is something that is totally wrong, and the people performing this act are breaking the law and need to be punished accordingly. I have read in the reports that there were some rapes taking place, the men doing these acts needed to be put in jail, and in my opinion the book needs to be thrown at them. But that doesn't justify raiding a ranch, arresting all of the adults, and the state taking away the children.
Let me try to put it into a little perspective. Lets say you have a family of 4 children, and the oldest son goes out and rapes a teenage girl, does that give the state the right to come in and take all of the children away from your house. Now add in that your particular religion is not of the norm. Does it make it right for the state to act in this manner? No! The perpetrator needs to be punished, not everyone else.
Now to explain how my mind works with items such as this, it is quite simple. It is the basic Libertarian Mantra. It is also what i use for my Litmus Test for any subject. It is simply:
If it involves hurting another person, or involves infringing on another persons right, IT IS WRONG. This second one explains my gripes and dislikes of our government.
But thanks for the comment, i appreciate the feedback, and it also lets me know what people are thinking. It lets me know if i need to further my comments, just as in this case, to further explain my view.
Thanks for viewing and i challenge more people to think outside the societal box.
Viva Liberty!
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Just to say "Takk"
I just wanted to take a moment to give my thanks or "Takk" to they people that have viewed this site in Norway, mainly in Oslo. It blows my mind that i would have someone from so far away to stumble onto this small site.
Once again, Thanks.
And also thank you to everyone else who spends time reading what i (and others) have to say here, even the ones in DC (which is kind of scary when i think who could be reading in DC).
And as Always, Thank You for your support (i am not in anyway affliated with Bartles & James).
Viva Liberty!
Once again, Thanks.
And also thank you to everyone else who spends time reading what i (and others) have to say here, even the ones in DC (which is kind of scary when i think who could be reading in DC).
And as Always, Thank You for your support (i am not in anyway affliated with Bartles & James).
Viva Liberty!
Our Government, against Religion?
As most of you are aware, the media is running wild with this whole ordeal in Texas about the Polygamist ranch raid. Now let me start off by saying that i do not agree with the Mormon Religion (i don't feel there is anything wrong with their religious beliefs, i just don't agree with it), or even with Polygamist lifestyle.
Now this sect is a spin off of the mainstream Mormon faith, but nonetheless Mormon. Just as the Catholics, Agnostics, Methodists, Baptists, Lutheran, Anglican, etc, etc, etc are all offshoots of the Christian Faith, but they are nonetheless part of the Christian faith. Whats the difference between them all you may ask? Minor beliefs, the main beliefs in Christianity are all the same between, but they all take different parts of the bible as focus on what they say and wrap their church beliefs around that. Catholics believe Mary is the second most important human to live only other to Jesus, and pray to her. Baptist believe that once you believe you are saved. So my point is, it is all the same beliefs taken from the same source just looked at a little different that others do. But i digress.
Now in the beginning of Mormonism, Polygamy was a sanctioned part of the Mormon faith, handed down by the leader Joseph Smith. Some years later it was rescinded by the Church's official due to Society and Government pressure. So this explains (in very general terms) why this sect exists within the Mormon religion.
But now to my main point. This is a religious sect that is basically being persecuted for their beliefs, for no other reason than this, the government and our society says it is wrong. Why does society say it is wrong, because it is a common belief handed down from generation to generation. And as with most people, they are scared of anything that they don't consider to be normal.
I personally believe it was wrong for the government to raid this religious entities ranch. Why? It is Freedom Of Religion. Our Constitution does not guarantee the right to the Freedom of Religion under the pretense that it has to fit a criteria of what mainstream Religion is. NO IT GUARANTEES THE FREEDOM OF RELIGION, the only criteria it has to fit is, it has to be a religion, it has to believe in a higher power (whether is G-d, Krishna, Allah, a tree, a rock, a star, Ra, Zeus, Julius Caesar, Stonehenge, the sun, the air, or any other entity). Just because i do not believe in that religion, does not mean it is not a religion.
I believe that the Constitution gives the right to the Muslims, Jews, Christians, Krishna's, Buddhists, Hindu's and any other religion to act as their beliefs and their higher power/powers command them to do (Yes even if it is Polygamy), regardless of what others believe.
Ask yourself this, would you agree if the government raided your church because it was considered to do something illegal. No you wouldn't agree, and neither would i (even if it wasn't my religion of choice).
As long as the religion was not hurting people, or encroaching on the Constitutional rights of its patrons, then it is time for our Government of Thiefs to leave it alone.
VIVA LIBERTY!
Now this sect is a spin off of the mainstream Mormon faith, but nonetheless Mormon. Just as the Catholics, Agnostics, Methodists, Baptists, Lutheran, Anglican, etc, etc, etc are all offshoots of the Christian Faith, but they are nonetheless part of the Christian faith. Whats the difference between them all you may ask? Minor beliefs, the main beliefs in Christianity are all the same between, but they all take different parts of the bible as focus on what they say and wrap their church beliefs around that. Catholics believe Mary is the second most important human to live only other to Jesus, and pray to her. Baptist believe that once you believe you are saved. So my point is, it is all the same beliefs taken from the same source just looked at a little different that others do. But i digress.
Now in the beginning of Mormonism, Polygamy was a sanctioned part of the Mormon faith, handed down by the leader Joseph Smith. Some years later it was rescinded by the Church's official due to Society and Government pressure. So this explains (in very general terms) why this sect exists within the Mormon religion.
But now to my main point. This is a religious sect that is basically being persecuted for their beliefs, for no other reason than this, the government and our society says it is wrong. Why does society say it is wrong, because it is a common belief handed down from generation to generation. And as with most people, they are scared of anything that they don't consider to be normal.
I personally believe it was wrong for the government to raid this religious entities ranch. Why? It is Freedom Of Religion. Our Constitution does not guarantee the right to the Freedom of Religion under the pretense that it has to fit a criteria of what mainstream Religion is. NO IT GUARANTEES THE FREEDOM OF RELIGION, the only criteria it has to fit is, it has to be a religion, it has to believe in a higher power (whether is G-d, Krishna, Allah, a tree, a rock, a star, Ra, Zeus, Julius Caesar, Stonehenge, the sun, the air, or any other entity). Just because i do not believe in that religion, does not mean it is not a religion.
I believe that the Constitution gives the right to the Muslims, Jews, Christians, Krishna's, Buddhists, Hindu's and any other religion to act as their beliefs and their higher power/powers command them to do (Yes even if it is Polygamy), regardless of what others believe.
Ask yourself this, would you agree if the government raided your church because it was considered to do something illegal. No you wouldn't agree, and neither would i (even if it wasn't my religion of choice).
As long as the religion was not hurting people, or encroaching on the Constitutional rights of its patrons, then it is time for our Government of Thiefs to leave it alone.
VIVA LIBERTY!
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Global Frauding
The slick trick behind global frauding
By James Lewis
In Stalin's Russia any dissenter from the Party Line was guilty. Innocence had to be proved. It's a standard tyrant's trick. During the reign of Oliver Cromwell in England, witchhunters did not have to prove that their victims were guilty. The accused witches had to prove their innocence.
That's what Al Gore has done to science: He and his friends have flipped innocence and guilt from normal science to Stalinist science. In Al Gore's America, any "global warming denier" is guilty until proven innocent. He or she must have been bought off by Big Oil. Skeptics, nomatter how well-qualified, must prove the negative about really silly alarmist hogwash. And whenever some prediction is falsified, the warm mongers have an explanation: it's just a temporary glitch in the data. Oh,yes, we were wrong about 1998, but just wait till 2050! The excuses are endless.
Stalin twisted scientific biology over four decades in the Soviet Union. His favorite fake-scientist, Trofim Lysenko, used all the powers of the police state to enforce his batty belief that the bleeding disaster of Soviet agriculture could be fixed just by making plants grow bigger. It's the old idea that giraffes have long necks because their ancestors stretched their necks out more and more, to nibble at higher leaves on the trees. It's nonsense, as horse breeders have known for ages. You can't make a great racehorse just by making their ancestors run fast. You have to do selective breeding. But breeding takes time, and Stalin was in a hurry. So he fell for the Lysenko fraud, and flipped the burden of proof: Any Soviet biologist who disagreed with Lysenko was shot. This went on for forty years, and caused endless suffering as one harvest after the next crashed. People died by the millions, in part because biological science was fundamentally corrupted.
Putting the burden of proof on the doubters is a perversion of normal, healthy science. It's as if Jeremiah Wright demanded that all white folks must prove to him that they're not blue-eyed devils.
If politically correctideas are true by default, the Al Gores can prove anything. In normal science the burden of proof is on the proposer. Albert Einstein had to prove in his historic 1905 paper that there was a fundamental flaw in classical physics. The distinctive predictions of Relativity Theory had to be verified for decades afterwards. Some are still being tested today. His predecessor Max Planck remarked that he encountered so much skepticism that he had to wait for the older generation of physicists to die off before hiswork was accepted. Darwin said the same thing.
A healthy scientific community is extremely skeptical. It needs to see more and more evidence, over and over and over again, before it adopts somewild-eyed new idea. It takes all the time it needs; good science is very patient.
Einstein himself was a complete skeptic about quantum mechanics,and never accepted it over the last forty years of his life. He had a perfect right to question it, as long as he had rational arguments, and he did. (He was wrong on QM, but he was right on Relativity.)
"Catastrophic global warming," caused by human beings, is a really wild-eyed idea, given the fact that animals have survived on earth for half a billion years, with thousands of massive volcanic explosions, giant meteors hitting the earth, drifting continents, and great biomass changes that would have perturbed the climate, if the hypothesis were true. Just imagine the amountof C02 that must have been released with the Cambrian explosion of animallife.
If the earth really saw superfast global ups and downs in temperature,no animals could have survived those 500 million years. The Ice Ages drove animals and people south, but they were not superfast, global events, or you and I would not be here today. Animals and plants are able adapt totemperature changes. Polar bears grow layers of fat and long, dense fur. Camels can stay cool in the desert.
In biology, "catastrophism" has been treated with intense skepticism since Charles Darwin in the mid-19th century. Except today, when biological catastrophism is the in thing. Why would that be, do you suppose? How have Al Gore and the fraudsters pulled it off? It's really simple. They just flipped the burden of proof and put it on the "deniers" --- the skeptics, who don't believe the computer models. With the Left in control of the media, you can do it. So now it's prove to me you're not a witch! Because there is no decisive evidence.
There are 21 computer models that "prove" global warming over the next century. By the time 2050 rolls around, most of the modelers will be dead. To answer the biggest con trick in the history of science, you just have to address a single question to True Believers: What's your evidence for this barmy idea? (Not: Here's my evidence against it. That's not how it works). And the answer is: There are no facts robust enough, consistent enough, and verified enough to support the mass hysteria. The climate system is hypercomplex, nonlinear and poorly understood. The media spinners are immensely ignorant about real science, and just care about the next scare headline. There's a lot of wild speculation and a mob of self-servingpoliticians, bureaucrats and media types who stand to gain a ton of power and money by suckering millions of taxpayers.
Al Gore just started a 300million dollar PR campaign to convince everybody. When was the last time you saw 300 million bucks being spent to promote a scientific hypothesis that was already proven? We're not spending millions to prove the existence of gravity. The uproar and money involved in this fraud is in direct proportion to the lack of solid facts.
The last ten years have seen global cooling, not warming. Temperatures over the last hundred years look like the stock market: ups and downs, a very slow rise of a fraction of a degree until the late 1990s, then a drop for the last ten years, with so much cooling in the last year as to cancel out a century of warming. Why? Nobody really knows, but Mr. Sun isthe logical suspect.Look it up.
But don't get caught in the trap of proving the negative. Innormal, healthy science, the skeptics ask questions. It is the proponents who carry the burden of proof. Now can we talk about 9/11? That's a fact. But Al Gore doesn't think it's abig deal, compared to his favorite science fiction story. Al Gore just wants power, fame, money, and the US Presidency. Well, three out of four ain'tbad.
Oliver Cromwell and his witchhunters would have understood perfectly.
Viva Liberty!
By James Lewis
In Stalin's Russia any dissenter from the Party Line was guilty. Innocence had to be proved. It's a standard tyrant's trick. During the reign of Oliver Cromwell in England, witchhunters did not have to prove that their victims were guilty. The accused witches had to prove their innocence.
That's what Al Gore has done to science: He and his friends have flipped innocence and guilt from normal science to Stalinist science. In Al Gore's America, any "global warming denier" is guilty until proven innocent. He or she must have been bought off by Big Oil. Skeptics, nomatter how well-qualified, must prove the negative about really silly alarmist hogwash. And whenever some prediction is falsified, the warm mongers have an explanation: it's just a temporary glitch in the data. Oh,yes, we were wrong about 1998, but just wait till 2050! The excuses are endless.
Stalin twisted scientific biology over four decades in the Soviet Union. His favorite fake-scientist, Trofim Lysenko, used all the powers of the police state to enforce his batty belief that the bleeding disaster of Soviet agriculture could be fixed just by making plants grow bigger. It's the old idea that giraffes have long necks because their ancestors stretched their necks out more and more, to nibble at higher leaves on the trees. It's nonsense, as horse breeders have known for ages. You can't make a great racehorse just by making their ancestors run fast. You have to do selective breeding. But breeding takes time, and Stalin was in a hurry. So he fell for the Lysenko fraud, and flipped the burden of proof: Any Soviet biologist who disagreed with Lysenko was shot. This went on for forty years, and caused endless suffering as one harvest after the next crashed. People died by the millions, in part because biological science was fundamentally corrupted.
Putting the burden of proof on the doubters is a perversion of normal, healthy science. It's as if Jeremiah Wright demanded that all white folks must prove to him that they're not blue-eyed devils.
If politically correctideas are true by default, the Al Gores can prove anything. In normal science the burden of proof is on the proposer. Albert Einstein had to prove in his historic 1905 paper that there was a fundamental flaw in classical physics. The distinctive predictions of Relativity Theory had to be verified for decades afterwards. Some are still being tested today. His predecessor Max Planck remarked that he encountered so much skepticism that he had to wait for the older generation of physicists to die off before hiswork was accepted. Darwin said the same thing.
A healthy scientific community is extremely skeptical. It needs to see more and more evidence, over and over and over again, before it adopts somewild-eyed new idea. It takes all the time it needs; good science is very patient.
Einstein himself was a complete skeptic about quantum mechanics,and never accepted it over the last forty years of his life. He had a perfect right to question it, as long as he had rational arguments, and he did. (He was wrong on QM, but he was right on Relativity.)
"Catastrophic global warming," caused by human beings, is a really wild-eyed idea, given the fact that animals have survived on earth for half a billion years, with thousands of massive volcanic explosions, giant meteors hitting the earth, drifting continents, and great biomass changes that would have perturbed the climate, if the hypothesis were true. Just imagine the amountof C02 that must have been released with the Cambrian explosion of animallife.
If the earth really saw superfast global ups and downs in temperature,no animals could have survived those 500 million years. The Ice Ages drove animals and people south, but they were not superfast, global events, or you and I would not be here today. Animals and plants are able adapt totemperature changes. Polar bears grow layers of fat and long, dense fur. Camels can stay cool in the desert.
In biology, "catastrophism" has been treated with intense skepticism since Charles Darwin in the mid-19th century. Except today, when biological catastrophism is the in thing. Why would that be, do you suppose? How have Al Gore and the fraudsters pulled it off? It's really simple. They just flipped the burden of proof and put it on the "deniers" --- the skeptics, who don't believe the computer models. With the Left in control of the media, you can do it. So now it's prove to me you're not a witch! Because there is no decisive evidence.
There are 21 computer models that "prove" global warming over the next century. By the time 2050 rolls around, most of the modelers will be dead. To answer the biggest con trick in the history of science, you just have to address a single question to True Believers: What's your evidence for this barmy idea? (Not: Here's my evidence against it. That's not how it works). And the answer is: There are no facts robust enough, consistent enough, and verified enough to support the mass hysteria. The climate system is hypercomplex, nonlinear and poorly understood. The media spinners are immensely ignorant about real science, and just care about the next scare headline. There's a lot of wild speculation and a mob of self-servingpoliticians, bureaucrats and media types who stand to gain a ton of power and money by suckering millions of taxpayers.
Al Gore just started a 300million dollar PR campaign to convince everybody. When was the last time you saw 300 million bucks being spent to promote a scientific hypothesis that was already proven? We're not spending millions to prove the existence of gravity. The uproar and money involved in this fraud is in direct proportion to the lack of solid facts.
The last ten years have seen global cooling, not warming. Temperatures over the last hundred years look like the stock market: ups and downs, a very slow rise of a fraction of a degree until the late 1990s, then a drop for the last ten years, with so much cooling in the last year as to cancel out a century of warming. Why? Nobody really knows, but Mr. Sun isthe logical suspect.Look it up.
But don't get caught in the trap of proving the negative. Innormal, healthy science, the skeptics ask questions. It is the proponents who carry the burden of proof. Now can we talk about 9/11? That's a fact. But Al Gore doesn't think it's abig deal, compared to his favorite science fiction story. Al Gore just wants power, fame, money, and the US Presidency. Well, three out of four ain'tbad.
Oliver Cromwell and his witchhunters would have understood perfectly.
Viva Liberty!
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
The Ultimate Tax Cut
The Ultimate Tax Cut
by Jacob G. Hornberger
jhornberger@fff.org
Since it is presidential campaign season, we will inevitably be
treated to the usual discourse about tax cuts. Some candidates will call for
tax cuts, undoubtedly as a way to bribe voters into voting for them. Others
will resist the call, undoubtedly in fear that their favorite government
program might not receive desired funding. In actuality, all the tax-cut
talk will be rather meaningless, especially for advocates of liberty.
From the founding of the United States through the early part of
the 20th century, with a few exceptions (e.g., the Civil War), Americans
lived without income taxation, the federal government being funded primarily
by tariffs and excise taxes. Americans were free to keep everything they
earned and decide what to do with their money. There was no IRS and no one
had to file income-tax returns.
When the idea of an income-tax-free society is posed to a
modern-day American, oftentimes the reaction to such a radical idea is
shock. "Why, that would be anarchy!" the American sometimes responds. But
that notion would have come as a surprise to our American ancestors, who
lived in a society with a fully functioning federal government and no income
taxation for more than 100 years.
Why did our American ancestors oppose income taxation? Because
they had discovered an important point: People cannot be free in a society
in which the government has the power to levy taxes on income. To put it
another way, people are free only when they have the ability to keep
everything they earn and decide for themselves what to do with their own
money.
With the advent of income taxation in America, the relationship
between citizen and government was inverted. Prior to the income tax, the
citizen was sovereign by virtue of the fact that he was free to earn
unlimited amounts of money and there was nothing the government could do
about it. Like it or not, it was his money, to do with as he pleased.
With the adoption of income taxation, all that changed. In
effect, the income tax nationalized income. While many people would
undoubtedly prefer not to think about it in this way, under the federal
income tax everyone's income belongs to the government or, if you prefer, to
"society." The power to set the tax rate is essentially the power to decide
how much of their income people are going to be permitted to keep.
Thus, the income tax has converted the relationship between
government and citizen into one akin to parent and child. The portion of
their income that the citizenry are permitted to retain has effectively
become an allowance. Sometimes the government is good to the citizenry and
lets them keep more of their income. Sometimes the government is not so nice
and lets the citizenry keep less of their income. But what's important here,
in terms of freedom, is not the percentage that is being levied but rather
the fact that it is the government making the determination. That's
obviously a far cry from a society in which there is no income taxation at
all.
Taxes and spending
There is another factor to consider here, a practical one. Those
candidates who call for tax cuts are doing more than throwing a bone to
beleaguered taxpayers. They are also perpetrating a fraud, because they know
that since government expenditures today far exceed government revenues,
people are going to have to pay for the deficit somehow.
Permit me to digress a bit here. One of my biggest personal
revelations when I discovered libertarianism many years ago was that the
federal government acquired its resources differently than people in the
private sector. I had envisioned the government as just being part of a huge
collection of enterprises, producing its own wealth and deciding what to do
with it. That was one reason I could not understand why anyone would object
to the government's helping the poor with welfare. I thought, Why shouldn't
the government be as "free" as everyone else to decide how to spend its
money, and why shouldn't it spend its money on helping the poor?
And then I discovered that the federal government acquired its
money differently than everyone else. Its money comes from taxes, which are
forcible exactions imposed on people. That is obviously very different from
how people in the private sector get their money. Microsoft, for example,
depends on offering products that induce people to voluntarily trade their
money for a particular piece of software. If people decide to hold on to
their money instead of buying the software, there is nothing that Microsoft
can do about it. That is, Microsoft cannot force anyone to hand over his
money.
It's different with the government. Its revenues do depend on
force. If someone doesn't like a particular service that the government is
providing (e.g., waging the drug war, providing people with welfare,
torturing detainees, or killing people in Iraq), he can't do what he does
with Microsoft. He must pay his income taxes anyway, on pain of fine and
imprisonment or even death upon steadfast refusal to do so.
Now, back to the tax-cut bone that presidential candidates love
to offer voters during campaign season. As Milton Friedman pointed out, the
true level of taxation is not what is being collected in taxes but rather
the level of government expenses. Why is this so? Because if the government
is spending more than it is receiving in tax revenues, it is doing it in one
of two ways - borrowing or printing the money.
If it's borrowing the money to finance its expenditures, those
debts must ultimately be paid back. That's why a tax-cut bone that
presidential candidates offer voters is a fraud. They know that one way or
another, ultimately the government is going to have to repay those debts.
And the only way it can get the money to repay those debts is to tax the
citizenry.
Inflation plunder
Another way - historically a popular one - that the government
finances its excess expenditures is by simply printing the money to pay for
expenditures, a practice known as inflation. When the government inflates
the currency to pay its excess bills, the result is a lower-valued currency.
As with any other product, increasing the supply of money lowers its value.
And the lower value of a currency is reflected in a rise in the prices of
the things that money buys - such as groceries, automobiles, gasoline,
clothing, and school supplies.
The advantage of paying for government expenses through
inflation, as compared to income taxation, should be obvious: Most people
don't have any idea that this is the way that government is paying its
bills. They think that inflation is some sort of mysterious monetary
infection that just seems to strike nations randomly and unexpectedly. In
fact, even mainstream "educated" journalists often use the term "inflation"
to describe rising prices in society rather than using it in its true
sense - an artificial increase in the supply of money that is reflected in
the rising prices in society.
The point of all this is to show another reason that the tax-cut
bone that presidential candidates offer the electorate is a fraud. Since
people are going to have to pay for the excess government expenditures
through the reduced purchasing power of their income, what practical
difference does a tax cut make to them? Moreover, even if a tax cut
increases government revenues, as some people claim, government expenditures
inevitably rise proportionately.
Suppose that government spends $100 million a year and collects
income taxes of $100 million. The following year, the government decides to
engage in an overseas military adventure that doubles government
expenditures to $200 million. The president, however, vows not to raise
taxes. To pay the extra $100 million in new expenses, the government simply
prints the money, which because of rising prices reduces the purchasing
power of everyone's income, a reduction, say, equal to a doubling of the
income tax.
Are people any better off because the government has financed
its expenditures through inflation? Of course not. While it's true that some
taxpayers might benefit more and others lose more, the fact is that either
way, the government has sucked $200 million out of the pockets of the
citizenry.
Let's assume that during this process, a power-lusting
presidential candidate comes along and calls for a tax cut. "I'll lower your
taxes if you elect me!" exclaims the politician. Would people be better off
with such a tax cut? Of course not, because what is gained with the tax cut
will be lost in the reduced purchasing power of their income, given that the
excess expenditures are being financed with inflation.
Ultimately, the issue of income taxation cannot be divorced from
the things on which the federal government is spending its money. As we have
seen, the money that government is spending must be collected, either
directly through taxes, through borrowing (which must be repaid through
taxes or inflation), or inflation. The burden of government expenditures
must ultimately be borne by the citizenry.
Alternative taxes
Thus, while the abolition of the income tax and the IRS are
necessary prerequisites to a free society, if the financial burden of other
taxes is equal to the same amount that the income taxes were collecting, how
much better off are people financially if they're having to pay the same
amount of money through an alternative tax that they were previously paying
though the income tax? Let's assume, for example, that a family is earning
$60,000 a year and paying $20,000 in income taxes. Suppose the income tax is
abolished and replaced with a national sales tax, which ultimately collects
$20,000 from our hypothetical family. While it's true that the individual
will be freer in the sense that he no longer has to file income tax returns
and deal with the abusiveness and intrusiveness of the IRS, the federal
government is still determining the family's "allowance," albeit indirectly.
That's why, ultimately, the only protection that people have is
a constitutional prohibition on all taxation (the ideal) or, alternatively,
a constitutional limitation on the overall level of indirect taxation.
The former would mean that government would have to depend on
voluntary support from the citizenry, just as churches, museums, and other
charitable organizations operate. Of course, the standard response to such a
suggestion is, "Well, that's ridiculous. The American people don't believe
in government and, therefore, have to be forced to support it."
Yet, if most Americans didn't believe government is important,
why wouldn't they have abolished it a long time ago? The fact is that most
Americans do believe that government is important and essential and would be
as willing to support it as they do other organizations.
In an imperfect world of indirect taxation to fund the federal
government, people would still be better off with a constitutional ceiling
on the rate of tax collected; for example: "The federal government shall
collect its revenues only through tariffs, which shall never exceed 2
percent."
Obviously, there would have to be a simultaneous moral and
intellectual revolution with respect to government programs because
government revenues will most likely be quite small, especially in
comparison to what they are today. That means that in order to restore a
free society, Americans must ask themselves a fundamentally important
question: What should be the role of government in a free society? Should
its role include taking money from one group of people by force (i.e.,
taxation) in order to give it to another group of people (i.e., provide
welfare)? Should its role include the maintenance of an enormous
military-industrial empire that serves as an international policeman and
welfare-provider for the world?
The reason that such questions are so important is that if
people maintain their allegiance to either a welfare state or a warfare
state, they need to recognize that the restoration of a free society becomes
impossible because of the massive amount of tax revenues needed to fund such
states. In fact, as one hopes that modern-day Americans have learned, once
they delegate to the government the role of providing socialist or
imperialist programs, its expenditures inevitably soar exponentially.
Finally, there is a critically important economic angle to all
this. The key to higher standards of living lies in the accumulation of
private savings, which tends toward investment in tools and equipment, which
makes workers more productive, and that tends toward higher incomes. Thus,
the more income and savings that government is confiscating, the lower the
standard of living of the citizenry.
Thus, a moral and intellectual revolution against income
taxation must be accompanied by a moral and intellectual revolution against
socialism and empire. By limiting the role of government to its
traditionally legitimate functions of police, defense, and courts, the
amount of voluntary money needed to fund such operations becomes relatively
minuscule. The citizenry would have the freedom to keep everything they earn
in the marketplace, accumulate unlimited amounts of wealth, and decide for
themselves how to dispose of it. Herein lies the key to a free, prosperous,
and harmonious society.
Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of
Freedom Foundation.
© 2001-2007 The Future of Freedom Foundation.
Viva Liberty!
by Jacob G. Hornberger
jhornberger@
Since it is presidential campaign season, we will inevitably be
treated to the usual discourse about tax cuts. Some candidates will call for
tax cuts, undoubtedly as a way to bribe voters into voting for them. Others
will resist the call, undoubtedly in fear that their favorite government
program might not receive desired funding. In actuality, all the tax-cut
talk will be rather meaningless, especially for advocates of liberty.
From the founding of the United States through the early part of
the 20th century, with a few exceptions (e.g., the Civil War), Americans
lived without income taxation, the federal government being funded primarily
by tariffs and excise taxes. Americans were free to keep everything they
earned and decide what to do with their money. There was no IRS and no one
had to file income-tax returns.
When the idea of an income-tax-free society is posed to a
modern-day American, oftentimes the reaction to such a radical idea is
shock. "Why, that would be anarchy!" the American sometimes responds. But
that notion would have come as a surprise to our American ancestors, who
lived in a society with a fully functioning federal government and no income
taxation for more than 100 years.
Why did our American ancestors oppose income taxation? Because
they had discovered an important point: People cannot be free in a society
in which the government has the power to levy taxes on income. To put it
another way, people are free only when they have the ability to keep
everything they earn and decide for themselves what to do with their own
money.
With the advent of income taxation in America, the relationship
between citizen and government was inverted. Prior to the income tax, the
citizen was sovereign by virtue of the fact that he was free to earn
unlimited amounts of money and there was nothing the government could do
about it. Like it or not, it was his money, to do with as he pleased.
With the adoption of income taxation, all that changed. In
effect, the income tax nationalized income. While many people would
undoubtedly prefer not to think about it in this way, under the federal
income tax everyone's income belongs to the government or, if you prefer, to
"society." The power to set the tax rate is essentially the power to decide
how much of their income people are going to be permitted to keep.
Thus, the income tax has converted the relationship between
government and citizen into one akin to parent and child. The portion of
their income that the citizenry are permitted to retain has effectively
become an allowance. Sometimes the government is good to the citizenry and
lets them keep more of their income. Sometimes the government is not so nice
and lets the citizenry keep less of their income. But what's important here,
in terms of freedom, is not the percentage that is being levied but rather
the fact that it is the government making the determination. That's
obviously a far cry from a society in which there is no income taxation at
all.
Taxes and spending
There is another factor to consider here, a practical one. Those
candidates who call for tax cuts are doing more than throwing a bone to
beleaguered taxpayers. They are also perpetrating a fraud, because they know
that since government expenditures today far exceed government revenues,
people are going to have to pay for the deficit somehow.
Permit me to digress a bit here. One of my biggest personal
revelations when I discovered libertarianism many years ago was that the
federal government acquired its resources differently than people in the
private sector. I had envisioned the government as just being part of a huge
collection of enterprises, producing its own wealth and deciding what to do
with it. That was one reason I could not understand why anyone would object
to the government's helping the poor with welfare. I thought, Why shouldn't
the government be as "free" as everyone else to decide how to spend its
money, and why shouldn't it spend its money on helping the poor?
And then I discovered that the federal government acquired its
money differently than everyone else. Its money comes from taxes, which are
forcible exactions imposed on people. That is obviously very different from
how people in the private sector get their money. Microsoft, for example,
depends on offering products that induce people to voluntarily trade their
money for a particular piece of software. If people decide to hold on to
their money instead of buying the software, there is nothing that Microsoft
can do about it. That is, Microsoft cannot force anyone to hand over his
money.
It's different with the government. Its revenues do depend on
force. If someone doesn't like a particular service that the government is
providing (e.g., waging the drug war, providing people with welfare,
torturing detainees, or killing people in Iraq), he can't do what he does
with Microsoft. He must pay his income taxes anyway, on pain of fine and
imprisonment or even death upon steadfast refusal to do so.
Now, back to the tax-cut bone that presidential candidates love
to offer voters during campaign season. As Milton Friedman pointed out, the
true level of taxation is not what is being collected in taxes but rather
the level of government expenses. Why is this so? Because if the government
is spending more than it is receiving in tax revenues, it is doing it in one
of two ways - borrowing or printing the money.
If it's borrowing the money to finance its expenditures, those
debts must ultimately be paid back. That's why a tax-cut bone that
presidential candidates offer voters is a fraud. They know that one way or
another, ultimately the government is going to have to repay those debts.
And the only way it can get the money to repay those debts is to tax the
citizenry.
Inflation plunder
Another way - historically a popular one - that the government
finances its excess expenditures is by simply printing the money to pay for
expenditures, a practice known as inflation. When the government inflates
the currency to pay its excess bills, the result is a lower-valued currency.
As with any other product, increasing the supply of money lowers its value.
And the lower value of a currency is reflected in a rise in the prices of
the things that money buys - such as groceries, automobiles, gasoline,
clothing, and school supplies.
The advantage of paying for government expenses through
inflation, as compared to income taxation, should be obvious: Most people
don't have any idea that this is the way that government is paying its
bills. They think that inflation is some sort of mysterious monetary
infection that just seems to strike nations randomly and unexpectedly. In
fact, even mainstream "educated" journalists often use the term "inflation"
to describe rising prices in society rather than using it in its true
sense - an artificial increase in the supply of money that is reflected in
the rising prices in society.
The point of all this is to show another reason that the tax-cut
bone that presidential candidates offer the electorate is a fraud. Since
people are going to have to pay for the excess government expenditures
through the reduced purchasing power of their income, what practical
difference does a tax cut make to them? Moreover, even if a tax cut
increases government revenues, as some people claim, government expenditures
inevitably rise proportionately.
Suppose that government spends $100 million a year and collects
income taxes of $100 million. The following year, the government decides to
engage in an overseas military adventure that doubles government
expenditures to $200 million. The president, however, vows not to raise
taxes. To pay the extra $100 million in new expenses, the government simply
prints the money, which because of rising prices reduces the purchasing
power of everyone's income, a reduction, say, equal to a doubling of the
income tax.
Are people any better off because the government has financed
its expenditures through inflation? Of course not. While it's true that some
taxpayers might benefit more and others lose more, the fact is that either
way, the government has sucked $200 million out of the pockets of the
citizenry.
Let's assume that during this process, a power-lusting
presidential candidate comes along and calls for a tax cut. "I'll lower your
taxes if you elect me!" exclaims the politician. Would people be better off
with such a tax cut? Of course not, because what is gained with the tax cut
will be lost in the reduced purchasing power of their income, given that the
excess expenditures are being financed with inflation.
Ultimately, the issue of income taxation cannot be divorced from
the things on which the federal government is spending its money. As we have
seen, the money that government is spending must be collected, either
directly through taxes, through borrowing (which must be repaid through
taxes or inflation), or inflation. The burden of government expenditures
must ultimately be borne by the citizenry.
Alternative taxes
Thus, while the abolition of the income tax and the IRS are
necessary prerequisites to a free society, if the financial burden of other
taxes is equal to the same amount that the income taxes were collecting, how
much better off are people financially if they're having to pay the same
amount of money through an alternative tax that they were previously paying
though the income tax? Let's assume, for example, that a family is earning
$60,000 a year and paying $20,000 in income taxes. Suppose the income tax is
abolished and replaced with a national sales tax, which ultimately collects
$20,000 from our hypothetical family. While it's true that the individual
will be freer in the sense that he no longer has to file income tax returns
and deal with the abusiveness and intrusiveness of the IRS, the federal
government is still determining the family's "allowance," albeit indirectly.
That's why, ultimately, the only protection that people have is
a constitutional prohibition on all taxation (the ideal) or, alternatively,
a constitutional limitation on the overall level of indirect taxation.
The former would mean that government would have to depend on
voluntary support from the citizenry, just as churches, museums, and other
charitable organizations operate. Of course, the standard response to such a
suggestion is, "Well, that's ridiculous. The American people don't believe
in government and, therefore, have to be forced to support it."
Yet, if most Americans didn't believe government is important,
why wouldn't they have abolished it a long time ago? The fact is that most
Americans do believe that government is important and essential and would be
as willing to support it as they do other organizations.
In an imperfect world of indirect taxation to fund the federal
government, people would still be better off with a constitutional ceiling
on the rate of tax collected; for example: "The federal government shall
collect its revenues only through tariffs, which shall never exceed 2
percent."
Obviously, there would have to be a simultaneous moral and
intellectual revolution with respect to government programs because
government revenues will most likely be quite small, especially in
comparison to what they are today. That means that in order to restore a
free society, Americans must ask themselves a fundamentally important
question: What should be the role of government in a free society? Should
its role include taking money from one group of people by force (i.e.,
taxation) in order to give it to another group of people (i.e., provide
welfare)? Should its role include the maintenance of an enormous
military-industrial empire that serves as an international policeman and
welfare-provider for the world?
The reason that such questions are so important is that if
people maintain their allegiance to either a welfare state or a warfare
state, they need to recognize that the restoration of a free society becomes
impossible because of the massive amount of tax revenues needed to fund such
states. In fact, as one hopes that modern-day Americans have learned, once
they delegate to the government the role of providing socialist or
imperialist programs, its expenditures inevitably soar exponentially.
Finally, there is a critically important economic angle to all
this. The key to higher standards of living lies in the accumulation of
private savings, which tends toward investment in tools and equipment, which
makes workers more productive, and that tends toward higher incomes. Thus,
the more income and savings that government is confiscating, the lower the
standard of living of the citizenry.
Thus, a moral and intellectual revolution against income
taxation must be accompanied by a moral and intellectual revolution against
socialism and empire. By limiting the role of government to its
traditionally legitimate functions of police, defense, and courts, the
amount of voluntary money needed to fund such operations becomes relatively
minuscule. The citizenry would have the freedom to keep everything they earn
in the marketplace, accumulate unlimited amounts of wealth, and decide for
themselves how to dispose of it. Herein lies the key to a free, prosperous,
and harmonious society.
Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of
Freedom Foundation.
© 2001-2007 The Future of Freedom Foundation.
Viva Liberty!
Spying on Users
The Already Big Thing on the Internet: Spying on Users
By ADAM COHEN
In 1993, the dawn of the Internet age, the liberating anonymity of the
online world was captured in a well-known New Yorker cartoon. One dog,
sitting at a computer, tells another: "On the Internet, nobody knows you're
a dog." Fifteen years later, that anonymity is gone.
It's not paranoia: they really are spying on you.
Technology companies have long used "cookies," little bits of tracking
software slipped onto your computer, and other means, to record the Web
sites you visit, the ads you click on, even the words you enter in search
engines - information that some hold onto forever. They're not telling you
they're doing it, and they're not asking permission. Internet service
providers are now getting into the act. Because they control your
connection, they can keep track of everything you do online, and there have
been reports that I.S.P.'s may have started to sell the information they
collect.
The driving force behind this prying is commerce. The big growth area in
online advertising right now is "behavioral targeting." Web sites can charge
a premium if they are able to tell the maker of an expensive sports car that
its ads will appear on Web pages clicked on by upper-income, middle-aged
men.
The information, however, gets a lot more specific than age and gender - and
more sensitive. Tech companies can keep track of when a particular Internet
user looks up Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, visits adult Web sites, buys
cancer drugs online or participates in anti-government discussion groups.
Serving up ads based on behavioral targeting can itself be an invasion of
privacy, especially when the information used is personal. ("Hmm ... I
wonder why I always get those drug-rehab ads when I surf the Internet on
Jane's laptop?")
The bigger issue is the digital dossiers that tech companies can compile.
Some companies have promised to keep data confidential, or to obscure it so
it cannot be traced back to individuals. But it's hard to know what a
particular company's policy is, and there are too many to keep track of. And
privacy policies can be changed at any time.
There is also no guarantee that the information will stay with the company
that collected it. It can be sold to employers or insurance companies, which
have financial motives for wanting to know if their workers and
policyholders are alcoholics or have AIDS.
It could also end up with the government, which needs only to serve a
subpoena to get it (and these days that formality might be ignored).
If George Orwell had lived in the Internet age, he could have painted a grim
picture of how Web monitoring could be used to promote authoritarianism.
There is no need for neighborhood informants and paper dossiers if the
government can see citizens' every Web site visit, e-mail and text message.
The public has been slow to express outrage - not, as tech companies like to
claim, because they don't care about privacy, but simply because few people
know all that is going on. That is changing. "A lot of people are
creeped-out by this," says Ari Schwartz, a vice president of the Center for
Democracy and Technology. He says the government is under increasing
pressure to act.
The Federal Trade Commission has proposed self-regulatory guidelines for
companies that do behavioral targeting. Anything that highlights the problem
is good, but self-regulation is not enough. One idea starting to gain
traction in Congress is a do-not-track list, similar to the federal
do-not-call list, which would allow Internet users to opt out of being spied
on. That would be a clear improvement over the status quo, but the operating
principle should be "opt in" - companies should not be allowed to track
Internet activities unless they get the user's expressed consent.
The founders wrote the Fourth Amendment - guaranteeing protection against
illegal search and seizure - at a time when people were most concerned about
protecting the privacy of their homes and bodies. The amendment, and more
recent federal laws, have been extended to cover telephone communications.
Now work has to be done to give Internet activities the same level of
privacy protection.
Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company
Viva Liberty!
By ADAM COHEN
In 1993, the dawn of the Internet age, the liberating anonymity of the
online world was captured in a well-known New Yorker cartoon. One dog,
sitting at a computer, tells another: "On the Internet, nobody knows you're
a dog." Fifteen years later, that anonymity is gone.
It's not paranoia: they really are spying on you.
Technology companies have long used "cookies," little bits of tracking
software slipped onto your computer, and other means, to record the Web
sites you visit, the ads you click on, even the words you enter in search
engines - information that some hold onto forever. They're not telling you
they're doing it, and they're not asking permission. Internet service
providers are now getting into the act. Because they control your
connection, they can keep track of everything you do online, and there have
been reports that I.S.P.'s may have started to sell the information they
collect.
The driving force behind this prying is commerce. The big growth area in
online advertising right now is "behavioral targeting." Web sites can charge
a premium if they are able to tell the maker of an expensive sports car that
its ads will appear on Web pages clicked on by upper-income, middle-aged
men.
The information, however, gets a lot more specific than age and gender - and
more sensitive. Tech companies can keep track of when a particular Internet
user looks up Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, visits adult Web sites, buys
cancer drugs online or participates in anti-government discussion groups.
Serving up ads based on behavioral targeting can itself be an invasion of
privacy, especially when the information used is personal. ("Hmm ... I
wonder why I always get those drug-rehab ads when I surf the Internet on
Jane's laptop?")
The bigger issue is the digital dossiers that tech companies can compile.
Some companies have promised to keep data confidential, or to obscure it so
it cannot be traced back to individuals. But it's hard to know what a
particular company's policy is, and there are too many to keep track of. And
privacy policies can be changed at any time.
There is also no guarantee that the information will stay with the company
that collected it. It can be sold to employers or insurance companies, which
have financial motives for wanting to know if their workers and
policyholders are alcoholics or have AIDS.
It could also end up with the government, which needs only to serve a
subpoena to get it (and these days that formality might be ignored).
If George Orwell had lived in the Internet age, he could have painted a grim
picture of how Web monitoring could be used to promote authoritarianism.
There is no need for neighborhood informants and paper dossiers if the
government can see citizens' every Web site visit, e-mail and text message.
The public has been slow to express outrage - not, as tech companies like to
claim, because they don't care about privacy, but simply because few people
know all that is going on. That is changing. "A lot of people are
creeped-out by this," says Ari Schwartz, a vice president of the Center for
Democracy and Technology. He says the government is under increasing
pressure to act.
The Federal Trade Commission has proposed self-regulatory guidelines for
companies that do behavioral targeting. Anything that highlights the problem
is good, but self-regulation is not enough. One idea starting to gain
traction in Congress is a do-not-track list, similar to the federal
do-not-call list, which would allow Internet users to opt out of being spied
on. That would be a clear improvement over the status quo, but the operating
principle should be "opt in" - companies should not be allowed to track
Internet activities unless they get the user's expressed consent.
The founders wrote the Fourth Amendment - guaranteeing protection against
illegal search and seizure - at a time when people were most concerned about
protecting the privacy of their homes and bodies. The amendment, and more
recent federal laws, have been extended to cover telephone communications.
Now work has to be done to give Internet activities the same level of
privacy protection.
Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company
Viva Liberty!
Sunday, April 6, 2008
WANT A DUMB, NON-READING CHILD? KEEP THEM IN PUBLIC SCHOOL
WANT A DUMB, NON-READING CHILD? KEEP THEM IN PUBLIC SCHOOL
By Joel Turtel
To teach children how to play the piano, you have to teach them the basics of music - keys, notes, chords, melody, and harmony. With these tools learned, your kids can experience the joy and sense of accomplishment from playing their favorite songs on the piano.To most of us, driving a car seems effortlessness. Our eyes, hands, and feet work together seamlessly, automatically, without conscious thought.
But we first had to learn the basics of driving when we were young. Remember back to your father's driving lessons? He taught you how to turn the steering wheel, where the gas and brake pedal was, how to stay in your lane, turn signals and stop signs, use of mirrors, keeping to speed limits, looking ahead. All these basics took time and practice to learn. Now, those of us who have been driving for many years, take these basics for granted.
We drive "automatically" and with skill.
Without learning the basic skills, however, reading is not possible.
Have the child look at pictures, look for "clues," look for "patterns" in the story that make sense. Or skip the word and come back to it. Or ask a friend who also cannot read it. Or finally, when all else fails, ask the teacher. Anything," say the learned educrats, "except actually sounding out and reading the word."
Educrats claim that phonics and rules will turn kids off to the joy of reading. Just the opposite is true - when a "whole-language" victim-child tries to read the many words he was not taught to "recognize," he will give up in frustration. His frustration will end his reading and his 'joy" in reading. The phonics-trained child can read any word and any book, and the joy of reading follows from his skills
This learning of basic skills need not be a struggle. What turns kids off? The insufferable boredom, the mediocrity of the educrats' teaching methods, unchanged for 50 years.
Children learn the alphabet and letter sounds with delight at home.
Sesame Street, "Hooked on Phonics," the Internet, learning channels on cable TV, creative reading books especially made for kids by learning entrepreneurs can make learning letters and sounds a delight.
Phonics and drills are a drudge in government schools because educrats don't have the time, skill, desire, or imagination to make them otherwise.
Rather than blame themselves or their government-run system for failure, they blame everyone else. They now claim it is the child's fault (he has attention-deficit disorder!), the parents' fault (they don't get "involved!"), or "society's" fault (racism or "not enough money for the schools!").
Educrats also say that drills and basics, tests and standards, are "unfair" to kids, cause them stress, and threaten their self-esteem. Just the opposite is true-real self-esteem comes from achievement, not from a teacher's hot-air, feel-good compliments. Achievement needs tasks, content, ever-increasing complex skills children learn with guided effort. Joy, not stress, is the result of achievement. And what is more important than for children to learn that rewards come from effort and perseverence? Educrats hate phonics and true reading skills because their teacher colleges don't train them in the phonics method. Teachers who are not taught the phonics method will naturally feel inadequate to teach phonics to children. It is not the teachers' fault. Rather, the fault lies with educrats, teacher colleges, and educational theorists who have contempt for phonics.
Phonics and drills requires a "teacher-centered" approach in the classroom. This approach requires greater effort and responsibility on teachers and schools to create lesson plans that show real progress in reading skills. The teacher-centered approach requires teachers and educrats to constantly test and evaluate both students and themselves.
The "whole-language" reading method, in contrast, is allegedly "student-centered," meaning that kids get to sit around in circles and talk about their feelings rather than learn to actually read. With "whole-language" reading, educrats can claim there are no standards, no way to test reading skills and achievement. There are few rigorous tests, low standards, and no failing grades.
"Whole-language" reading therefore achieves the educrats' ultimate goal - if there are no standards or objectivity, no one can blame them, no one can question them, no one can hold them accountable for their failure to teach our children to read. The educrats don't want to grade their students' performance because it allegedly hurts the kids "self-esteem." I believe this attitude is merely a projection of the educrat's primal fears-they do not want parents judging their performance and holding them accountable for teaching their kids to read. The educrats don't want their fragile self-esteem threatened by angry parents who expect public schools to do one simple thing-teach their kids to read.
Government schools are designed to assuage the educrats' terror at being judged by parents, and being forced to compete in a free-market education system. Government (public) schools' ultimate purpose is to be a full-employment program for educrats-to give them guaranteed jobs without accountability to parents. It is to placate these fearful educrats that our government schools dumb-down our children and turn them into illiterates with bleak futures.
So what can you, as a concerned parent, do to protect your child? As long as public schools are run by government and their educrats, they will never change. In my book, "Public Schools, Public Menace," I tell parents about wonderful new education alternatives to public schools, such as accredited, low-cost internet private schools. Parents, I urge you to look into these alternatives, before your children are irreparably harmed by public-school whole-language, anti-phonics, "reading" instruction.
© 2008 Joel Turtel
Viva Liberty!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)