tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-45718008701099552292024-02-20T05:38:31.174-08:00Liberty or DeathPolitical hacks from both major parties are determined to shred the freedoms that made America great, while the leaders of culture are attacking the beliefs that made America what it was with equal determination. And I'm pissed about it.Austin Sadlerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01741397222439880142noreply@blogger.comBlogger54125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4571800870109955229.post-46530440785219309812009-05-09T05:17:00.000-07:002009-05-09T05:49:47.461-07:00Your Tax Dollars at WorkSo this will be sure to stimulate the economy. The Imperial Federal Government has seized $400,000 from people who actually worked to earn it, so they could give a grant to a team of scientists conducting ground-breaking research.<div><br /></div><div>What study is so important that half a million dollars be taken from workers? Only the most important topic ever: gay bars.</div><div><br /></div><div>This team of scientists is going to live in Argentina for the next two years. They'll go to gay bars, trying to discover what factors lead gay men to engage in risky sexual behavior while drunk.</div><div><br /></div><div>I'm going to save the American people $400,000 right now: Drunken gay men engage in risky sexual behavior for the same reason drunken straight people do: THEY. ARE. DRUNK!</div><div><br /></div><div>Seriously? You need two years, a trip to Argentina, and $400K (which you can't raise yourself, so you take it by force) to figure out that alcohol makes bad sexual (and other) choices seem like good ideas? I thought it'd been common knowledge since roughly the dawn of time that alcohol makes really stupid ideas seem brilliant.</div><div><br /></div><div>I recently spent four years engaged in an exhaustive study of alcohol-fueled poor decision-making--and I did it for free. It was called "high school," and there I personally observed dozens if not hundreds of people making profoundly stupid decisions, all thanks to that magical chemical--decisions ranging from countless drunken hook-ups between people who can't stand each other in daylight, to a bizarre rendition of the Mexican hat-dance with a dead bobcat on the dancer's head. So you want to remind me why it was so important to send these researchers to Argentina?</div><div><br /></div><div>This would be hilarious--if it were a one-time oddity, or if it weren't being paid for by people who have no say in the matter. Unfortunately, we are forced to pay for it, and garbage like this is the rule, not the exception.</div>Austin Sadlerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01741397222439880142noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4571800870109955229.post-82271279536999743402009-04-14T10:41:00.001-07:002009-04-14T10:41:55.827-07:00What's the Tea Party About Anyway?<p class="MsoNormal">The media have launched a smear assault on the upcoming tea parties, from Rachel Maddow (who, apparently, is in fact an 11-year-old boy) spending thirteen minutes talking about how much Republicans love teabagging Obama (not kidding, she actually did) to the widespread portrayal of these rallies as for sore-loser Republicans who aren’t happy with the president.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Well, no. That’s not true.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">I am not a conservative, strictly speaking; I’m a right-leaning (in that I oppose abortion and like secure borders) libertarian. I am not a member of the Republican party, or even a supporter of Republicans generally.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">So why am I going to a tea party? Because of all of them—all the big-government hacks in Washington who are intent on destroying our freedoms, shredding our Constitution, and burdening our grandchildren with an insurmountable debt.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">I’m not just mad at Obama and the Democrats. To be sure, they’ve contributed a lot to the problem. But we knew that ahead of time. Democrats have favored a huge, intrusive government with a massive budget for almost a hundred years.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">What’s really gotten me angry is the Republicans—the party of responsibility, balanced budgets, and small government no longer. It’s you, George Bush, who tripled the size of government. It’s you, John McCain, for wanting to continue the same thing. It’s every one of you senators and congressmen who go along with big government agendas. It’s every member of Congress who went along with George Bush’s huge government because he’s “one of our guys,” but have now suddenly discovered conservative principles to stand against Obama’s even bigger government. Spare me. If you believe big government is wrong, you believe it’s wrong regardless of what letter is next to the name of the person pushing it. </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">I’m mad because people are losing their love of liberty. We’ve become a nation of slaves. And the new slavery doesn’t have whips and chains, it’s a nice, happy slavery—but it’s still slavery. The new slavery is government handouts—we can have free housing, free healthcare, a guaranteed job or a guaranteed paycheck, free food. All we have to do is accept the terms of the people providing these things—buy the kind of food they think we should eat, go to the doctors they want us to see…but hey, it’s the least we can do when they give us so much free stuff. Well, no. I refuse to be a slave. I would rather fail as an individual than live comfortably at the will of another. Government dependence is as evil and destructive as the slavery of the nineteenth century, and I will fight it with everything I’ve got. I may not be able to make a difference (at least as far as changing the outcome), but I will be heard.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">I’m mad because our leaders think it’s not only acceptable but noble to run over the rights of some, as long as more people benefit. And many people want to go along out of sincere, though misguided, compassion. But they’re wrong. It is never proper to trample one person’s rights. Could you feed an entire city by confiscating all of, say, Bill Gates’ assets? Of course. But it isn’t right: not because feeding people is wrong, but because when you ignore one person’s rights you ignore everyone’s. If you can arbitrarily run over this person, as long as others will be helped, than you can arbitrarily run over everyone. And I reject that outright. I respect the individual. I believe that one person’s rights—life, liberty, property—are sacred. Individual rights are worth more than any public good. People are not tools of the government; the government is a necessary evil that we should tolerate ONLY to protect our individual rights. And when individual rights become a necessary sacrifice for collective needs, there is no more free society.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">I’m mad that our debt—not including our massive unfunded social programs—is so massive that every American citizen will owe over $50,000 to pay for it. I’m madder that this fact has produced no desire by politicians of either party to spend less. On the contrary, the rate of spending has accelerated exponentially in the last eight months as one company after another has become “too big to fail”—code for “big enough that we want to control it.” I’m mad that within ten years the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">deficit</i>—let alone the actual debt—will be almost equal to the value of everything we produce in a year. I’m mad that our grandchildren are being burdened with this massive obligation—the ultimate “taxation without representation” as our habits levy enormous taxes from people who haven’t even been born yet.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">So it’s not about the president—he’s just the latest face on this impending disaster of tax-spend-and-let-future-generations-worry-about-it politics. It’s not about party, or being a sore loser—I opposed this when George Bush was doing it, and if I’m more vocal it’s because Obama has condensed eight years of Bush’s government growth into a few months. The issue’s been there all along, and I’ve spoken about it often. I’m going to the streets now only because it’s accelerating so fast that a crisis point we may have avoided for another couple of generations has suddenly been pushed up—a lot. And if we don’t change how we do this now, we may not get another chance.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">That’s what this tea party is about.</p>Austin Sadlerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01741397222439880142noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4571800870109955229.post-12455579305002942009-04-14T07:37:00.001-07:002009-04-14T07:37:23.269-07:00"Mommy Blogs"--The Greatest Threat to Our Nation<p class="MsoNormal">So in the wake of the lead-painted toy scare, the Omnipotent Federal Government has reached ludicrous heights of nanny-state-ism. Of course, there was the story Glenn Beck relentlessly pursued about banning ATVs and dirt bikes for under-12s, based on unsafe levels of lead in the gears and brakes which could cause damage if ingested (for the record, I agree with Beck on this: if your kid is stupid enough to lick the brakes or gearbox of a dirt bike, they probably deserve whatever happens to them).</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">But now they’ve gone even further into dictatorial realms. The Imperial Government has decided that “mommy blogs”—sites where parents share personal experiences and recommendations about various products—fall under advertising laws, and anyone who posts a positive review of a product that turns out to be dangerous could be held liable.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">WHAT?</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">These are not professional advertisers, claiming the product is safe despite knowing that it’s not. These are everyday people, honestly relating their experience with something. If it didn’t hurt them as of the time of the review, they had no way of knowing it could have (or would soon) do so. Holding them liable is ludicrous. And it’s dangerous. If expressing an opinion, based on incomplete or faulty information, makes you criminally (or civilly) liable for damages done by someone else’s negligence, there’s really no way to safely express an opinion anymore. McCain-Feingold, Fairness Doctrine, and now this—free speech is dead.</p>Austin Sadlerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01741397222439880142noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4571800870109955229.post-26032135284982948962009-04-09T08:05:00.000-07:002009-04-09T08:07:52.453-07:00The Lesson of the Somali Pirate Episode<p class="MsoNormal">So I’m sure you heard about the Somali pirate debacle. These thugs captured a US-flagged ship and held the crew hostage. I’ll admit I was worried for a bit—what exactly would the spineless jellyfish in the White House do? He’s so much like Carter, and I can’t help but remember (well, sort of—it was well before my time) how Carter responded to American citizens being held hostage—he said some snivelly, ineffectual things and it took over a year (not to mention the election of a new president who actually had a pair) for them to be released.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Turns out I needn’t have worried at all. You see, these people took it upon themselves to do whatever they needed to do, no matter how hard. I can’t imagine being an unarmed sailor taking on a crew of AK-toting thugs—but these people found the courage to do so. They didn’t demand (or probably even expect) help, they helped themselves—and managed to solve their problems without the government doing a thing.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">I’m hoping it’s obvious I’m no longer speaking just about that freighter crew.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">There is not a single problem in America that needs the government to solve it. They can all be fixed simply by the American people getting up, steeling themselves, and doing what’s right—no matter how hard or frightening it is. Would it be painful? Of course. Will we be comfortable with it? Probably not. But by tackling the problems head-on, doing the hard but necessary thing, we will actually solve them. By letting the government defy the basic laws of silly things like economics, or basic mathematics, common sense, the Constitution, or even the laws they invented, we make ourselves comfortable today. But that comfort comes at a terrible price—we’re building a massive house of cards that will, someday, collapse—if not on us, then on our children.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Everyone’s running around with their hair on fire screaming about how we have to save the economy. We don’t. Our economy has become a ludicrous shell game—we spend money we don’t have, so banks can loan that money to other people who don’t have it. We juggle our debt, hoping to keep it in the air forever. But because we keep spending, we’re constantly expanding the loop, trying to juggle more things. That’s how the government works, that’s how that average moron with 8 credit cards lives—and eventually we won’t be able to keep up. We don’t need to pump money back into the system to keep it going—the system is built on a lie, that’s why it collapsed in the first place, and if we try to keep it going we’ll just get another collapse. It’s like those moving walkways in the airport—we’ve been running on an economic moving walkway for twenty years, but it couldn’t go on forever and once we reached the end our feet couldn’t keep up. What’s the solution? Build another walkway, knowing eventually that one will end too? Or fall on our face, take the sting and the embarrassment, then pick ourselves back up and carry on a bit wiser? Which one sounds like a better idea? We don’t need to prop the economy back up, we need to suffer through the painful process of completely restructuring it—building a new economy. A new economy like the old one, based on working, saving, investing, and above all producing real things of real value—not another economy based on spending every penny we have and then some, basing our entire life on the assumption that things will get better forever (and we’re royally screwed if we’re wrong).</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">We may be afraid of that pain, we may not think we can do it—or at least many in the country have been conditioned to believe that—but we can. I honestly believe there is no crisis the American people are not equal to—as long as the government gets out of our way and lets us do it. Don’t be our parent, trying to save us from the pain of making difficult decisions. Life isn’t always unicorns and rainbows, so stop trying to convince us it is. We’re big kids now, and we can handle it.</p>Austin Sadlerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01741397222439880142noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4571800870109955229.post-20078599361920160342009-04-06T14:17:00.000-07:002009-04-06T14:54:58.216-07:00Here's the Excuse They NeedIn the last month, tyrannical statists have found the excuses they need to completely destroy the Second Amendment.<div><br /></div><div>90% of guns in Mexico are from America! (Or 90% of the traced guns--which only constitute about a fifth of all guns used in crimes. But whatever, math doesn't matter.)</div><div><br /></div><div>Then there's the rash of violent sprees. Guy walks into an ESL school for immigrants and kills 13, then himself. Guy in Michigan shoots his five kids and himself. The guy in Pittsburgh who killed cops--and, according to his neighbor, was "afraid Barack Obama would take his guns." At least half a dozen murder-suicides where someone kills their entire family before themself. And there's a firestorm of criticism saying they wouldn't have done it if they hadn't had so much access to guns.</div><div><br /></div><div>Make no mistake, that is going to be the excuse to put tighter controls on guns.</div><div><br /></div><div>Are guns the problem, though? Or are psychopaths the problem? The guy at the immigration school--if he hadn't had a gun, do you think we would have said, "Well maybe I shouldn't kill people," or do you think we would have gone in with a knife (as, in fact, he did anyway)? And since the police weren't there right away, do you think maybe people still would have died?</div><div><br /></div><div>Do guns cause crime? Switzerland requires every household to have an actual military weapon--not a civilian AR copy that our media demonizes, but a fully automatic FN-FAL, what's termed a "machine gun" in the legislation of this country. It's not only allowed but mandated. And I don't hear about murders in Switzerland often. In fact, they have one of the lowest crime rates in the world. </div><div><br /></div><div>But facts seem not to matter anymore, and big government is getting bigger and bigger every day, no matter how many people protest it. The last election gave statists--both Democrats and Republicans--the majority they need to ignore the will of the people. We can't touch them for another two years, and by that time they'll be so firmly entrenched it'll take decades to undo what they've done. </div><div><br /></div><div>It's almost certain some massive gun control legislation will happen soon. I just have this to say about that: Out of my cold, dead hands.</div>Austin Sadlerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01741397222439880142noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4571800870109955229.post-1376414944705955492009-04-03T07:18:00.000-07:002009-04-03T07:42:08.672-07:00Is This the Change We Wanted?So the Congress decided last night to pass Obama's record-breaking $3.6T budgets (made with a promise to cut spending and reduce deficits...there's that doublethink thing again).<div><br /></div><div>Anyone else find it odd that the most transparent, ethical Congress passes most of tis bills in the middle of the night?</div><div><br /></div><div>So in addition to bankrupting the country and guaranteeing massive tax increases, this budget makes universal health care happen--without any public debate at all. The president wants it and Congress bends over, so despite very real concerns about the quality of universal care and the way it erodes the rights of both doctors and patients, UHC has become reality without even an attempt to answer the serious questions of opponents.</div><div><br /></div><div>Is this the change we need? Midnight deals? Massive public expenditures, programs that will affect everyone, without any debate or questioning? A government that ignores the laws of mathematics (triple size of budget without raising taxes on more than 2% and while cutting defecits) in a desperate attempt to make America the Soviet Union?</div>Austin Sadlerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01741397222439880142noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4571800870109955229.post-62243844514013311852009-04-02T07:19:00.000-07:002009-04-02T07:36:40.568-07:00The Audacity of FascismSo Tim Geithner says he wants to keep his options open as far as removing CEOs. He sees that it's "necessary" to make companies "stronger in the future."<div><br /></div><div>What happened to my country? When anyone--let alone an unelected official with an aversion to paying the taxes he's supposed to collect--from the federal government can fire the CEO of a private business? And he's not even being subtle about it! He's proud of himself! "Of course" we may do that again, he says! That's not even socialist-leaning, that's outright totalitarianism! It's a freaking joke. People called Bush a fascist for years, and on some points that may have had some merit; but no one who's honest with themselves can dispute that what we're doing now is not a little fascistic, it's open fascism. </div><div><br /></div><div>Fascism: <span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial;">a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: arial; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: arial; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px;">Suppressing opposition? Well, labeling Ron Paul voters as "terrorists" would qualify. So would having members of a union who contributed heavily to your election bused by the "community organizer" group you used to work for to the homes of executives whose pay you want to confiscate. Complete power? More and more every day, as the administration campaigns for power to take over any private business deemed "too big to fail" and asserts rights to control every aspect of business. Regimenting industry? Firing CEOs, setting pay for all employees, and having the government determine what a "viable business plan" would be all qualify. So is buying the healthcare and banking sectors. There's a bill now for a federal ban on phosphate-based detergents, which have no noticeable environmental impact at all, in favor of organic soaps. And there's another bill that would place regulation of small private gardens and local farmers in the hands of the feds, essentially making it impossible for small farms to survive. Aggressive nationalism? Well, not really, but Obama seems to see the entire planet as one extended "nation" and is aggressively pursuing transnational globalism.</span></div>Austin Sadlerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01741397222439880142noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4571800870109955229.post-10820332055204751792009-03-31T08:04:00.000-07:002009-03-31T08:06:47.369-07:00Yet More Doublethink from Dear Leader<p class="MsoNormal">So the Messiah has spoken again, saying he has “no intention” of running GM. Of course he doesn’t. He just intends to fire their CEO, set caps on pay, and demand that they come up with a business plan which can be deemed “viable” by Obama and various other government officials, none of whom have a single day of experience in the auto industry. But he’s definitely not going to be running the company.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Anyone else remember the word “doublethink”?</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">So, here’s what our government has discovered the power to do in the last six months: cap executive compensation; tax executive bonuses at 90%; buy up to 80% shares in businesses; determine what constitutes a “viable” business plan for an industry they know nothing about; fire executives; put aside almost a trillion dollars as a “down payment” on universal health care before the American people even discuss paying for it; and they’re very close to inventing the power to seize ANY private business that they deem “too big to fail.” What happened to my country? This is not America anymore! This is what Mussolini did in the 20s!</p>Austin Sadlerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01741397222439880142noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4571800870109955229.post-8280655996537948622009-03-30T07:44:00.000-07:002009-03-30T07:45:54.965-07:00For the Love of GodThis psychopath in Colombia kept his daughter in a dungeon, raping her repeatedly. They have 11 children/grandchildren.<div><br /></div><div>People like that should be put down like a mad dog. I'm not a rabid death-penalty advocate, but for someone like this--150 grains between the eyes.</div>Austin Sadlerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01741397222439880142noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4571800870109955229.post-10152985207661757832009-03-27T04:50:00.000-07:002009-03-27T04:51:34.007-07:00No Double StandardsMassive floods are ravaging North Dakota, and because I don't like hypocrisy I'm going to apply international statesman Kanye West's logic in the Bush-Katrina fallout: Barack Obama does not care about white people.<div><br /></div><div>That's all.</div>Austin Sadlerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01741397222439880142noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4571800870109955229.post-11210671722634363722009-03-26T09:15:00.000-07:002009-03-26T09:28:53.408-07:00"Get-Tough" PowersSo Tim Geithner, the most unqualified moron in government office since...well, since Obama himself...wants Congress to give him "get-tough" regulatory power so he can manage businesses that are Too Big To Fail.<div><br /></div><div>For the sake of argument, I'll ignore the fact that Congress can't legally give him a power that they don't legally have themselves. Undoubtedly Congress will ignore that fact, too, so it's alright.</div><div><br /></div><div>Isn't that what caused most of the crisis in the first place? It's hardly the failure of the free market when government orders banks to make between 35 and 56 percent of their loans to people who can't afford loans. This is EXACTLY what Ayn Rand was talking about: regulation can trip businesses, giving the government the excuse to say the free market has failed and take greater control.</div>Austin Sadlerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01741397222439880142noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4571800870109955229.post-82348673504168244082009-03-26T07:56:00.000-07:002009-03-26T07:57:25.491-07:00What Are We Afraid Of?<p class="MsoNormal">There’s no more “war on terror.” That phrase is unacceptable now. The Pentagon has changed the name to “overseas contingency operation,” while the new DHS secretary refuses to say “terrorism,” preferring the phrase “man-caused disaster.”</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">What a load of crap.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Even “war on terror” is misleading. It’s a war on radical Islamic fascism. Terrorism is a tactic. You don’t fight a tactic, you fight an enemy; it wasn’t a “war on blitzkrieg,” it was a war on Nazi Germany. “Overseas contingency operation” is even less honest. Having a response team for, say, an earthquake in Turkey or something like that is an “overseas contingency.” And “man-caused disaster”? Some moron drops a cigarette and burns down 20,000 acres, that’s a man-caused disaster. That’s not the same as someone walking into a bus station, wearing a vest containing C4, nails, and rat poison, so they can murder as many children as possible. That’s not a “man-caused disaster,” that’s deliberate, cold-blooded mass murder. So how on earth are we supposed to combat that if we’re too afraid to call it what it is? Terrorism is acts of violence committed to make a political statement. It’s not a “man-caused disaster,” it’s the deliberate infliction of as much death and destruction as possible. And it’s not a “contingency plan,” it’s a war: not against “terror” but against radical Islamofascists who commit acts of terrorism. Don’t be afraid to say what you mean! Do you think by saying “contingency operation” you change the fact that bombs are going off? Do you stop anyone from dying by saying “contingency” instead of “war” or “man-caused disaster” instead of “terrorism”? So why would you do this Orwellian nonsense, coming up with “acceptable” phrases that don’t mean anything?</p>Austin Sadlerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01741397222439880142noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4571800870109955229.post-43512644211790600492009-03-26T07:15:00.000-07:002009-03-26T07:20:03.523-07:00I Guess Everything's FixedApparently every problem the country faces has been solved. How do I know this? Well, Senator Orrin Hatch is proposing legislation to change how the NCAA football championship is decided. Never mind that Congress has no authority to regulate a private sports association's championship practices, this makes it obvious that Congress must not have anything important left to do.<div><br /></div><div>Look, Hatch: I understand your team got ripped off. Too bad. It's not your job, on my dollar, to make sure people are happy with college football.</div>Austin Sadlerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01741397222439880142noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4571800870109955229.post-29024294791081750122009-03-25T07:44:00.000-07:002009-03-25T07:55:32.668-07:00Try and Make MeSo the Senate is kicking around a supplement to the incredibly stupid GIVE Act, called the SERVE Act.<div><br /></div><div>(Sidebar: Can we stop making up cutesy acronyms, then finding a phrase that fits them? Like, say, USA PATRIOT, GIVE, SERVE, or TARP? Good God, is Gary Busey making up the names for legislation? Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth, Sewage Held In Transit, Finally Understanding Nothing, Together Everyone Achieves More?)</div><div><br /></div><div>Here's the problem: Obama has requested that the Senate see "whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds."</div><div><br /></div><div>See, I've got no problem volunteering. But I'll be damned if the federal government is going to force me to do the volunteer work they think I need to.</div><div><br /></div><div>Remember the Thirteenth Amendment? About how "neither slavery nor involuntary servitude" should exist in this country "except as punishment for a crime" that someone's been convicted of by due process? That includes "involuntary servitude" in pursuit of what I'm sure will be noble, public-minded projects (after all, there's no way Barack Obama is going to use this to provide footsoldiers for radical leftist organizations). "No involuntary servitude" means even if you think it's for the greater good. I volunteer for organizations that I feel deserve my time, in pursuit of goals I choose. You're going to try and force me to do the volunteer work that serves your interests? Good luck. I will not do charity work at gunpoint. Not for Obama, not for anyone. If anyone--and I don't give a flying crap what letter is next to their name--expects me to "volunteer" or go to jail...well, bring on the 4x8 cell. It's called "volunteering" because it's VOLUNTARY. You hold a gun to my head and it's not "volunteering" anymore.</div>Austin Sadlerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01741397222439880142noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4571800870109955229.post-49295607957087117912009-03-24T07:22:00.000-07:002009-03-24T07:36:48.779-07:00Good God, It Never EndsSo the Obama administration is seeking a new set of powers (and does anyone doubt they'll get them?). Right now, the government has authority to sieze or buy banks, which is in itself dangerous and fascistic. Lord Barry wants authority to seize ANY firm or business whose failure would hurt "the broader economy."<div><br /></div><div>God's sake, what's happening to my country?</div><div><br /></div><div>First of all: they've been managed badly, but can't fail, so the GOVERNMENT gets to try to manage them? I suppose the point is to show us that you don't know what bad management is yet. Seriously, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, Amtrak--all of them are colossal failures! Why would letting the government run other businesses be a path to success?</div><div><br /></div><div>And why on earth is ANYONE okay with the idea of Geithner and Bernanke being able to take control of any business they want, as long as they can say "too big to fail." No, not "too big to fail." No one is too important to fail. And the government should NEVER, EVER take control of business. That's called fascism. I hated it when George Bush did it, I hate it when Obama does it. Stop nationalizing private businesses! This is AMERICA, dammit, where everyone's success or failure should be up to them, not the government and certainly not the unelected, unconstitutional Federal Reserve! How long are we going to let this go on? Our freedoms are being destroyed everyday, our children are being faced with a debt they'll never be able to get away from, and the president is laughing his freaking head off about the whole thing! What's it going to take to get people in the streets? You're angry about the death of liberty, let them know! Lean out your window and scream "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not gonna take it anymore!" Go to the tea parties. March in the streets. Until the whores in Washington realize how angry we really are--until we're no longer a silent majority--nothing will change.<br /></div>Austin Sadlerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01741397222439880142noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4571800870109955229.post-34342909730938687912009-03-23T09:49:00.001-07:002009-03-23T09:49:54.138-07:00THe Tyranny of Perpetual Debt<p class="MsoNormal">So there’s this little group called the Congressional Budget Office that’s a non-partisan, unbiased office dedicated to measuring the economic consequences of government proposals. And guess what they’ve figured out? The Obama budget will create a deficit of $1.8 TRILLION this year alone! That’s new debt this year over 4% of our GDP. By the end of the president’s first term, our debt—not including our unfunded Social Security obligations to the tune of $100T—will account for EIGHTY-FIVE PERCENT of the value produced in the country. How on earth do you expect to survive with debt equal to almost nine-tenths of your income? It doesn’t make any sense!</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">And now we’re getting some of the money we’re spending by borrowing from ourselves. How does that make any sense? If a private citizen or business accounted that way, people would go to prison! Say there’s a company—like, say, Tyco—who spends money from one department to fund another department, then counts it as an asset. How’d that end up? Oh yeah, with the company going out of business and the executives spending life in prison. So remind me why it’s okay for the government to do it?</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">It’s a colossal house of cards. We’re paying off our debt by borrowing more money—from ourselves. It’s a circle so absurd it would be funny if it didn’t determine the future of our country—the Treasury borrows from the Fed to pay off its debt to the Fed, which uses the payment to buy debt from the Treasury. They’re juggling, hoping to keep this massive debt in the air so that we never have to do the painful thing, change our lifestyles and deal with it. But as they take on more and more debt, it’s going to be the same as a juggler taking more and more chainsaws or flaming torches—eventually there are going to be too many to keep up with, and then they all come crashing down. And what happens when a couple trillion chainsaws drop on the poor juggler?</p>Austin Sadlerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01741397222439880142noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4571800870109955229.post-37282775889248832852009-03-23T09:39:00.000-07:002009-03-23T09:49:13.127-07:00Political Persecution...Again<p class="MsoNormal">I’m almost too angry about this to speak. This is the most outrageous thing I have ever heard, bar none.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">A Missouri state trooper, concerned with what he was being told to do, just released details of a report by the Missouri Information Analysis Center. This organization helps formulate police policy by synthesizing information and making recommendations. The most recent MIAC report, though…</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">This report defines “militia-influenced terrorists.” Here are some of the signs of a violent militia-member:</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">“Most commonly associated with third-party political groups” and support presidential candidates such as Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr. Police are advised to look out for people sporting campaign materials—clothing, bumper stickers, signs, etc.—related to the Constitution or Libertarian parties or the Campaign for Liberty.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Promoting anti-government sentiment, including calling for the disbandment of the IRS.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Opposition to any of the following:</p> <p class="MsoNormal">New World Order</p> <p class="MsoNormal">United Nations</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Gun control</p> <p class="MsoNormal">The Federal Reserve</p> <p class="MsoNormal">The income tax</p> <p class="MsoNormal">The Ammunition Accountability Act, which places punitive taxes on ammunition and establishes a registry for everyone who buys it</p> <p class="MsoNormal">A new Constitutional Convention to entirely replace the current Constitution</p> <p class="MsoNormal">NAFTA or other forms of North American union</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Abortion on demand</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Illegal immigration</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">So you don’t think the entire world should have one government? You may be a terrorist. You don’t think law-abiding citizens should be stripped of any ability to defend themselves against gun-toting gangsters who respect gun-control laws no more than they respect every other law? Terrorist. You don’t want an unelected body, made up of executives from big investment banks, determining the state of the economy by printing money and setting interest rates? Terrorist. You don’t want the government to take a huge chunk of everything you earn? You’re a terrorist. You don’t think killing the unborn is a basic human right? You’re a terrorist. And you don’t want a way to keep drug smugglers, child rapists, and serial murderers out of this country? Terrorist.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">And if you belong to one of two political parties singled out by the state government? You’re an evil terrorist.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Let’s see…I’m a Libertarian Party member, a Campaign for Liberty member, I voted for Ron Paul in the primaries and Bob Barr in the general election, I want the IRS gone, I oppose everything listed…Wow, I’m an extremely dangerous, violent person. Lock me up, I’m a terrorist. I always thought terrorism involved violent actions or the intent to commit them, not just belonging to a certain political party. Hey, the Nazi Party isn’t even listed as a militia-influenced group, but the Libertarian Party is. (For that matter, even though “third-party groups” are mentioned, only right-leaning groups—Campaign for Liberty, Libertarians, and Constitution Party—are named; the Green Party seems to be an acceptable third-party group.)</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">In all seriousness, I can’t even express the fury I feel about this. That ANY government in this country can single out a political party or candidate, and instruct the police to watch for their literature as a sign of a violent militia member, is so horrific that it truly defies belief. If a political candidate actively preaches acts of violence, I have no problem with the police investigating that candidate and those supporters who participated in or planned those acts. That’s not what’s happening here. These are mainstream political parties—the third and fourth largest in the country—whose doctrines specifically mention a prohibition on violent acts. If I find myself in Missouri, with my bumper stickers full of Ayn Rand references and LP logos, I don’t want to be pulled over just for those stickers. No one should be okay with that. You don’t have to be a member of any of those organizations, you don’t have to live in Missouri, you don’t even have to oppose the MIAC’s laundry list—this should make everyone angry.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">This idea sounds kind of familiar. You know how in Cuba, North Korea, or China, if you’re a member of any religious organization or any political group not related to the Communist Party, you can be considered a criminal? Or in Nazi Germany, if you were a member of a Communist organization, you could be thrown in jail? Or in 1950s America, if you were suspected of being a Communist sympathizer, you could be called before Congress and fined (that one had a little more merit, since the Communist Party actively encouraged sabotage)?</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">So I'm going to try and organize an active protest on this one. I'm not going to sit back and take being called a "terrorist" just because of who I voted for in November. Details to follow on that.</p>Austin Sadlerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01741397222439880142noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4571800870109955229.post-61419661317943978332009-03-19T09:08:00.000-07:002009-03-19T09:16:06.793-07:00"Democratic Process Isn't Working"James Hansen, NASA's leading global-warming Chicken Little, has said that "the democratic process doesn't seem to be working" on fulfilling his kinda-scientific vision (which is actually not--we have reliable data for the last 150 years, a time frame the planet hasn't even noticed; you can't measure "climate change" over 100 years when it moves in terms of millenia). So what's left? Dictatorial mandates? If the people aren't responding, if the people don't believe you, you're going to force us?Austin Sadlerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01741397222439880142noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4571800870109955229.post-77858218115653632762009-03-19T06:59:00.000-07:002009-03-19T07:28:15.107-07:00This Doesn't Even Seem Real AnymoreLook, I'm mad that AIG is taking bonuses from my money. I am. But not because they honored their contracts (although a contract that includes an unconditional bonus is unbelievably stupid). No, I'm mad at the congressional whores who gave them my money in the first place! If you didn't bail them out, they wouldn't be using tax money to fund their stupid decisions!<div><br /></div><div>What I'm really furious about, though, is the Senate response. One senator told them to "resign or commit suicide." When told about death threats--some quite explicit, detailing how the executives' entire families would be strangled with piano wire--one senator said he was "not concerned. Everyone gets mail like this." Others have said that as long as the executives return the bonuses, their names will not be made public. What the hell is that? It's like something out of The Sopranos! "I know they say they'll kill your family with piano wire if they find out who you are. All you have to do is give us the money and we'll make sure they don't find out." For the love of God, that's not even a veiled threat, it's right in the freaking open! It's called extortion, sir. I don't want my government involved in open blackmail.</div><div><br /></div><div>Then there's the way this stomps all over the Constitution. There's a clause in there about how the government cannot issue bills of attainder--singling out a person or group for punishment without trial. What do you think a resolution demanding specifically that AIG executives return their bonuses is, if not a bill of attainder? There's also a clause that says the government cannot interfere in a valid contract, and that, I think is the most important part of the Constitution. The contract is the only thing that holds our society together, the idea that someone must fulfill their obligations once the terms are set. It's the thing that assures we deal with each other fairly and respectfully. How will business be done if we can't be sure the other party will deliver? If I work for a guaranteed bonus, like the AIG execs, why should I work if Congress can cancel the contract and see that I don't get compensated? How could I, as a business owner, be sure my supplier will come through if Congress can overturn our shipping contract? How are we supposed to keep functioning when all of our binding agreements become null and void when the government says so?</div><div><br /></div><div>Oh, a sidebar: does anyone think, if AIG does give the bonuses back, that the Congress will really return them to the taxpayers? Or will they spend that money on a pet project? Honestly, what do you believe?</div><div><br /></div><div>The whole situation is seeming less real to me now. It seems like a dream or a movie when a sitting senator of the United States tells people to "resign or commit suicide" or "give us the money or we'll give out your name so all the people threatening your life can find you." What's happening to this country?</div>Austin Sadlerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01741397222439880142noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4571800870109955229.post-9572330730004358222009-03-18T07:13:00.000-07:002009-03-18T07:18:00.811-07:00Politicize the Census? No Way That'll HappenRemember how those stupid paranoid Republicans were saying moving the census to the White House could lead to dangerous politicization? And how The Notorious B.H.O. said that was a ludicrous distraction?<div><br /></div><div>Well, guess who's going to be responsible for recruiting a lot of census workers next year? ACORN. The "non-partisan" group who bribed homeless men with cigarettes to vote for Barack Obama 73 times, whose leader said "We as community organizers must elect <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">the </span>community organizer"? The group who's been connected to voter fraud for at least the last three or four elections? The group who BHO was the most prominent counsel for? No, there's nothing unseemly about that.</div>Austin Sadlerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01741397222439880142noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4571800870109955229.post-33430799655082019112009-03-18T05:50:00.001-07:002009-03-18T05:52:22.663-07:00How Dare You Help People?So this doctor came up with a great idea to reduce the cost of healthcare: $79 a month gets you unlimited visits, with bloodwork, sonogram, and X-rays included. He was willing to perform those procedures for that little. Then something happened: the government got involved. They said this made him "an insurance company" (for offering a flat rate for his own services) and said if he didn't stop he'd be shut down.<div><br /></div><div>WHAT?</div>Austin Sadlerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01741397222439880142noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4571800870109955229.post-7686008601715605892009-03-18T05:11:00.000-07:002009-03-18T05:42:24.247-07:00Let's Destroy Our Constitution...For Mexico's Sake!Obamessiah's new attorney general has said he wants to bring back to life the horrible Clinton-era Assault Weapon Ban. He says it will "have a positive impact on Mexico, at least."<div><br /></div><div>Even if true, I don't think our Constitution should be eroded to fix a problem Mexico created. Of course, that's a moot point because it's the most ridiculous statement I've ever heard. Who's causing problems in Mexico? Ruthless drug traffickers who are responsible for, just last year, 6,200 murders, including dozens of decapitations. Do you suppose those people really care about gun laws?</div><div><br /></div><div>Never mind that "assault weapons" is a ludicrous term with no real meaning. It does NOT describe automatic military weapons. It describes semiautomatic weapons loosely modeled on military weapons, which look kind of the same but operate completely differently. A semiautomatic AR-15 copy works EXACTLY the same, firing the exact same ammunition with the exact same force, as a Mini-14. The difference is that the AR has a pistol grip, which does absolutely nothing to enhance killing ability. So why on earth does the Assault Weapons Ban apply to only one of these essentially identical weapons? It makes no sense at all. Gun-control morons make some absolutely ridiculous claims: take the evil pistol grip. They say it's designed for military weapons, to make firing from the hip easier. Anyone who's had any contact with the military whatsoever knows that one of the first things the military teaches recruits about shooting is NEVER fire from the hip. The pistol grip is designed to make extended carry and quick aiming less stressful on the body by allowing the soldier (or hunter, or anyone for that matter) to keep their wrist straight, rather than bent at a 45-degree angle. The Brady Campaign also says the pistol grip allows you to shoot a high-powered rifle or shotgun with one hand. Only if you're in a Chuck Norris movie from 1985. (Leave aside the fact that "high-powered assault weapons" tend to be chambered for 7.62x39 or .223--both of which are less than a third as powerful as the most common hunting cartridges.) Anyone who thinks it's possible to fire a shotgun one-handed has obviously never even held one in their life. Even properly braced, with the whole body absorbing the recoil, a shotgun has a mean bite. All that force transfered to one wrist and arm? Let alone the difficulty of holding even a legal-minimum-size shotgun--about 2 1/2 feet long and almost eight pounds unloaded--steady in one hand. Or collapsible stocks, another favorite demon of the Brady idiots. They say these "sacrifice accuracy to enhance speed" and facilitate concealment. Well, no. A telescoping stock just allows you to adjust for your own arm length. It has nothing to do with accuracy or rate of fire, although admittedly a fully collapsed stock is "faster" in the sense that it's easier to maneuver in small spaces. And since 1934 the minimum length, with stock full collapsed, of a rifle or shotgun is 26 inches. Good luck concealing that.</div><div><br /></div><div>This is getting dangerous. We have an attorney general who thinks that people who don't respect the laws against murder and heroin trafficking will respect laws against certain arbitrarily defined guns. It's not going to make people safe; quite the opposite, since gun control disarms only those who respect the law, leaving us defenseless against criminals who don't obey the law and government agents which are above it.</div>Austin Sadlerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01741397222439880142noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4571800870109955229.post-28448152727067568652009-03-18T04:57:00.000-07:002009-03-18T05:11:14.093-07:00Is This a Waste?A new ballpark estimate for the cost of universal (crappy) health care is over $1.5 trillion. Obama Claus refuses to discuss this, since it "depends on details to be worked out by Congress" (well, could you give us a guess, maybe within a couple hundred million at least?). <div><br /></div><div>but it's not enough to pay for health care. They have to come up with new rules for health care. Quoth Sen. Judd Gregg: "We shouldn't just be throwing more money on top of the current system, because the current system is so wasteful." This is in reference to the fact that a third of all health care costs go to testing and procedures, rather than prevention and treatment.</div><div><br /></div><div>Hang on: aren't tests and procedures what doctors use to figure out what kind of prevention and treatment to use? Aren't tests a form of prevention? Or is everyone who gets a cancer screen just being "wasteful"? Dr. House may be able to diagnose based on hunches, and it makes for an awesome TV drama to keep saying, "Start treatment. If I'm right, he gets better. If I'm wrong, he dies." But I don't want real doctors doing that. I like my tests and procedures before they start shoving drugs in my body (or cutting out pieces of it). That's not "wasteful," Senator Gregg.</div>Austin Sadlerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01741397222439880142noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4571800870109955229.post-12319713841908597972009-03-18T04:51:00.000-07:002009-03-18T04:56:23.761-07:00No More Politics As Usual...Right?Remember how Obamessiah promised to "stop partisan bickering" and "end politics as usual"? Then a funny thing happened after Dick Cheney spoke about the economy: Obamouthpiece Gibbs said that, since Limbaugh was busy, we had to hear from "the second most popular member of the Republican cabal."<div><br /></div><div>I'm glad you're reaching across the aisle and ending bitter partisan rhetoric. Or, you know, not. But it's okay, because that evil "Republican cabal" is the biggest threat to our nation since Hitler (and that's basically all Dick Cheney is, anyway).</div>Austin Sadlerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01741397222439880142noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4571800870109955229.post-58809425475693324702009-03-17T07:53:00.001-07:002009-03-17T08:00:00.714-07:00"Just Say No" ApproachSo the Messiah claims that his opponents are simply offering a "just say no" approach to his economic proposals, without coming up with ideas of their own. He says that if someone objects to specific policies or items in his stimulus plans, they should propose a conservative alternative, instead of just saying "don't do it."<div><br /></div><div>Well, Mr. President: that IS the conservative alternative. Don't do it. Don't spend that much money, don't rob three generations to create a few thousand temp jobs, don't increase the power of government, don't let Washington control the economy. Let the market work, let the people make their economic decisions, don't make them for us. THAT'S the conservative answer, THAT'S the alternative: Don't take control, direct or indirect, of the market, and don't make decisions that may or may not work, but either way mean that the taxman will get to rape the next three generations.</div>Austin Sadlerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01741397222439880142noreply@blogger.com1