Liberty or Death

Your Tax Dollars at Work

2009-05-09T05:17:00.000-07:00

So 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.

What study is so important that half a million dollars be taken from workers? Only the most important topic ever: gay bars.

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.

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!

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.

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?

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.

What's the Tea Party About Anyway?

2009-04-14T10:41:00.001-07:00

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.

Well, no. That’s not true.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 deficit—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.

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.

That’s what this tea party is about.

"Mommy Blogs"--The Greatest Threat to Our Nation

2009-04-14T07:37:00.001-07:00

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).

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.

WHAT?

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.

The Lesson of the Somali Pirate Episode

2009-04-09T08:05:00.000-07:00

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.

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.

I’m hoping it’s obvious I’m no longer speaking just about that freighter crew.

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.

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).

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.

Here's the Excuse They Need

2009-04-06T14:17:00.000-07:00

In the last month, tyrannical statists have found the excuses they need to completely destroy the Second Amendment.

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.)

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.

Make no mistake, that is going to be the excuse to put tighter controls on guns.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Is This the Change We Wanted?

2009-04-03T07:18:00.000-07:00

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).

Anyone else find it odd that the most transparent, ethical Congress passes most of tis bills in the middle of the night?

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.

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?

The Audacity of Fascism

2009-04-02T07:19:00.000-07:00

So 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."

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.

Fascism: 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.

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.

Yet More Doublethink from Dear Leader

2009-03-31T08:04:00.000-07:00

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.

Anyone else remember the word “doublethink”?

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!

For the Love of God

2009-03-30T07:44:00.000-07:00

This psychopath in Colombia kept his daughter in a dungeon, raping her repeatedly. They have 11 children/grandchildren.

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.

No Double Standards

2009-03-27T04:50:00.000-07:00

Massive 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.

That's all.

"Get-Tough" Powers

2009-03-26T09:15:00.000-07:00

So 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.

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.

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.

What Are We Afraid Of?

2009-03-26T07:56:00.000-07:00

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.”

What a load of crap.

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?

I Guess Everything's Fixed

2009-03-26T07:15:00.000-07:00

Apparently 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.

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.

Try and Make Me

2009-03-25T07:44:00.000-07:00

So the Senate is kicking around a supplement to the incredibly stupid GIVE Act, called the SERVE Act.

(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?)

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."

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.

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.

Good God, It Never Ends

2009-03-24T07:22:00.000-07:00

So 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."

God's sake, what's happening to my country?

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?

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.

THe Tyranny of Perpetual Debt

2009-03-23T09:49:00.001-07:00

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!

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?

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?

Political Persecution...Again

2009-03-23T09:39:00.000-07:00

I’m almost too angry about this to speak. This is the most outrageous thing I have ever heard, bar none.

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…

This report defines “militia-influenced terrorists.” Here are some of the signs of a violent militia-member:

“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.

Promoting anti-government sentiment, including calling for the disbandment of the IRS.

Opposition to any of the following:

New World Order

United Nations

Gun control

The Federal Reserve

The income tax

The Ammunition Accountability Act, which places punitive taxes on ammunition and establishes a registry for everyone who buys it

A new Constitutional Convention to entirely replace the current Constitution

NAFTA or other forms of North American union

Abortion on demand

Illegal immigration

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.

And if you belong to one of two political parties singled out by the state government? You’re an evil terrorist.

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.)

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.

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)?

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.

"Democratic Process Isn't Working"

2009-03-19T09:08:00.000-07:00

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?

This Doesn't Even Seem Real Anymore

2009-03-19T06:59:00.000-07:00

Look, 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!

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.

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?

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?

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?

Politicize the Census? No Way That'll Happen

2009-03-18T07:13:00.000-07:00

Remember 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?

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 the 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.

How Dare You Help People?

2009-03-18T05:50:00.001-07:00

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.

WHAT?

Let's Destroy Our Constitution...For Mexico's Sake!

2009-03-18T05:11:00.000-07:00

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."

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?

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.

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.

Is This a Waste?

2009-03-18T04:57:00.000-07:00

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?).

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.

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.

No More Politics As Usual...Right?

2009-03-18T04:51:00.000-07:00

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."

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).

"Just Say No" Approach

2009-03-17T07:53:00.001-07:00

So 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."

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.

What Did You Say Again?

2009-03-17T06:47:00.000-07:00

"But I would suggest the first thing that would make me feel a little bit better toward them if they'd follow the Japanese example and come before the American people and take that deep bow and say, I'm sorry, and then either do one of two things: resign or go commit suicide."

That's what Iowa Senator Charles Grassley said of the AIG executives.

Might I suggest the same standard apply to the congressmen whose subprime lending schemes and bailout nonsense are sending the economy to hell?

Sigh The Race Warriors Are At It Again

2009-03-17T06:36:00.000-07:00

So the lovely people of the NAACP are making even bigger asses of themselves. They’re suing Wells Fargo for making “predatory” subprime loans to black people. This is, of course, racism.

Wait, what?

Here’s a quick review of how subprime lending came to be: It started with Jimmy Carter’s Community Reinvestment Act, which Clinton heavily reinforced. It used unconstitutional semi-government-owned Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to force banks to comply with a liberal vision of what lending should be. See, Carter and Clinton thought it completely unfair, and probably racist, that relatively few minorities were homeowners. The real reason for that, of course, is that poor people, who can’t afford to own a home, are disproportionately black. Banks didn’t make loans to poor people was not because a lot of them are black but because THEY CAN’T PAY BACK THE LOAN. The whole point of loans is that people can afford to pay them back; if you can’t, too bad, you don’t get the loan. I make $7.00 an hour working about 15 hours a week during school, 35 or so over Christmas and summer breaks. That’s not a lot. I wouldn’t expect a bank to give me a $50,000 loan to get a new Mercedes, because there is absolutely no way I could possibly pay it back.

You see the problem here? When the banks didn’t make loans to people who can’t afford them, it’s because they’re racists who want to deny every black person the right to own a home. When they do make the loans, it’s because they’re racists who want to trap black people, take everything they own, and leave them to starve in the streets. If you don’t give people something they haven’t earned and can’t afford, and some of those people happen to be black—well, that’s racism. If you do, and then the whole unsustainable system collapses—well, that must be a vast racist conspiracy too.

I’ve said it before, but I can’t say it enough: victimhood advocates, like the NAACP, NOW, GLAAD, RAINBOW/PUSH, and any other of the Truth to Power alphabet soup, are desperate to keep themselves relevant. They have power as long as they can pretend their favorite brand of discrimination is still alive, when in reality most of us have moved on. I don’t give a flying crap what race, religion, nationality, gender, or sexual orientation someone is, or what handicap they have. I don’t want anyone, regardless of their hyphen, to take on debt they have no hope of repaying, to get a job they aren’t qualified for and can’t perform, to earn a living by looting other peoples’ earnings, or to violate anyone’s rights to life, liberty, or property. And if you do start violating those basic rights, I don’t care who you are, you need to face some consequences. I think most people feel like that, or at least close to it.

This is What Orwell Meant by Doublethink

2009-03-16T05:24:00.000-07:00

I absolutely cannot believe the stones on Barack Obama. Seriously. He’s either delusional, openly lying, or just stupid.

First of all, he claims that the “American Reinvestment and Restructuring Act” contained not a single item of pork. That’s the most brazen political lie since “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.” The bill was nothing but pork! Almost $5 billion for a power plant in King O’Pork Robert Byrd’s district. $80 million for an icebreaker. $250 million for furniture in the new Homeland Security building, in addition to $500 million to build that structure. Almost a billion to get energy efficiency in government buildings. No, no earmarks there.

Then he claimed that he’s taking the necessary steps to get a tight budget. How? By proposing the biggest budget ever? How does almost doubling the size of the budget help tighten the budget? That doesn’t even make sense! No rational person would believe that! What a load of crap. It’s mathematically impossible, and so obviously ludicrous that it’s barely worth explaining, to cut the budget by spending more.

The president also promised to cut the deficit in half. Not sure how he’s going to do that, since in the last month and a half he’s spent $800 billion on the generational-theft “stimulus bill,” $410 billion on the omnibus pork package, $275 billion on Making Home Affordable (to People Who Couldn’t Afford it in the First Place), is close to another $22 billion for the miserable failures in Detroit, is talking about Stimulus 2 which will cost even more, and Tax Fraud Timmy is talking about a second bank bailout, this one to the tune of $1.5 trillion. So, we’re looking at, just in emergency spending outside the normal range of government functions, almost $1.5 trillion, with another almost $3 trillion on the way. How exactly will you cut the deficit by spending almost as much as your normal budget—itself bigger than any ever proposed—in emergency spending in the space of a few months? That doesn’t make any sense.

WTF Connecticut

2009-03-16T05:18:00.000-07:00

So a bill has been proposed in the Connecticut state legislature that would completely destroy the First Amendment protections of the Catholic Church. For starters, the first line of the bill starts “In regards to the Roman Catholic Church…” Right away, that tells you this is going to shred freedom of religion, by naming a specific church. It goes on to give the state legislature complete control of the Church’s finances. See, rather than allow the bishops and priests to make Church financial decisions, it comes up with a government panel that manages the collection and use of Church funds.

This is unbelievable. Un-freaking-believable.

This is what the “separation of church and state” is about. The church is not run by the government, the government is not run by the church. (Note that this does not mean religious people can’t be elected to office or can’t express their views once elected; that George Bush prayed every morning did not make his administration a brutal theocracy.) And you should be furious about this. You don’t have to be Catholic, Christian, or religious at all to have a deep objection to the idea of the government controlling the operations of a religious organization. Because once the government has the power to do that, they have the power to either establish a state Church or shut down the Church altogether. Neither of those two is a good thing—and both are, of course, flagrant First Amendment violations.

In response to massive backlash, the Connecticut lawmakers have shelved the proposal—for now. Does anyone think that it won’t come back once some of the outrage dies down?

Another Dictatorial Move in the Name of "Public Health"

2009-03-10T09:41:00.001-07:00

The Virginia governor just passed a law banning smoking in all restaurants and bars, unless the smokers are sequestered in their own room with their own ventilation system (an expense most restaurant owners won't be willing to make).

Why? Restaurants and bars are not public property. The only people who go in them are those who choose to do so. If they want a non-smoking restaurant, find one whose owner, by his own free choice, makes it so. If you want to smoke in a bar, and can find one whose owner, by his own free choice, allows it, go ahead. The government is not our parent; we can choose to go to a smoking or non-smoking restaurant or bar, according to our preferences. And I don't want the government telling business owners that an activity, which is legal in other places, can't be allowed on their private property. I mean, obviously business owners don't have a choice as to whether or not to allow murder on their property, but smoking on private property is legal--well, apparently not anymore, but...

I'm Glad George Bush is Gone, No More Stupid Diplomatic Mistakes...Right?

2009-03-10T09:07:00.000-07:00

So it's traditional for the new president and the British prime minister to exchange gifts, commemorating our countries' intertwined histories. This year, Gordon Brown brought Barack Obama a pen-holder carved from the hull of the Resolute, an anti-slaver ship, and a first-edition 7-volume Winston Churchill biography--both priceless. What does our illustrious President Messiah give back? A box containing 25 classic DVDs--selections such as Raging Bull, Casablanca, Psycho, and ET, classics all but hardly priceless. To compound this error, the DVDs are not of the type printed in Britain--not only are they crappy Walmart gifts, but they're crappy Walmart gifts that the British can't even use.

Then he gave the British another gift, this one actually priceless--and even less appropriate. After 9/11, they gave us a bust of Winston Churchill to show we would stand side-by-side. Obama gave it back. Mr. Brown insisted that he wanted the bust to remain in the White House, but Obama persisted until the prime minister took it.

He also denied Mr. Brown a state dinner and cancelled a joint press conference.

Needless to say, the British are not too happy about this. They feel insulted, as they should.

A State Department official (who is unnamed in the British reports) took this from bad to worse by saying that the president wanted to send a message that the British are no more special than any of the other 160 countries we deal with.

I thought, now that George Bush was gone and Sarah Palin isn't anywhere near the White House, we wouldn't have any embarassing mistakes like this?

Doctors Don't Have Rights, Stupid

2009-03-04T05:08:00.000-08:00

So Barack Obama is pushing to overturn several long-standing laws designed to protect doctors. See, there was a law that prevented hospitals from firing doctors who refused to perform or refer for abortions based on personal convictions. And George Bush added a law strengthening that by denying federal funds to hospitals which ignored the earlier anti-discrimination law.

Not anymore. George Bush is gone and we're going to put science back in its proper place.

Once Obama repeals these laws, any doctor who refuses to perform an abortion once asked to can be fired. Interesting: the president seems to think that a "right to choose" applies only to someone's right to choose to kill their child, not a doctor's right to choose whether to do it or not. Doctors don't have rights, that's a ridiculous, outdated concept!

An administration official says that the laws interfere with "the administration's goal of reducing abortions and unwanted pregnancies." Well, I'll give him half of that: it certainly "reduces unwanted pregnancies" to murder all the unwanted children. But I'm not really sure how you can claim to reduce the number of abortions by ordering all doctors, regardless of beliefs, to perform them whenever asked.

I don't understand this at all. A doctor has a right to refuse any non-emergency procedure: you can't demand a doctor be fired because he wouldn't inject collagen into your lips or because he refused to perform a high-risk surgery that you could live without. So why should doctors be fired for refusing to perform abortions? (The answer, of course, is that the hard left sees abortion as almost a holy event.)

And expect the erosion of doctor's rights to accelerate rapidly as we get universal health care. See, right now, if you want a doctor to give you a valuable service, you have to give them something of value. That's such a ridiculous idea! You should be able to get something of value simply by screaming that you need it. Why should doctors have a right to choose how they conduct their lives, when other people need them?

Really?

2009-03-04T04:57:00.000-08:00

Tim Geithner has announced that he is going to crack down on those who exploit the system and don't pay taxes.

Remember that, until a month ago, he had failed to pay $30,000 in taxes--a common theme with Obama nominees, because that makes four of them who have failed to pay taxes.

How Stupid Do You Get?

2009-02-27T07:42:00.000-08:00

Some jackass just tried to kill Obama by sending him HIV-positive blood. Really?

I hope I don't need to say this, but: I don't think Obama should be killed.

That said, I've got to wonder: Is this the lamest assassination attempt ever? With HIV infected blood, you have to 1) open the envelope (which the president, of course, will not do himself anyway), 2) handle the blood, 3) have an open cut or orifice near the blood. And even then, HIV exposure does not equal AIDS. And AIDS does not equal death--certainly not immediately, possibly not for decades. Come on. I don't want to diminish the seriousness of this, but this is just about the stupidest assassin ever.

Eeew

2009-02-26T07:32:00.001-08:00

So bloodsucking parasite Nadya Suleyman (aka Octomom) has been offered a deal: a million-dollar contract, plus medical and dental insurance, from Vivid Entertainment for starring in porn.

Now, I'm not going to touch the obvious aspect of this beyond saying: You sick SOBs who are gonna pay for this.

I'm really all for this. Personally, I think porn is degrading and repulsive. But if this tick can get a million-dollar deal, thanks to some deeply disturbed individuals willing to pay huge amounts of money, then she can get off welfare and stop asking me to raise her kids. And that's a good thing.

That's capitalism, not necessarily at it's best but working as it should: You have a skill that people are willng to pay for, and you can use it to pull yourself out of poverty. Take the deal, Nadya. It's not like you're going to lose a whole lot of dignity when you're universally known as "the freaking psychopath who wants 14 kids while living in her mom's basement with no job."

MORE?!?!?

2009-02-25T05:15:00.000-08:00

So while you weren't looking, Congress looted another $400 billion dollars. This is money to be spent on government projects--apparently the fact that about 80% of the "stimulus package" went to government renovations and updates isn't enough. And it would have been completely ridiculous to let the American people know that, less than a week after stealing $800 billion from them, they steal another $400 billion. That's why we didn't hear about it until after it passed.

The bill contains over 9,000 earmarks. Nine. Thousand. Earmarks. You bastards.

How long is it going to be before we're marching in the streets? They aren't listenining to our calls and letters, they aren't paying attention to our votes. The people are mad. And they have every right to be.

Math? We Don't Need No Steenking Math!

2009-02-24T07:09:00.000-08:00

So the projected deficit this year is $1.3 trillion. Actually, since we just spent another $800 billion we don't have, it'll end up closer to $2 trillion. And President Obama promised yesterday that he would cut that to $500 billion by the end of his term.

Wouldn't it be a lot easier to spend less money if you stopped spending so much money? I mean, it's a little ridiculous for you to pass the most expensive bill EVER and then promise to reduce debt.

You know what economists have figured? Just to pay for the spending of the last 18 months--ignoring the $10 trillion of debt we already had and the $100 trillion plus owed in Social Security, and those are big things to ignore--the top tax bracket would have to pay, not 40%, not 50%, but 95%. So how, exactly, is the president planning on increasing spending even more, while reducing debt? Confiscating all wealth in the country wouldn't be enough to eliminate our debt.

I've been reading Atlas Shrugged for a while, and it's scary how close we're getting. If you start talking 90% tax rates for the rich--even over 50%--the people who are getting paid from your looting will love you. But the people who make the entire system possible--who provide jobs and most of the government's funds--will not stand for it. What do you think would happen if the rich decided that they aren't going to pay 90% taxes, that they aren't going to pay 55% taxes, and simply stopped--shut their companies down, moved somewhere else, and lived off what they've already accumulated? What if the productive people, who bear an enormous burden that will shortly get much heavier, simply refuse to play anymore? What happens when a system exists by bleeding dry the very people who make it possible, and those people get fed up with it? The evil rich are the ones who create jobs, doing more for the poor than government ever will. What happens when they go on strike?

Good God

2009-02-24T07:06:00.000-08:00

Remember AIG? And how they've already looted $150 BILLION from you and me? And how they spent that money on expensive spa retreats and hunting trips? Then lost another $25 billion and got it back...from the taxpayers?

Now they've lost another $60 billion. Pull the plug on this horribly mismanaged, dying company? Nonsense! The looters are going to confiscate another $60 billion from us.

The First Amendment Will Die

2009-02-16T07:00:00.000-08:00

Leading Democrats have called for the Fairness Doctrine to be resurrected. Remember: the political concept of "fairness" bears no resemblance to the dictionary definiton.

The Fairness Doctrine was born in the 30s as an attempt to control radio. Democrats then had a convoluted, ludicrous thought process that ran something like this: radio travels through the air. Everybody's entitled to an equal share of the air, so they should have a say in what gets sent through it (never mind that radio waves don't actually consume air and there's a pretty much infinite availability of radio programming). Well, how would the people have a say? Let them listen to what they want, and stations without listeners change or go under? Nonsense! They have their say through their elected officials. So the government has to license radio stations (and later television stations), and could monitor their content to determine if the station were being "fair" or not. And if the station were not "fair"--supposedly meaning that it failed to give equal time to all sides--the government could shut it down.

Can you imagine the outrage if that were applied to newspapers?

Ronald Reagan, thankfully, had the sense to strike this appalling doctrine down. The First Amendment, he decided, should apply to radio and TV too. This is fairly obvious; though the First Amendment doesn't specifically protect broadcasts, it's obvious that the spirit of it does. TV wasn't protected by the First Amendment because TV was unthinkable in 1787. Generally I don't like interpreting the Constitution based on the "obvious" spirit of it, but no rational person would say that "free press" would not have included electronic, broadcast press if such a thing had even been in the realm of possibility.

But now the Dems want it back. And here's the problem: it will kill talk radio. All of the successful talk radio hosts are conservative or libertarian. Whenever liberals have tried talk radio, it has ended (witness Air America) with them having to pay the radio station for time, which leads to problems like bankruptcy. But if the government mandates fairness, here's what happens: Rush Limbaugh is on for three hours. Al Franken has to get three hours. Since Al Franken isn't popular with listeners, advertisers don't pay. In the free market, that means the radio station doesn't run his show; no one is going to pay for it, so tough crap, Al. But with Fairness, the radio station has no choice, and they have to lose money for the three hours of the Al Franken Show. Then, suppose an offended Muslim or illegal immigrant calls to complain about Rush's show. Rush had about an hour where he offended Muslims, so Muslims have to get an hour the next day, and the radio has to rearrange their programming schedule and probably lose money again. How long do you suppose it will take for radio hosts just to say, "Screw it, talk radio isn't worth the hassle" and put on lite dinosaur rock (from Olivia Newton-John and Phil Collins) for the three hours that Rush Limbaugh used to fill? And bam, the government's just forced someone who millions want to listen to to shut up.

But that's not the truly frightening part. FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell says that if the Fairness Doctrine is instituted, it will apply to the Internet as well. You would have to be licensed to operate a website or blog, and if you don't fill it with the government's idea of what's "fair" then you lose your Internet license. Does anyone really think this is a good idea? Why the hell should the government be able to determine who can and can't express their ideas? I'm running my blog as a one-man operation. If I want to keep it, am I supposed to find someone with every possible viewpoint? I've talked about the threat of radical Islam, and I'm definitely not going to find an al Qaeda member to write here to rebut my arguments. I've lambasted both liberals and conservatives, so should I get a left-winger and hard-righter to write a counter to everything I say? And how exactly would I induce them to write for me? I can't pay them. I've mocked Nazis, PETA loonies, welfare parasites, welfare parasites who live in their mother's house and have 14 children. Should I find one of all those people to write for me? I suppose I'd have to. Or I could just shut down. Those are my only options once Fairness is revived.

I don't care if you're liberal or conservative, or anything in the middle, you cannot honestly support the idea that the government should determine what ideas can be expressed on TV, radio, or the Internet. If they were talking about licensing newspapers and regulating what content would be considered "fair," liberals and conservatives both would be screaming for heads on platters. So why on earth should this ever be okay? More people get their news from, and express their opinions through, TV, radio, and the Internet than from any newspaper--or probably from all newspapers combined. So why should the government be able to control content?

I don't beg often. But I will now. Whatever your political views, you can't want the government to license someone to communicate their ideas. Please, everyone, sign the petition here http://www.mrcaction.org/517/petition.asp?PID=18645182 and tell everyone you know to do the same.

Congratulations on Setting a New Record

2009-02-13T07:50:00.000-08:00

Yes, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has finally topped Bill Clinton's "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" in the category of Most Brazen Lie by a Washington Politician.

You see, she said that the $800 billion Generational Theft Bill contains not a single earmark or pet project.

Not a single pork project, like:

$3 million to build a clubhouse on a golf course in Alabama

$4.6 billion for clean coal in King of Pork Robert Byrd's district (undoubtedly to be called the Robert C. Byrd Clean-Coal Power Plant)

$448 million to build a DHS headquarters

$248 million more for furniture in DHS headquarters

$400 million for STD screenings

$150 million for the Smithsonian

$1 billion for the 2010 census

$75 million for stop-smoking programs

$25 million for substance abuse programs on tribal reservations

$6 billion to "green" government buildings

$412 million to update CDC facilities

$850 million to Amtrak, which has failed to turn a single dollar of profit in over forty years

$110 million to upgrade computers at the Farm Service Agency

$88 billion to state Medicaid programs

$80 million to buy an ice-breaking ship

$890 million to Social Security, with no provisions for actual reform (and $890 million to an agency over $100 trillion in the hole is essentially irrelevant)

No, no pork there. All of that will immediately create huge amounts of jobs. Why, four or five people can work on that icebreaker. And some of those government renovation projects can put forty or fifty people to work for a year or so. And when that year is over, the economy's still bad, and the government jobs are gone...well, I guess we can come up with another trillion dollars.

If the next four generations are going to be paying for this, shouldn't we want more jobs then temporary government work?

The Myth of Lincoln

2009-02-12T07:14:00.000-08:00

Today is the 200th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's birth. We're taught that Lincoln was a messianic figure who saved the country from civil war and ended the blight of slavery. But is it true?

Let me make it very clear: slavery was evil. It should have died (and, left alone, would have, as it grew too expensive).

But Lincoln was neither saint nor hero. He abused his power, trashed the Constitution, was probably the first mascot of the Imperial Federal Government, and even his greatest good--ending slavery--was motivated not by a love of justice but as a political jab.

Lincoln often said that he would, above all, preserve the Union--even if it meant freeing no slaves. He was concerned not with slavery but with a challenge to the power of the Omnipotent Government.

Let's drop the misnomer. There was no "American Civil War." America was set up as a partnership between states, with a central government not to overrule the states but to facilitate international relations by maintaining a military and negotiating trade agreements. Several states chose to withdraw from the partnership and form a separate country. It would have been entirely possible for the USA and CSA to exist, side-by-side, peaceably. Even mortal enemies like North and South Korea have this arrangement, and there was no mortal disagreement between the US and CS systems of government. But the US, led by Emperor Lincoln, decided that that wasn't good enough. So they waged, not a civil war, but a war of conquest against an independent nation. The reason, as evidenced by Lincoln's expressed reluctance to free the slaves, was not to end the evil of slavery but to punish the southern states for daring to think that the federal government was not lord over them.

Liberals have said for years the George Bush is just like Hitler (calling him Bushitler to save words), and that he's done more to destroy freedom than any president before. Really? Lincoln actively suppressed newspapers, shutting down papers that refused to print the government version of events. He also suspended habeas corpus. The outrage over Bush holding enemy combatants in Guantanamo without charges (aside from being enemy combatants, which is its own charge)? Lincoln not only imprisoned enemy soldiers without charging them, he imprisoned without charge any US citizen who dared express disagreement. Is that the champion of freedom we've been taught to believe in?

And the Emancipation Proclamation? Sure, it's got a nice catchy title, and when your knowledge of it is limited by government schools to one line ("It freed the slaves") you think it's a good thing. Ready for the shocker? It freed no slaves. Not one.

See, it's worded to apply only to the "states currently in rebellion" (which shows you what Lincoln thought of the power of the Mighty Fed). Well, those states had become a separate country. The executive orders of the US president have no legal effect whatsoever on the independent nation of the CSA.

The "Emancipation Proclamation" was a cold, calculated political move. It applies only to the CSA, so slave states in the US like Maryland weren't hurt. When word spread to the CSA, it was intended to motivate the slaves to take their freedom and leave that nation. That was motivated not by Lincoln's altruism but by his desire to utterly destroy the CSA's labor force, thus forcing more able-bodied men to work in production and not fight on the front lines.

Lincoln was not a savior of this nation. He marked the beginning of the end of limited government and personal freedom. While undoubtedly slavery was a great evil, ending it was incidental to Lincoln's goal of utterly crushing anyone who dared say "no" to the Omnipotent Imperial Federal Government. The war of aggression against the CSA was unjustifiable, and Lincoln should be remembered not as the martyr who granted freedom to the slaves but as the first, and most influential, destroyer of liberty in America.

Moral Equivalency: Why It's Not a Good Thing

2009-02-12T07:01:00.000-08:00

So PETA members decided to protest the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show by dressing up in Klan outfits and handing out fliers with their message on them. That message? They say that the idea of "purebred" dogs is akin to the idea of a Master Race.

Okay, first of all: purebreeding in dogs is not a bad thing. You look at a breed like golden retrievers, who are typically bred very pure, and they are as close as possible to free of any hereditary illnesses, with few genetic disorders and even a significantly lower risk of cancer than other dogs.

Also, the Kennel Club isn't trying to establish one breed of dog as superior. They just want variety. And for people who still use dogs for work (which I'm sure PETA doesn't take into account), purebreeding means that certain inherited traits--the herding instincts of sheepdogs, digging and tracking instincts of beagles or bloodhounds, etc--are not diluted by mixed heritage. Which matters, PETA loonies--and if you're ever kidnapped, I hope you won't complain when police use purebred bloodhounds to find you.

The really shocking thing about this is, of course, that PETA sees it as perfectly logical to compare purebreeding dogs to murdering Jews and blacks. Never mind that these dogs are not killed, are not even mistreated. The only thing purebreeding means is that they are kept away from dogs of different breeds while in heat. Oh, the horror! It's practically the same as slavery!

Well, no. Dogs are not people. And while it may be abominable to mistreat them, purebreeding is not really mistreatment. And even if it were, it's not equivalent to the Holocaust. Every decent human being should be mortally offended by this.

A Parasite

2009-02-11T09:54:00.000-08:00

So you've probably heard of Nadya Suleman, aka the Salad Shooter. This is the unemployed single mother who lives in her mom's house and collects welfare checks. She now, thanks to her recent octuplet birth, has fourteen children, all of whom will be supported by money confiscated from people responsible enough not to have children they can't afford to raise.

Look, she's said she was a lonely child and wanted a big family. Good for you. Now make sure you can support that family and you're free to do so. But why in God's name should my tax dollars subsidize your huge-family fantasy?

Not content with drinking the sweat of people who think that you should have a job and live someplace other than your mother's basement before having fourteen children, this bloodsucker has demanded a $2 million deal from Oprah, hired a publicist, and set up a website asking for donations (which you can see here: http://www.thenadyasulemanfamily.com/). All while continuing to collect welfare.

What on earth is wrong with you? If you can afford a publicist to handle your media exposure, you don't need my tax dollars to support yourself.

You know the real tragedy of this situation? There's one unemployed mother of fourteen entirely dependent on handouts. But there are millions of unemployed mothers of three or four that are equally dependent on the nanny state. It's not right. Exercise some responsibility. Make sure you can support a child before you make the decision to have one. And if you can't, don't expect the rest of us to clean up your mistakes.

This One's Really Scary

2009-02-11T05:36:00.001-08:00

One of the provisions buried in the "stimulus" package (or the Generational Theft Act) is for a new government position called the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology. And it's the most terrifying thing the government could possibly do.

See, the NCHIT and his office will be allowed to review all medical records in the United States and evaluate your doctor's actions--to determine if treatment is "appropriate and cost-effective."

Remember the good old days when your medical treatment was between you and your doctor? When the government had to get a court order to find out about your medical treatment? Those are now gone.

That should scare the crap out of you.

First of all, for a government that's over $10 trillion in debt and runs a company (Amtrak) that has failed to show a single dollar of profit in over forty years to determine what's "cost-effective" would be laughable if the situation weren't so serious.

Is there anyone else who's really, really uncomfortable with the government finding every medical treatment you've ever had, with neither your permission nor probable cause for a subpoena? It's my body, not the government's. What right do they have to decide if I'm getting "appropriate" treatment? Shouldn't I be able to determine that? By my standards, if I start out sick, receive treatment, and get not-sick-anymore, that's appropriate treatment. That's all that matters. I don't think that treatment should then be subject to government review.

And if the government review finds that the treatment wasn't appropriate or cost-effective, what are they supposed to do about it? The treatment can't be undone. It's not like I can get sick again and give the doctor a do-ever, but this time make sure to use government-mandated treatment. I guess they'll slap the doctor with punitive fines. What's that going to do to health care? You already have doctors closing up shop for fear of malpractice suits. If you add government review and potentially ruinous fines to the mix, how many more doctors do you suppose will decide to close their doors and go back to teaching, or something?

This NCHIT is another argument against universal health care--because, of course, when the government pays for your treatment, the government has a right to know what it's paying for. Which means your right to any sort of privacy is gone. Call me crazy, but I'd rather pay the insurance premiums than give the government access to every detail of my medical history.

Black History Month

2009-02-10T07:54:00.000-08:00

I really hate black history month.

It's not because I'm racist. It's because I'm not. When you celebrate the achievements of people like George Washington Carver, Thurgood Marshall, or Martin Luther King, because it's Black History Month, you're actually degrading their achievements in favor of their race. Celebrating Carver because it's black history month is getting the priorities backwards: you're saying "This is a black man who was a genius." You should be saying "This is a genius who revolutionized the food industry." That he is black, if mentioned at all, should be a passing afterthought.

If someone's achievements are worth noting, their skin tone--and a month to honor that skin tone--should be irrelevant. To suggest otherwise strikes me as bigotry.

Good God, What Is Wrong With You People?

2009-02-10T07:37:00.001-08:00

An Arizona rancher named Roger Barnett owns 22,000 acres, some of which borders Mexico. Because his ranch is private property and not patrolled by the government, illegal immigrants use it as a border crossing. He doesn't like this. Surprise! Somebody doesn't like it when foreign citizens illegally enter this country by trespassing through his property!

In fact, Mr. Barnett dislikes it so much that, when he comes across people illegally crossing his land, he'll hold them at gunpoint while calling the police. This is what, in a saner time, was known as reasonably defending your property. Now, it's called a violation of civil rights.

Seriously. 16 of these criminals are now suing Mr. Barnett for "civil rights violations," with damages to the tune of $32 million.

What a load of crap. You're committing multiple felonies, including illegal border crossing and trespassing (and technically burgalry, since that is defined as illegally entering a property for the purposes of committing a felony). The guy you're committing these felonies against detains you--exercising his right to make a citizen's arrest--until the police arrive. You're entitled to nothing. It's like those jackass burglars who trip over a rug or a power cord then sue the homeowner for the cost of their medical bills.

No. You either get to burglarize/trespass/whatever other crime on someone's property, or ask them to treat you with respect. Not both. When you illegally entered Mr. Barnett's property, you forfeited your right not to be held at gunpoint by Mr. Barnett. He's defending his freaking home against your illegal invasion of his property. You don't get to sue him for that.

And if the judge doesn't throw this case out, I will have lost all respect for this nation's justice system.

The Death of America

2009-02-10T07:07:00.001-08:00

So a couple of days ago I was watching the ludicrous orgy of douchebaggery known as Vh1's Tool Academy. For those who don't know, the premise of the show is this: nine women, fed up with their douchebag boyfriends, decided, instead of ditching them, to go on a reality show and teach them to change. In the process, they attend couples' counseling (conducted by a therapist whose degree probably has two "N"s in "University", because she has no freaking clue what she's doing) and compete to win dates in challenges.

In five weeks, Jenna and her tool Matsuflex (aka Ryan, but he insists on being called Matsuflex and refers to himself as "the Matsu") have won three challenges. Second-place finisher Aida this week told Jenna, "I was just hoping Shawn and I could win so we could give the date to somebody who hasn't won yet. I'm not saying you should do that, that's just what I wanted to do."

And that, in a nutshell, is what's wrong with this country. Though it's its own problem, leave aside the passive-aggressive BS in that statement ("I don't want to tell you that's what you should do, but I thought it would be a nice thing to do if I won"). Why should Jenna feel bad about winning? (She should feel bad for being in a long-term relationship with a guy named Matsuflex, but that's a different story.) We've been conditioned in our culture to see it as a bad thing when we acheive more than others. Why should the people who have failed to win a single competition be given the rewards? If you want to reap the benefits of winning, then bust your rear and win. And if someone's more skillful and wins more, why should they feel guilty? Why should they feel that they have to give their rewards away? Thankfully, Jenna resisted the pressure and enjoyed the rewards of her own work.

Does this seem frivolous? It's not. While reality TV tends to have little resemblance to actual reality, in this case it's a microcosm of our entire culture. Selfishness is an obscenity, and achievement is shameful. If you succeed, you have to "give your fair share" to make sure that people who haven't worked as hard or acheived as much can still have access to the rewards of your labor.

Selfishness is not inherently bad. Narcissism is, but there's a difference. One of my biggest philosophical influences, Ayn Rand, contended that selfishness--which she defined as "the rational pursuit of one's self-interest"--was not only not a bad thing, but everyone's highest moral obligation. By rational pursuit of one's self-interest, she explained, she meant not self-indulgence but the pursuit of true fulfillment. Using other people up or destroying yourself with drugs and alcohol may provide a temporary rush, but that lifestyle is not rational or in your self-interest. While I may not go so far as to say that this is humanity's highest moral obligation, it is certainly not a bad thing either. If you want something, and work towards it, not for the betterment of everyone else but for your personal fulfillment, you should not be made to feel guilty about it. It doesn't make you an awful person to acheive for yourself. If you gain something, through your work, and decide to share it, that's your personal choice. If you gain something, through your work, and decide to keep it, that's your personal choice too--and not a bad one. You've recognized that your life is not a tool for others to use to gain things they otherwise couldn't--good for you.

Success is nothing to be embarassed about. Neither is wanting to keep the fruits of your success. There was a time when our country recognized that. And until we remember it again, this culture is going to get worse and worse.

A Freaking Joke

2009-02-09T05:30:00.000-08:00

So I watched part of the Grammys last night. Award shows tend to be vapid, annoying orgies of self-congratulating nonsense. Last night's were no exception.

First of all: MIA doing pelvic thrusts while 8 months pregnant and wearing a body-stocking? Am I the only one who vomited at that one? It was so repulsive that I barely noticed Katy Perry's fruit dress (which after her merry-go-round garb looked fairly normal) or Kanye's ridiculous pompadour.

Two very deserving artists got ripped off: David Gilmour for Best Rock Instrumental and Metallica for Best Rock Album.

Remember the days when rock was supposed to grab you by the throat and bash your teeth in? That's pretty much the exact opposite of Coldplay. Don't get me wrong, I like Coldplay and I respect their art--but I don't think for a second that going toe-to-toe with Metallica they are better rock. Even putting them in the same category is insulting to both bands--you have mellow coffeeshop music on one hand and pure go-for-the-jugular metal on the other. I was quite pleased that Metallica won Best Metal Performance and Rick Rubin picked up Best Producer, but they deserved Rock Album.

And all respect to Steve Vai, but David Gilmour is better. Period.

I was very happy to see Robert Plant and Allison Krauss win Album of the Year over Lil' Wayne. Turns out that having comprehensible vocals and playing real instruments still matters.

I'm sorry, but I don't see Lil' Wayne's talent. From the bizarre noises he makes in his choruses (weird giggles mixed with random shouts of "Young Money" and "Carter") to the fact that he's apparently incapable of making a song not about money and hos, everything about him annoys me. And "A Milli" as Best Rap Song? It's a repetitive irritating beat with a constant distorted repetition of the title and syllables slurred and compressed to force rhymes that really shouldn't be there. Granted, the standards for rap artistry seem to be fairly low (see Exhibit A, the career of Soulja Boy Tell'em), but I don't see the lyrical genius in "I make it snow/I make it flurry/I make it all back tomorrow don't worry." Just once, please, write about something other than how much money you've made and how many women you've had sex with. Then I can take you seriously (well, pulling your pants up would be a step in the right direction there too).

When the most popular artist of the moment makes Slipknot seem cultured, there's a serious problem.

The People Who Count Approve

2009-01-22T07:23:00.000-08:00

Fidel Castro has announced that he believes in Barack Obama. He likes Obama's ideas and hopes that the new president carries them out. I'm really glad, because if there's anyone who I want to see approve of my president's ideas, it's a brutal socialist dictator who locks dissidents in jail and whose people only have running water a day or two every week.

Let's All Just Get Along for this Hopeful Time of Change

2009-01-21T16:48:00.000-08:00

Israel, showing a degree of graciousness I greatly admire (and most people in their situation wouldn't show), has agreed to a ceasefire with Hamas and withdrawn all troops from Gaza. They want to give President Obama peace to start working with. That is truly amazing of them; most other countries (including ours), when faced with an enemy that swears to exterminate every man, woman, and child, would not agree to peace just so another country's leader was a breaking-in period.

It won't last a week.

Hamas has never, ever honored an Israeli ceasefire. In fact, historically, when Israel offers peace, Hamas (or Hezbollah, or any other Palestinian terrorist group) has mocked what they see as weakness by hitting harder. If Israel attacks the terrorists who murder their civilians, the terrorists hit back because Israel is a vicious racist state. If Israel concedes to the terrorists, they still hit back because Israel is weak and can be bullied.

And the disgusting part of it is the blowhards in this country and many others who insist that Israel is a racist, imperialist, apartheid state. Take Annie Lennox, who saw, "as a mother," the "nightmarish sights" of Gaza neighborhoods burning under Israeli strikes. Apparently she didn't notice "as a mother" that for three months prior, Israeli neighborhoods had been burning under Hamas rocket attacks, and thus couldn't possibly appreciate that most people, faced with constant bombardment for three months (during a ceasefire agreement), would have long since commenced a full-scale war.

So while I admire Israel's magnanimity more than I can really say, I don't believe it will work. You cannot reason with an enemy that swears to "strangle the last Jew with the entrails of the last Zionist." You can't win them over with kindness. And Americans need to realize that and stop condemning the IDF's efforts to protect the innocent civilians of Israel.

Because the IRS Isn't Screwed Up Enough

2009-01-21T16:41:00.000-08:00

Let's put someone in charge of the Treasury who hires illegal immigrants and "forgot" to pay taxes for five years. After all, the most successful police departments are run by serial murderers.

Or not.

Why don't you try what this moron's done: don't pay your taxes for five years, then when the IRS shows up at your door tell them it was an honest mistake, you're sorry--now you want to run the whole department. But before you do that, make sure you get enough soap-on-a-rope for about ten years, so Bubba gets as few opportunities as possible.

The Senate weasels are saying we have to confirm Geithner now, it's a crisis and we don't have time to find a qualified candidate that isn't also a felon. What a load of crap. Because it is a crisis, we shouldn't hurry up and pick someone, we should make absolutely sure we have the best person for the job. And the best person to run the freaking IRS should probably be somebody who pays their taxes. Just a thought.

I'm So Glad Race Doesn't Matter Anymore

2009-01-21T15:33:00.000-08:00

Yes, the historic inauguration of Barack Obama has finally proven that race is irrelevant. Or, you know, not.

Some jackass reporter on MSNBC, the day before the inauguration, was talking about how powerful Obama's speech at the Lincoln Memorial was. He said that the image of a black man speaking in front of the Lincoln Memorial was so unbelievably poignant. That's right, moron; any time a black person speaks at the Lincoln Memorial it's an echo of Martin Luther King. After all, all black men in positions of power are basically the same, right? Good God. That's pretty much the exact opposite of what Dr. King spoke about on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. He envisioned a future where it wouldn't matter what skin tone the speaker had. If anyone stands on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, and says something that affirms American values, cheer. But don't cheer for "the image of a black man on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial."

Then there was Reverend Lowery. Let's all pray for an America where "black won't be told to get back, brown can stick around, yellow can be mellow, the red man can get ahead, man, and white can finally embrace what's right." What a load of garbage. The fact that you're giving the closing prayer for new president Barack Obama pretty much shows that black isn't being told to get back. And what exactly do you mean "white can finally embrace what's right"? You think we're all riding around in our Klan hoods? News flash: it's not 1935 anymore. It's not 1965 anymore. To the overwhelming majority of the white who can't embrace right, race means nothing at all. You know who's keeping racial tension alive in this country? It's leaders like Jesse Jackson who have very lucrative careers based on claiming "minority victimhood." And they know as soon as they admit how much progress has been made, their tone of moral superiority and long suffering--and the millions they rake in with that image--is gone. And it's people like you, Reverend. What possible purpose could that statement have served, other than to divide and incite tension? I've got news for you: I don't give a crap what color Barack Obama, or anyone else, is. I care that every single one of Obama's policies goes against everything I believe, and that's why I didn't support him.

I worked on Election Day in a tiny precinct of under eight hundred people. At least four walked in and asked a poll worker what the black man's name is. They couldn't be bothered learning the man's name, let alone what he stood for. All they know is that he's black. And that's all that mattered to them. And I'm sure there were at least a few who knew Obama's name, and that he was black, but couldn't have told you anything else. I don't know a single person who voted against Obama just so a black man wouldn't get in the White House; I apparently met at least four who voted for him just so a black man would. That is quite possibly the most asinine thing I've ever heard of.

I know someone else who just named their child "Messiah Obama." Others in the public circle have described him as great Biblical figures ranging from Joshua to the Apostle Paul. Many more compare him to Kennedy, Lincoln, even Washington. Leave aside the obvious--Washington definitely did not think that "spreading the wealth around is good for everyone," Kennedy urged people to "ask not what your country can do for you"--has Barack Obama actually done anything yet? I mean, his speeches seem lofty and articulate, and you can compare his speeches to those of figures like Lincoln or Kennedy. But he's been president all of thirty-one hours. He has not accomplished anything yet, beyond getting elected! Shouldn't we wait to see if his accomplishments live up to JFK's or Lincoln's before we call him a new Lincoln? Aside from the fact that he's the first black president (or 44th white president, since he has an equal claim on that), he has not done anything significant yet! He hasn't even, as his supporters contend, united the country. His total number of votes was almost exactly the same as George Bush got in 2004, and that was hardly a unification of the country. If a white candidate with the same level of experience and accomplishments got elected, it would be a nail-biting experience as we wait to see if he's up to the job. But Obama gets elected, he's the next Lincoln, the next Washington, the Second Coming of Christ!

So don't tell me this proves race doesn't matter. Sadly, it does nothing of the sort. It doesn't matter to me. I voted against Obama because of his policies, not his skin tone, and despite disagreeing with him I wish him well and will pray for him daily. Unfortunately, many of his supporters, and certainly the race-baiting pastor he chose, seem hung up on the black president, not the President of the United States. And I'm sorry to see that.

An Epic Win for Freedom

2009-01-21T15:26:00.000-08:00

We understand that the government has always had eminent domain powers. In very limited circumstances, they can confiscate private property for public use. The stupid American people thought public use meant roads, hospitals, etc. Not so. A town in Connecticut decided that the increased tax revenue from, say, a shiny new 5-star hotel, constitutes public use. It seized the land of dozens of homeowners--who had refused to sell their land to the hotel developer--and gave it to the hotel. The citizens didn't like that very much, so they took the town to court. Eventually they made it to the Supreme Kangaroo Court, which ruled 5-4 in favor of allowing the town to continue.

So not only can the government seize your land when an important road needs to be built, it can seize your land whenever some developer wants to build there and you don't want to move.

Where's the win? Several months after the ruling was passed, Logan Darrow Clemens, a businessman from California, filed a petition to build a hotel on the property of Supreme Court Justice David Souter, who ruled in favor of the government. He's planning on calling it Lost Liberty Hotel, with the Just Desserts Cafe and a museum dedicated to the erosion of freedom and expansion of federal power. That's a freaking American hero right there. The government starts eroding your rights, you use their own harmful laws to spit in their face. And it's a win-win situation. Either the hotel goes through, in which case he's made his statement; or it doesn't, and he's got an equal-protection appeal. Absolutely genius.

A Change We Really Need

2009-01-21T15:20:00.000-08:00

There's a bill that's been kicked around the House for about ten years. It's only got about 50 cosponsors so far. which is a far cry from the 220 it needs to pass. A lot of people don't know about this bill, and a lot of the people who have heard of it have been misinformed. What's bad about that is that this may be the single most important bill of at least the least forty years--H.R. 1025, the FairTax Act.

I don't know how much you've heard about the FairTax, but I'm going to start from the assumption that you know nothing, because it's easiest to explain from the bottom up. Currently, embedded in the price of everything you buy, is a federal tax. You don't know this, because the federal government doesn't tax your purchases directly. However, it taxes the capital and payroll of every entity involved in the production of whatever it is you're buying. Those entities factor those taxes into the price of the goods they're selling--so, whenever you buy something, 22 percent of the price goes to pay federal taxes. The FairTax would completely eliminate all federal income, payroll, capital, and estate taxes. It would replace them with a national 23% sales tax, to be embedded in the price exactly like the embedded taxes now. The tax on your purchases would not increase (well, by 1% of the total price, but not by any significant measure), but the taxes on your paycheck would disappear, leaving more money in your pocket.

Sound too good to be true? It's not. Everybody wins.

Under the current tax code, while the poor are exempt from income taxes--and many actually get refunds on the income taxes they don't pay--those poor with jobs are still hit with payroll taxes, often as high as income taxes. The FairTax eliminates that. Any potential changes in the price of goods won't significantly affect the poor either. See, part of the FairTax Act includes a provision that a credit be granted to every American--regardless of income--up to the poverty line for their family size. For example, a family of four is calculated to need about $2,000 a month to afford basic necessities like food and clothing (not designer clothing, mind you, but enough so that the kids aren't naked in the street). Under the FairTax, that family of four would receive almost $500 a month--enough to cover the tax on their basic necessities. If you buy beyond what you basically need, you will be taxed--if not, you won't. (And I don't care how poor you are, if you can buy the iPod you can pay the tax on it.)

Americans who make enough money to be hit with income taxes--most of whom also pay punitively high payroll taxes--will have all of their income available. Next time you get paid, pay close attention to how much the government took out for Medicare, Social Security, and income tax. Imagine what you could do with that extra money. I know for me, federal taxes typically run about $80 a month (during school when I'm part-time) and $150 (over the summer). If the FairTax passes, I could take that $80 and spend it, and the feds still get their hands on it; I could invest it; I could put it toward retirement or grad school. It's a lot harder to invest and save when the feds confiscate a quarter of your income right off the bat.

The current tax code punishes the wealthy. While a few people are wealthy for no reason, most of them got there by hard work. In the process, they created millions of jobs. Say you've got a CEO who makes $20 million. His lowest-paid employee makes $20,000. You can scream that it's not fair the CEO makes 1,000 times as much as the lowest-paid employee...or you can see it as, if that CEO weren't operating this company, the job wouldn't be there and the lowest-paid employee (and a few hundred similarly paid employess) would be making nothing at all (which last I checked would be a bad thing). But under the current tax code, those successful, job-creating wealthy people are being punished for their success. The income tax rate for people who make over $197,000 per year is 38%. On top of that, they have payroll tax (another 8%), capital gains taxes (about 35% of the company's capital)...and they're now being threatened with another tax hike from the Obama administration. Put yourself in those (ridiculously expensive Italian) shoes. If the government already confiscates half your income and a third of your company's capital, and then the incoming vice-president says if you don't give more you're not patriotic...well, Ireland's 12% capital tax is starting to look mighty attractive, isn't it? And when the wealthy move their assets to other places with lower taxes, who loses? The millions of people who work in jobs the government just taxed into relocation. By punishing the wealthy, you eventually punish the poor...and why, exactly, should success be punished in the first place?

I mentioned Ireland. When the rest of Europe was taxing businesses at a rate between 40 and 50%, Ireland slashed their capital tax to 12. Ireland now has the fastest-growing economy in Europe and one of the fastest in the world. It's cheaper to do business there, so more businesses go. If Ireland's economy exploded from dropping capital taxes to 12, what would happen if America cut them to 0? An economic explosion unlike any seen since the Industrial Revolution. And isn't this the best time for it? If unemployment is at its highest in decades, and the economy is in worse shape than it's been since the Great Depression, wouldn't this be an absolutely great time for unprecedented economic expansion?

The FairTax would not reduce the government's revenue. It would, in fact, increase it. Think about it. Every year, millions of tourists come here from other countries. Their income, of course, is made in their home country, and we can't tax them for it here. But they do spend here. And if the feds collected taxes on everything foreign visitors purchased, their revenue would spike sharply. Then there's the underground economy. People who make money illegally--drug dealers, prostitutes, illegal immigrants, etc.--obviously don't report their incomes at all. Then there are people--like waiters or strippers--who make most of their money in cash tips and can easily underreport by thousands of dollars their actual income. All of those people can escape the income tax. But since they spend their money on the free market, they cannot avoid the FairTax. A drug dealer doesn't report their income--but they pay for everything from bread to cars just like everyone else (well, almost--very few other people walk into a car lot with rolls of $20 bills), and even if they make money illegally the FairTax will collect their share. Another thing to consider is that the estimated cost every year of Americans trying to comply with the tax code (at last count over 47,000 pages long) is over $400 billion--spent on everything from individuals going to H&R Block to corporations hiring tax lawyers to double-check the books. Think how much good that money could do in the market. This country could do a lot with an extra $400 billion.

The FairTax is simple. There's no 47,000 pages to remember. H.R. 1025 is only 133 pages long. You want an honest assessment of how complex the tax code is? IRS bureaucrats tested their employees by calling their own support line with a serious question. In over 60% of the cases, the IRS support employee answered wrongly or said some variation of "I don't know, let me get a supervisor." Can you imagine if 60% of police officers couldn't answer a question about traffic laws?

The FairTax will help secure the border. See, the prebate credit--the one that covers taxes on poverty-level spending--can only be sent to people who are registered as citizens or legal guest workers. Illegal immigrants will still pay the FairTax, because they will still buy things. But they won't get a credit to cover their basic expenses. Guest workers, on the other hand, who come here legally, announce their presence, and may eventually become citizens, will pay the FairTax and receive the benefits of paying it. That alone will not stop illegal immigration--but it does make it harder for those who ignore our laws to make a living off our system.

Unlike the income tax, the FairTax's tax base is much mroe stable. See, income tax only hits income. The FairTax is based on spending. And spending comes not just from income but from savings and credit. When some catastrophic event--like 9/11 or Bailout Madness--wipes out a lot of income, spending takes a dip--but nowhere near as sharp as the one income takes, because people use their savings and credit to continue buying things. Tax records bear this out again and again.

Under the current system, America is one of the only countries that taxes goods produced in the country, rather than those sold in the country. This puts imports at a huge advantage. They have no real tax burden in their home country--which is smart enough not to tax exports--and because the goods were produced elsewhere, they have no real tax burden in America either. Our goods, on the other hand, are taxed here--then taxed again when they're sold in another country. Why on earth does anyone think it's a good idea to put our goods at a 20 to 40% disadvantage in the world market?

The FairTax has no deductions. That may sound bad, but here's why it's not. Tax deductions are never "free rides." They are intended to encourage or coerce people into doing what the government wants. And who comes up with tax deductions? K Street lobbyists hoping to game the system. Environmental lobby pressures a representative? Now there's a tax break for hybrids. (I don't know if there actually is, that's hypothetical.) Government wants to make sure your kids are under their direct supervision from the age of four (thanks to the horrendous system of compulsory government education)? Tax break for your children in government schools. Do you really want the government to be able to guide your behavior with tax credits? It's like leading a cat around with a catnip mouse; since cats don't respond well to commands or physical coercion, hold up a catnip mouse (or tax credit) and pull it one way or the other, and the cat will follow.

The current federal tax system encourages spending and discourages planning for the future. Investments and savings can be taxed. Spending cannot. The FairTax reverses that. You see the results of spending beyond your means everywhere. By not taxing savings and taxing spending significantly, the FairTax provides a benefit to responsibility (or, I should say, an immediate benefit to responsibility--responsiblity has always had long-term benefits). That's good for everyone. And before you accuse me of hypocrisy, it's not the same principle as the government promoting desired behavior with tax breaks. See, the FairTax doesn't punish spenders to encourage saving--the tax on purchased goods does not increase. The only change in the tax on goods is where it comes from. Right now, every business involved pays the taxes to the government--then you pay the business' share of the taxes, in addition to their materials and labor. Under the FairTax, you pay the government directly, which may seem like a tax hike--but you're already paying the taxes, you just don't see it. The FairTax doesn't tax spenders any more than the income tax (in fact, less, because you don't have taxes automatically withheld). It just stops taxing savers and investors. It's not a way for government to entice people to save, but a way to stop enticing people not to save. And that's good.

The FairTax also encourages people to become politically aware and active. That's a good thing. An apathetic, unaware populace--the dumb masses or sheeple--is easy pickings for power-hungry political hacks. (Even worse is an unaware populace that is nonetheless quite enthusiastic about something--witness the four people who came in my precinct on election day asking what the black man's name was, because they wanted to vote for him.) When you never get the money the government confiscates, it's hard to feel passionate about it. Be honest, even if you read the taxes on your pay stub, you normally think of your take-home pay as your salary. But when every time you buy something, it says on the receipt "23% FairTax....$4.98" or whatever, you start really feeling how much money is being taken by the government. And then you might get a little more upset when you hear about the forty-seventh public works project in West Virginia named after Robert Byrd and paid for with federal taxpayers' money (the count as of 2006 was over thirty, including the Robert C. Byrd Locks and Dam, the Byrd Aerospace Tech Center, the Robert C. Byrd Green Bank Telescope, the Robert C. Byrd Visitor Center at Harper's Ferry National Park, the Robert C. Byrd Federal Courthouse, the statue of Robert C. Byrd in said courthouse, the Robert C. Byrd Clinical Addition to the Veterans' Hospital, etc.).

I lied to you earlier. I said everybody wins. There is a group of people who lose. The lobbyists who want tax policy to coerce desired behavior. The politicians who use tax policy to exercise power over their constituents. The hacks like Robert C. Byrd who count on an apathetic people not to notice he's appropriated over $200 million of your money to name a bunch of crap after himself. The credit card companies who want you to spend money you don't have, so they can hold a sword over your head for decades. The drug lords who collect benefits like welfare and Medicaid without contributing a dime to the system. The foreign countries whose economies have been killing ours because of the simple fact that they understand you can't tax the successful into oblivion. Those are the only people who benefit from not implementing the FairTax. Do you want the political class and the illegal-income class to win? Or do you want the rest of America to win?