I had a lot of fun last night watching the Republican presidential debate on Faux News. Nine candidates who think the war in Iraq should go on and torture is OK if you call it enhanced interrogation techniques vs. one lone sane man named Ron Paul.
The moderators surely did their best to marginalize him and try to make him a laughing stock. He held his ground and kept on message. What we are doing in Iraq is very wrong and it must end, ASAP.
After the debate was over, the commentators went out of their way to tell us he was nuts and should not be allowed in future debates. Then came the high point of the evening. They announced that Ron Paul was leading in their text message poll with 30% of the vote. Romney was a close second and Guliani a distant third. The others were in the mud.
Hannitty was only speechless for a moment and then everyone accused Paul of having his people stuff the ballot box. It could not possibly be right.
Later in the evening, more votes pushed Romney ahead and left Paul in second place with Guliani still a distant third. The rest, including McCain and our favorite son, Brownback, remained in the mud. I would like to formally accuse Romney's people of stuffing the ballot box at the end to achieve that first place finish. I have as much evidence as Hannity does.
Can someone tell me how the Republicans expect to win a general election with candidates who openly profess that they want to continue the slaughter in Iraq, torture folks and institute a police state including 'tamperproof identity cards", no habeus corpus and enemy combatants.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Sunday, May 06, 2007
Twenty Questions
What follows is a list of questions to be asked of our current Federal representatives and Senators and any future candidates. I see it as kind of a litmus test. If they can't answer these questions in a satisfactory manner, they are clearly unfit for office in a constitutional republic.
For the record, this is not entirely original. I took the idea from a posting on a Yahoo group, where it was 17 questions and edited it to include some of my personal hot buttons.
1. Do you still support our United States Constitution, as written, and all of the Amendments to our Constitution, as you swore (or will swear, if you are a candidate) to do in your Oath of Office?
2. Do you believe that American citizens have a right to expect that every elected official obey and support our United States Constitution in its entirety?
3. What recourse do you believe American citizens should have when a public official acts, or proposes a law, contrary to the American Rule of Law, as set down in our United States Constitution? Please explain!
4. Do you believe that all branches of government, including regulatory and tax collection agencies, should support and obey our United States Constitution?
5. Please explain under what authority you may feel that government agency could be immune from the rules set down for government by our Constitution.
6. Do you support the right of an American citizen to protect life, family and home against all intruders, with the exception of officials who have a duly sworn warrant and have given proper notice of that warrant as required by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution?
7. If not, please describe any situations where you believe the Fourth Amendment no longer applies, and why.
8. Do you support the right of an American citizen to move around and function in society as they please, unimpeded by any government agent, so long as they do not interfere with other citizens with their activities?
9. What restrictions to personal liberty do you support, and why?
10. Do you support the right of American citizens to acquire, keep and if necessary to defend, real and personal property free from restriction by the federal government?
11. If not, please explain under what Constitutional authority the federal government may restrict the use of personal and private property.
12. What exceptions do you support to the Bill of Rights, and how may these exceptions be justified under the law without amending the Constitution?
13. Are there any areas of human behavior or activities that cannot be regulated by the federal Government? If so, please list any ten that come to mind.
14. Will you certify that you will reject any bill coming before you that does not conform, strictly, to the United States Constitution as written?
15. Furthermore, will you work to repeal all laws, rules, regulations and executive orders not conforming to the written words and intent of the Constitution?
16. Can you name any situation where it is appropriate for the executive branch to imprison any person on US soil and hold him without charge or trial and deny Habeus Corpus process to that person?
17. Is there any situation where you would advocate torture of prisoners?
18. Is there an upper limit to how much of a person’s earnings can be taken by the
government in taxation? Is 50% the upper limit? Is 75% OK? Is it permissible to take it all?
19. If a person is ill, is it within the power of government to deny him the right, under
threat of prison, to use any substance, process or equipment to deal with his illness, even if the government thinks that it will not work?
20. Is it permissible for government to prevent private individuals, spending their own money, from advocating for or against any candidate for office?
For the record, this is not entirely original. I took the idea from a posting on a Yahoo group, where it was 17 questions and edited it to include some of my personal hot buttons.
1. Do you still support our United States Constitution, as written, and all of the Amendments to our Constitution, as you swore (or will swear, if you are a candidate) to do in your Oath of Office?
2. Do you believe that American citizens have a right to expect that every elected official obey and support our United States Constitution in its entirety?
3. What recourse do you believe American citizens should have when a public official acts, or proposes a law, contrary to the American Rule of Law, as set down in our United States Constitution? Please explain!
4. Do you believe that all branches of government, including regulatory and tax collection agencies, should support and obey our United States Constitution?
5. Please explain under what authority you may feel that government agency could be immune from the rules set down for government by our Constitution.
6. Do you support the right of an American citizen to protect life, family and home against all intruders, with the exception of officials who have a duly sworn warrant and have given proper notice of that warrant as required by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution?
7. If not, please describe any situations where you believe the Fourth Amendment no longer applies, and why.
8. Do you support the right of an American citizen to move around and function in society as they please, unimpeded by any government agent, so long as they do not interfere with other citizens with their activities?
9. What restrictions to personal liberty do you support, and why?
10. Do you support the right of American citizens to acquire, keep and if necessary to defend, real and personal property free from restriction by the federal government?
11. If not, please explain under what Constitutional authority the federal government may restrict the use of personal and private property.
12. What exceptions do you support to the Bill of Rights, and how may these exceptions be justified under the law without amending the Constitution?
13. Are there any areas of human behavior or activities that cannot be regulated by the federal Government? If so, please list any ten that come to mind.
14. Will you certify that you will reject any bill coming before you that does not conform, strictly, to the United States Constitution as written?
15. Furthermore, will you work to repeal all laws, rules, regulations and executive orders not conforming to the written words and intent of the Constitution?
16. Can you name any situation where it is appropriate for the executive branch to imprison any person on US soil and hold him without charge or trial and deny Habeus Corpus process to that person?
17. Is there any situation where you would advocate torture of prisoners?
18. Is there an upper limit to how much of a person’s earnings can be taken by the
government in taxation? Is 50% the upper limit? Is 75% OK? Is it permissible to take it all?
19. If a person is ill, is it within the power of government to deny him the right, under
threat of prison, to use any substance, process or equipment to deal with his illness, even if the government thinks that it will not work?
20. Is it permissible for government to prevent private individuals, spending their own money, from advocating for or against any candidate for office?
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Gun Control? Are you crazy?
Mike Hendrick's of the Kansas City Star wrote an op-ed on 4/18/07 suggesting that the solution to mass shootings is more gun control. This is the most perverse logic.
Can you imagine a world where someone is free to shoot and kill 32 people with probably hundreds of witnesses, all of whom would have had an easy shot to put a stop to the killing after his first or second shot. But not one of them had the tool needed to end the killing and the killing went on till the maniac was satiated.
Virginia is a must issue concealed carry state but the university campus is under special laws. The state legislature, in its idiocy, made the campus (and every campus in Virginia) a gun free zone. Thus, the crazies that will always be among us can shoot up a school without opposition till the police arrive. Even if they show up in 5 or 10 minutes, many will die because no one on the scene can stop the insanity.
Isn't it obvious that it was gun control that killed all but the first few fictims? Isn't it obvious that more of the same poison is not the solution?
The results are in. Where people can defend themselves, mass shootings do not happen! It is an unspeakable crime to force people into a defenseless position.
Can you imagine a world where someone is free to shoot and kill 32 people with probably hundreds of witnesses, all of whom would have had an easy shot to put a stop to the killing after his first or second shot. But not one of them had the tool needed to end the killing and the killing went on till the maniac was satiated.
Virginia is a must issue concealed carry state but the university campus is under special laws. The state legislature, in its idiocy, made the campus (and every campus in Virginia) a gun free zone. Thus, the crazies that will always be among us can shoot up a school without opposition till the police arrive. Even if they show up in 5 or 10 minutes, many will die because no one on the scene can stop the insanity.
Isn't it obvious that it was gun control that killed all but the first few fictims? Isn't it obvious that more of the same poison is not the solution?
The results are in. Where people can defend themselves, mass shootings do not happen! It is an unspeakable crime to force people into a defenseless position.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Those Dirty, Rotten Taxes. The Burden on Civilization.
Liberals worry about the regressive nature of the Social Security tax (FICA) and the sales tax is somewhat regressive as well. We are also burdened with a very progressive (in the sense that the rate goes up the more you make) income tax. Conservatives used to worry about that a lot. The combined result of both of these taxes is a full fledged caste system. It prevents new upstart families from having a fair shot at getting rich. It locks the already rich families into positions of wealth and power.
In a lightly taxed (free) nation, the path to wealth is to get an education, learn a useful skill and use that knowledge to earn some money via salary. By working for someone else, you get the advantage of his capital investment and you can accumulate savings until you have enough to invest in your own business and start making more money. At this point, savings becomes capital.
Our current tax system impedes your progress in two ways. When you are young and still learning, you are heavily taxed by the regressive taxes. This is a burden but not a full fledged stopper on your path to wealth. But when you start earning a good salary, the income tax comes in to suck up your surplus and prevent that critical capital accumulation phase. This hurts you terribly and it also hurts society. Society at large should have its standard of living improved by the capital accumulation of individuals as overall productivity increases. We have that down to a trickle thanks to the progressive income tax.
The leaders of our current, very unfree, nation care more for their wealth and relative privilege than they do your standard of living. This is not any different than the Kings, Sultans, Pharoahs, etc of the past. They lived well at the long and short term expense of their subjects. In our nation, we do have the power to stop this if we could just got over the two party paradigm and start thinking as free people again. I prefer that to being a subject.
I consider the income tax as fractional slavery. If they are taking 40% of your earnings, how is that different from requiring the surfs of the Middle Ages to work 40% of their time on their master's crops before they could work on their own?
In a lightly taxed (free) nation, the path to wealth is to get an education, learn a useful skill and use that knowledge to earn some money via salary. By working for someone else, you get the advantage of his capital investment and you can accumulate savings until you have enough to invest in your own business and start making more money. At this point, savings becomes capital.
Our current tax system impedes your progress in two ways. When you are young and still learning, you are heavily taxed by the regressive taxes. This is a burden but not a full fledged stopper on your path to wealth. But when you start earning a good salary, the income tax comes in to suck up your surplus and prevent that critical capital accumulation phase. This hurts you terribly and it also hurts society. Society at large should have its standard of living improved by the capital accumulation of individuals as overall productivity increases. We have that down to a trickle thanks to the progressive income tax.
The leaders of our current, very unfree, nation care more for their wealth and relative privilege than they do your standard of living. This is not any different than the Kings, Sultans, Pharoahs, etc of the past. They lived well at the long and short term expense of their subjects. In our nation, we do have the power to stop this if we could just got over the two party paradigm and start thinking as free people again. I prefer that to being a subject.
I consider the income tax as fractional slavery. If they are taking 40% of your earnings, how is that different from requiring the surfs of the Middle Ages to work 40% of their time on their master's crops before they could work on their own?
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Political Theatre
The Democrats, who just got control of congress with a clear mandate to end the war have passed a bill to give the president the money to continue the war for more than another year. It has about 20% vote buying gravy built in and has some restrictions that might just end the war in time for the 2008 presidential election. I wonder if that timing is an accident.
Of course, the president is unhappy about it and threatens to veto. There will be pious talk about the need to support the troops, that if we do not give the president the money he is asking for we will be leaving the troops in Iraq without food or bullets. All the while, the administration will be demonizing Iran, setting us up for another disastrous misadventure.
We need to cut to the chase! Congress can say no more money for fighting. There is only money for leaving. If the president vetoes that, he is the one leaving the troops without food or bullets.
No compromise that continues the war for any amount of time is acceptable.
If Congress compromises away their anti-war mandate, it will be time for massive civil disobedience. Either they cut off the money to the war or we cut off the money to them.
As a child growing up in New York City in the 1950s I was surrounded by Holocaust survivors (with tattooed numbers on their arms) and constant discussion about how it happened. How did the German citizens let it happen? Didn't they know it was happening? Didn't they notice all the people disapearing from their midst? Did they let their civil liberties melt away before they realized what was happening and then it was too dangerous to speak out? Of course, we thought that it could not happen here! Not in America with our free speech, free elections and the constitution!
But it is happening here. Our civil liberties are melting away and it will soon be too dangerous to speak out. Of course we are not there yet. We can still stop it. We just have to wake up and understand what is happening. We must see that the two party system is a race to the bottom. Each party wants total control and that is the first value. It doesn't bother them that the price of their total control is your future, your live and your weatlh.
The government is using our money to commit heinous war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are kidnapping and torturing prisoners at GITMO, and other prisons around the world. Does Congress become accomplices by funding this activity? Are we not accomplices by continuing to support the government?
Of course, the president is unhappy about it and threatens to veto. There will be pious talk about the need to support the troops, that if we do not give the president the money he is asking for we will be leaving the troops in Iraq without food or bullets. All the while, the administration will be demonizing Iran, setting us up for another disastrous misadventure.
We need to cut to the chase! Congress can say no more money for fighting. There is only money for leaving. If the president vetoes that, he is the one leaving the troops without food or bullets.
No compromise that continues the war for any amount of time is acceptable.
If Congress compromises away their anti-war mandate, it will be time for massive civil disobedience. Either they cut off the money to the war or we cut off the money to them.
As a child growing up in New York City in the 1950s I was surrounded by Holocaust survivors (with tattooed numbers on their arms) and constant discussion about how it happened. How did the German citizens let it happen? Didn't they know it was happening? Didn't they notice all the people disapearing from their midst? Did they let their civil liberties melt away before they realized what was happening and then it was too dangerous to speak out? Of course, we thought that it could not happen here! Not in America with our free speech, free elections and the constitution!
But it is happening here. Our civil liberties are melting away and it will soon be too dangerous to speak out. Of course we are not there yet. We can still stop it. We just have to wake up and understand what is happening. We must see that the two party system is a race to the bottom. Each party wants total control and that is the first value. It doesn't bother them that the price of their total control is your future, your live and your weatlh.
The government is using our money to commit heinous war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are kidnapping and torturing prisoners at GITMO, and other prisons around the world. Does Congress become accomplices by funding this activity? Are we not accomplices by continuing to support the government?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)