Posts Tagged ‘Barack Obama

05
Nov
13

Believing in Climate Science Means You Are Crazy

Here is what Al gore, Obama, and Company are saying about anyone that doubts the theory of man-made Global Warming. Below is what Obama’s group Organizing for Action says.

Look, our crazy uncles aren’t the problem. But these members of Congress are using these far-fetched conspiracy theories as an excuse for not taking action on an issue that affects our environment, our economy, and yes, the planet our children and grandchildren inherit.

Climate change is real, and we’re not going to get anywhere on the issue until these guys admit that.

Did you catch that? Anyone who questions Global Warming is crazy. anything you hear to the contrary should be considered a “far-fetched conspiracy theory.” Furthermore, any inaction on your part to demand that lawmakers don’t create and push new legislation to curb global warming is a decision that damages your children’s well being. Yep, you heard it, if you don’t push Carbon Credits and cars that nobody can afford (or wants) then you are dooming your children to a barren wasteland!

globalwarming_mockery

For those of us who want more data that global warming is caused soley by humans the science continues to roll in. The DailyMail reports on how a growing body of scientist disagree with human global warming despite not being heard by the United Nations IPCC who is pushing for more laws to be passed.

Not only does it explain the unexpected pause, it suggests that the scientific majority – whose views are represented by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – have underestimated the role of natural cycles and exaggerated that of greenhouse gases.  

The research comes amid mounting evidence that the computer models on which the IPCC based the gloomy forecasts of a rapidly warming planet in its latest report, published in September, are diverging widely from reality.
 
Apparently even the ice is starting to reform.
In similar fashion, a number of cycles in the temperature of air and oceans, and the level of Arctic ice, take place across the Northern hemisphere over decades. Curry and Wyatt say there is evidence of this going back at least 300 years.
But nevermind the data… you’re crazy.
Advertisements
30
Sep
13

Unknown Laws That Make Money For The Government

The world is truly nutty and one only has to look to the laws on the books to realize how backwards and unfree our laws actually make us. for the most part these laws are so weird, awkward, and backwards that nobody ever enforces them. however, what if they start enforcing them? In Pittsburgh some people are finding out just how wacky laws can be.

Eileen Freedman is finding out one crazy law that says “you have to park at least 30 feet away from the street.” To any sane person living today this seems like nonsense – if you are on your own driveway and not impeding pedestian or vehicle traffic then why should the city, state, or federal government care where you park? To make matters even more batshit crazy the city allows people to park on the road.

Yes, you heard corerctly – the city perfers you to park in the street where you have to walk in the street to get to your car, possibly block fire hydrants, impede traffic, and case blind spots to traffic on that road… instead of you parking in your own driveway where it safe to enter and you do not impede traffic in any way by being there.

My point in bringing this up is that the laws out there are so convoluted that nobody knows what the law says. It is fairly well known that much legislation is passed and The Hill has no idea what nitty-gritty details are in it. Look at Nancy Pelosi’s comments about passing a bill to see what is in it (whether you want to believe she was being condecending or just trying to push the Senate to pass their version of the bill). Look at how Obama signed the bailout bill just to find out that he granted bailout money to be directly allocated to the very CEOs that he despises and then turned around and somehow demanded that they give it all back even though it was law.

One of my favorite TV shows is House of Cards. A show about Washington D.C. and how it is all about politics-as-usual and quid-pro-quo.  I’m not sure the slant of the director, but being one who is interested in politics I find the show to be absolutely fascinating – both on an entertainment level but also as an exploration of how I kind of perceive Washington D.C.

We have routinely heard our leaders discuss their signing of controversial legislation to be “OK” because “nobody will ever use it like that.” How about that domestic spying without a warrant? That domestic drone use? Or the assasination of American Citizens without trial “because they were a terrorist.”

Personally, I’d be absolutely embarassed to cite someone for parking in their own driveway – law on the books or not. But why now; why would a city suddenly start issuing fines to people parking in their driveways? The answer? Money. Cities are strapped and instead of curbing their spending and quit giving handouts to people they start looking for who they can milk for more money.

Oh yeah, didn’t Obama campaign on the promise that he wouldn’t raise his taxes on anyone making under $250k? Oh yeah, he just admited that “whoops, yeah we did raise taxes on some things.” Ha, gotcha! I expect all levels of government to start looking for more more money to steal tax in the near future.

23
Jul
13

Why Do We Have the IRS: Abolish It

For 126 years the United States of America had very limited taxes. In this time from 1787 until 1913 the government-funded itself by indirect taxes – mainly tariff, corporation, and other excise taxes. An indirect tax is one that is not levied on each person and can be avoided (or passed on) if you want to. An example of this is the tobacco tax – you do not have to pay the tobacco tax simply for being a resident. You only pay the tax if you voluntarily decide to participate in that activity that the tax is attached to – you can either not smoke or you can grow your own tobacco – you simply avoided that product or service to not pay an indirect tax.

CCH_Title 26Today most Americans have no idea about taxation. Even worse is that they have no idea what the difference is between direct and indirect taxation. Most Americans simply send off any paperwork they may have to a tax professional and that person does it. What is interesting is that you could send your paperwork off to five different individuals and you will come up with a different tax burden computation from each. Each tax preparer will interpret the code and take calculated risks off those interpretations. The sad part is that most of the time they are all right – the tax code is so insanely convoluted that there is an infinite amount of possibilities that one can arrive at for their tax burden – after all Title 26 was reported to be 73,954 pages (~4.5 million words) for 2013. Compare this with the 400 pages (240,045 words) the tax code was in 1913, the Bible with 1,291 pages (774,746 words), and War and Peace at 1,444 pages (866,562 words).

We are routinely told by our government that taxation is a voluntary system but yet every year the IRS sends out legions of enforcers and piles of fines to people they have somehow deemed to be delinquent.  All this despite numerous politicians stating that it is voluntary; even IRS Commissioner Steve Miller said that it was voluntary. How is a system voluntary if we are threatened with fines, court proceedings, garnishment, repossession, liens, and jail time?

Something doesn’t smell right, does it?

Obama-IRS_SMALL

But it doesn’t stop there. Recently we have learned that the Internal Revenue System has targeted political opposition to the President – and worse yet during and election year. This is an obvious abuse of power but despite this fact little to nothing has done to condemn or stop such acts. I think what bothers me about the entire connection with Obama is that a lot of people will claim that he had no knowledge of the targeting nor did he command the targeting. This may be true but I still think it begs a few pertinent questions.

The IRS Commissioner in charge during the targeting was Douglas Shulman. He was to serve for 5 years starting in 2008. So yes, Shulman was put into position during President W. Bush’s term. However, he served less than 9 months under Bush. Furthermore, the Senate that confirmed him was controlled by the Democrats and according to financial records Shulman donated to the Democrats. And this fact is evidenced even further by the White House visitor log showing that the IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman visited the White House 118 times between 2010 and 2011. By law the President can remove the IRS Commissioner if he has a cause and what a better cause than the IRS targeting certain political groups.

As the proverb goes “You may know a man by the company he keeps.” President Obama had every right to remove Shulman but didn’t. I personally I find it hard to believe that someone visited the White House 118 times in 2 years (that is about once a week) and never squeaked a word about any targeting of the hosts (President’s) opponents. C’mon.

Have you ever thought about how America was before the Tax Code? Arguably America had her biggest growth before 1913 when there were very few taxes and little to no taxes on any income. If you go over to my article entitled The Sixteenth Amendment Did Not Allow the Government to Tax You! then you will see that only 0.37% of the American population even filed for taxes. It wasn’t even until 1916 that over 1% filed and 1943 over 30% filed – mind you that the Sixteenth Amendment was implemented in 1913. Courts have repeatedly ruled that no new powers of taxation were created with the Sixteenth Amendment but that sure as hell doesn’t stop the politicians and the government from saying that is exactly what allows them to tax your paycheck.

We Americans don’t say anything about these inconsistencies because we are scared of the IRS. Check out the list entitled 10 Outrageous Facts About the Income Tax from the CATO Institute.

  1. The U.S. “tax army” is bigger than the U.S. army in Iraq.
    Income taxes are so complex that there are up to 1.2 million paid tax preparers in the country — six times more than the number of troops in Iraq. The tax army includes legions of accountants, lawyers, and computer experts — some of the best minds in the country. Unfortunately, their brainpower is adding little to the nation’s standard of living.
  2. A tax form for every special interest.
    As the income tax grows more complex, the number of IRS tax forms has jumped from 402 in 1990 to 526 by 2002. Congress hands the accountants business on a silver platter when they create special interest tax forms such as “8845-Indian Employment Credit” and “8834-Qualified Electric Vehicle Credit.” When Congress penalizes an activity, we get tax forms such as “6197-Gas Guzzler Tax.” It’s time to end the micromanaging and adopt a simple flat-rate tax. Until then, Congress needs to supplement “6478-Credit for Alcohol Used as Fuel” with form “XXX-Credit for Alcohol Used for Drinking.”
  3. Double-tax on dividends: 60 years and still not fixed.
    Sixty years ago, a Treasury report noted that “double taxation of corporate profits is the principal problem raised in connection with the corporation income tax.” In the 1930s, a Treasury report argued that the tax disincentive to pay dividends caused corporate management problems. Recent scandals proved them right. Congress should bite the bullet and reform dividend taxes now — before the next round of corporate scandals begins. 
  4. Congress promotes discrimination through the tax code.
    The front of the Supreme Court building boldly declares “equal justice under law,” yet the income tax has hundreds of discriminatory provisions. For example, homeowners are treated more favorably than renters since they can deduct mortgage interest and other itemized deductions. Consider that a higher-income homeowner can effectively deduct car loan interest by shifting around his finances but a lower-income apartment dweller cannot. Americans would not stand for such discrimination on other taxes — imagine if each shopper at Wal-Mart was assigned a different sales tax rate!
  5. Congress on tax complexity: Who us?
    Congress frequently holds hearings on tax simplification so members can denounce the tax code’s complexity. Each time, congressional experts and outside think tanks provide useful simplification ideas. Then when the TV cameras are turned off, Congress promptly ignores them and votes for more special interest breaks. The result: The number of pages in the tax code and regulations doubled from 26,300 in 1984 to 54,846 by 2003, according to tax publisher CCH.
  6. AMT designed to catch 155 taxpayers will soon catch 37 million.
    The alternative minimum tax is an unneeded parallel tax system alongside the ordinary income tax. It began life in 1969 after Congress was shocked (shocked!) to learn that 155 wealthy individuals were not paying tax because they used too many of the deductions that Congress had provided them. The AMT has been a complex nuisance ever since. But this dumb idea aimed at the rich is set to explode on the middle-class as the number of AMT taxpayers skyrockets from 3 million today to 36 million by 2010.
  7. Voluntarism works for the U.S. military, not the income tax.
    For years, officials have hailed the income tax as a voluntary system. The Treasury calls it “our voluntary tax system.” The IRS says that it pursues “enforcement programs to promote voluntary compliance” and establishes “strategies to maximize voluntary tax law compliance by emphasizing customer satisfaction.” But with 32 million IRS penalties assessed each year and about $10,000 in income taxes imposed on each taxpaying household, the tax isn’t voluntary and these customers aren’t satisfied.
  8. Congress can’t figure out how to measure “income.”
    Although the income tax is 90 years old, Congress still can’t figure out how to measure “income.” Some income such as municipal bond interest is not taxed, but other income such as dividends is taxed twice. The income tax treatment of savings is particularly incoherent and unstable. For example, there have been 25 major changes in the capital gains tax since 1922. The solution is to replace the income tax with a low-rate tax that exempts savings.
  9. Family saving shouldn’t require an advanced math degree.
    Shouldn’t saving for education, retirement, and other items be as simple as putting money in the bank? Instead, Congress has manufactured hundreds of special savings rules, such as for 401(k)s, Keoghs, deductible IRAs, nondeductible IRAs, education IRAs, Roth IRAs, traditional pension plans, annuities, SIMPLEs, SEPs, MSAs, and others. The IRS guide to IRAs alone is 105 pages long! President Bush’s initiative to consolidate the savings plans and create a universal IRA would be a good step to bring some sanity to this mess.
  10. Income taxes: A bad idea that got worse.
    The income tax is not an example of a good idea gone bad. It was bad from the beginning, and it just keeps getting worse. The income tax distorts financial planning and business investment, and it encourages tax avoidance and evasion. Because the income tax is built on an unworkable base of “income,” the law is continually changing. Let’s simplify Americans’ finances and disband the tax army by pursuing fundamental tax reform.

Why would one want to contend with the IRS or the Tax Law when even the IRS doesn’t know what it says (or apparently what it does)? Here is another list of 10 reasons why the IRS is no good from FreedomWorks.

1. The Code is Too Complex.

The code is so big that politicians can’t even agree on how long it is.  Title 26, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) code totals to about 3,400,000 million words.  The non-partisan Tax Foundation reports that the entire tax code with regulations in 2005 was over 9,097,000 words.  To put that in perspective, the Bible has 774,746 words.  The code has grown in length between 1995 and 2005 by 18.9 percent.  The directions for filing a typical form 1040 totals 161 pages.  The “EZ” version is 41 pages.

2. The Code is Beyond Comprehension.

No single person knows or understands the entire tax code– not even IRS Employees!

In 2008, the IRS was wrong on questions concerning tax law about 10 percent of the time.  Myriads of accountants and lawyers are employed to decipher the cryptic tax code.  It should be scrapped and simplified.  No small modification to the code can remove the enormous complication.  

3. The IRS is Too Big.

The IRS employed 90,647 people in 2008.  It had operating costs of $11,207,223,000.  If we simplified the code, then many of those IRS employees could go into more productive lines of work, rather than checking up on whether or not the correct amount of money was extracted from hard working Americans.  The money spent on the IRS is economic deadweight loss caused by the level of complication of the code.  If it were scrapped and replaced, billions of taxpayer dollars could be saved just by reducing the size of the IRS–not to mention all the gains from productively employing former IRS staff members in the private sector.

4. The Code Corrupts the Culture in Washington. DC.

Lobbying is the biggest business in Washington.  About $3.2 billion was spent in the 2008 on lobbying.  Many, if not the majority, of America’s 15,139 registered lobbyists are working on increasing the level of complication of the tax code by fighting for special loopholes and regulations that will save their company money or put their competitors out of business. Yet lobbying and ethics reform too often focuses on the symptoms, like gift bans, instead of the underlying cause. What would be America’s single most effective move to clean up the swamp of special interests in Washington? Scrapping the code and replacing it with a fair and simple one.

5. The Code Taxes Some Income Two or More Times.

Our code taxes certain types of income twice.  For instance, a company pays taxes on dividends that it pays out and then when stock holders earn money from the dividends, they pay taxes on them again.  When government taxes particular types of income more than others, it distorts the market economy by punishing certain kinds of behavior with double taxation. Absent government intervening through the tax code with the complicated and unfair system, the market economy would likely perform more efficiently.  

6.   Congress Uses the Tax Code to Legislate Morality.

Congress, with its recent passage of the SCHIP bill, raised taxes on cigarettes by 61 cents per pack.  Our corrupt and easily manipulated tax system allows members of Congress to pass laws that increase the cost of certain behavior.  In the case of SCHIP, they targeted smoking.  In the case of AIG, they targeted bonuses.  Frightening precedents are being set by Congress this session that will likely lead to even more explicit penalties for certain industries.  President Obama claims that he will place a cap-and-trade tax on industry that will eliminate construction of any new coal power plants.  Under a fairer and less easily manipulated tax system, government couldn’t pick winning and losing industries as we have witnessed recently.

7. High Marginal Tax Rates Penalize Success.

Marginal income taxes are higher for each dollar workers earn.  Our most productive members of society face federal taxes of 36 percent or higher.  Under our system, the top 10 percent income earners pay 70 percent of federal income taxes.  The president plans to increase top marginal rates to at least 39 percent–and that’s not even counting state income tax rates.  In virtually every state in the country, high income workers would face top marginal tax rates that would rob them of more than 50 percent of their income.  Our current code destroys the incentive of the most productive to work hard.  

Shouldn’t we be trying to give incentive to the most productive to continue working rather than taxing so much of their income away that they no longer think it’s worth working hard?  How many inventions or cures for diseases have we lost because the most productive stopped working when faced with 50 percent or higher rates on each additional hour of work?

8. Complying with the Code Costs Americans Billions.

Compliance is a multi-billion dollar industry and 59 percent of all individuals filing taxes hire someone else to do it for them totaling to 81 million returns done by accountants last year.  If we scrapped the tax code for a simpler one, people could fill out their tax forms easily.  The sum total benefit could be billions of dollars.  All those accountants and lawyers who make their living off the level of complication of the tax code could go into more productive work that would benefit all Americans.  

Compliance weighs more heavily on the poor–making our tax code more regressive than it appears.  Taxpayers with adjusted gross income (AGI) under $20,000 pay 5.9 percent in compliance costs while those with an AGI of over $200,000 pay .5 percent of their income for compliance.

9. The Code Drives Political Donations

The Congressman on the House Ways and Means Committee Received  $55,157,458  in the 2008 Election Cycle.

The Ways and Means Committee deals with taxes.  It’s responsible for “raising the revenue required to finance the Federal Government. This includes individual and corporate income taxes, excise taxes, estate taxes, gift taxes, and other miscellaneous taxes.”  It’s the busiest committee and it’s membership during the 2008 election cycle received $55,157,458 in campaign contributions.  

If we scrapped the code, the committee members would lose their power to manipulate the code in order to pay off their campaign contributors.  Our tax system leads to corruption and corporate capture of legislation .

10. Laws Should Rest on Principles of Justice.

The tax code is modified every few years along no reasonable principle.  The code is arbitrary and unpredictable, and is morphing from its stated purpose– efficiently raising government revenue– into an instrument that Congress uses to instill fear, punishment, and political control. The code should be scrapped and replaced with a more just system based on principles of fairness and equality before the law rather than on the whim of lobbyists and lawmakers.

IRS_decimal point

America grew best when she didn’t demand through a “voluntary” tax system. People were allowed to manage their finances and plan for their savings. With an ever-changing tax system in place that grows by hundreds of pages per year and is over 73,000 pages what it was originally supposed to be it makes it very difficult to plan anything – especially for businesses. It should be fairly evident by now that the taxes collected aren’t for your benefit – it is for the lobbyist and the political leaders to get ahead of their competition. If you can have the government make your competition squirm while you don’t then you gain an advantage. GE did this in 2010 when it filed a 57,000 page tax return on its $14 billion of profits and paid… no taxes at all.

We should seriously look at shutting down the IRS. While everyone thought he was crazy Ron Paul repeatedly called to end the corrupt IRS.

I want to abolish the income tax, but I don’t want to replace it with anything. About 45 percent of all federal revenue comes from the personal income tax. That means that about 55 percent — over half of all revenue — comes from other sources, like excise taxes, fees, and corporate taxes.

We could eliminate the income tax, replace it with nothing, and still fund the same level of big government we had in the late 1990s. We don’t need to “replace” the income tax at all. I see a consumption tax as being a little better than the personal income tax, and I would vote for the Fair-Tax if it came up in the House of Representatives, but it is not my goal. We can do better.

As much as I hate to say it, the Second Plank of Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto was “A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.” Why do we have such a tax system where we effectively punish those making money? Not to mention a system where people who pay no taxes repeatedly receive money and benefits for free.

Consider signing the petition here. Click below.

Cruz_Splashgraphic_abolishirs-300x177

23
May
13

Solution: Label GMO Food Locally

Ever since food became easier and more profitable to create by machinery the government has tried to regulate it in some sort of fashion. The first English regulation of such was the Assize of Bread and Ale around the year 1266. In America the first endeavour into regulating food came in 1862 when President Lincoln launched the Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of Chemistry. These two organizations operated in what today we call the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) or the Agriculture Department. Later on in 1906 the Pure Food and Drugs Act was passed and what we now call the Food and Drug Administration was formed. Through these early regulatory adoptions it was aimed to raise the standards in food and their truthfulness in packaging. The nutrition labels that we all now know were mandated in 1990 through the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) and amended by the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act (FALCPA) of 2004.

Interestingly enough the reason that Coca-Cola (and arguably every other soda manufacturer) now uses caffeine instead of cocaine is because one of the first big targets of the Pure Food and Drug Acts was Coca-Cola used cocaine as their active ingredient. Despite that loss the government even tried unsuccessfully to ban Coca-Cola in the infamous case, United States v. Forty Barrels and Twenty Kegs of Coca-Cola, 241 U.S. 265, in 1916 from using caffeine.

But how far do we go in demanding how manufacturers produce and label their food? Specifically speaking, how far can we go on a federal level? On a state level? Already we have numerous states that have specific laws for food that is imported or exported from that state that is on top of the federal requirements.

On March 26th President Obama signed HR 933 – called the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 – into law to stop the shutdown of the American government. In this law lies the idea that the Farmer Assurance Provision – the “Monsanto Protection Act,” Section 735 – was snuck in which gives special privileges to companies that deal with genetically modified organisms (GMO) even to allow them to continue producing crops even if a court finds them harmful – which very well may not entirely be the case. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) has stated that he will introduce legislation in the Farm Bill of 2013 to repeal the Monsanto Protection Act.

gmofoodSo what is all the fuss about GMO foods? Well, in the past couple of years GMO foods have taken the spotlight around the world. Italy, Austria, France, Germany, Spain, UK, Egypt, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Paraguay, among many other countries have either outright banned GMO foods or have partial bans on GMO foods and this has many Americans wondering why we still allow foods which other countries have deemed to be dangerous. Some reports within America have also surfaced to show that genetically engineered (GE) foods have actually harmed humans and their food supplies – even to include using Agent Orange again because the new GMO crops are resistant to it. To make matters worse in America the biggest player in GMO foods is Monsanto, which oddly enough just had their CEO, Michael R. Taylor, given the nod to head the FDA.

This issue has both sides of the aisle up in arms for various reasons. To some it is a matter of the government stepping in and ensuring good and clean food. To others it is about the government making back-room deals to secure special favors and privileges by the rule of law.

This issue at hand is a difficult one. Regardless of where you stand on the issue of GMO food, should we count on the government to ensure our safety? Is that their role? Is this indeed a back-room deal? Or should we really be asking if this is a federal issue in the first place or if we should be leaving such labeling requirements to the states?

Rep. Jeff Denham (R-CA), stated of the amendment, “I oppose the King Amendment because the amendment takes away important authorities from the states and gives them exclusively to the federal government. The 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution firmly establishes states’ rights and many states represented by members of the House Agriculture Committee use their state sovereignty to enact laws that protect their citizens from invasive pests, livestock diseases, maintain quality standards for dairy products, ensure food safety and unadulterated seed products. While this list is by no means exhaustive, even a cursory look at state laws regulating agriculture reveals that laws in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Wisconsin and California, will potentially be nullified by the King Amendment.”

If this is the case, is this amendment a true-blue smack in the face to state rights and the Tenth Amendment? Will this amendment somehow nullify the existing state laws? Furthermore, if citizens truly want labeling of GMOs in their community should they even be worrying about things such as this or should they be trying to introduce state or local laws that would require the labeling of the foods? Vermont has already started a law at H.112 to mandate GMO labeling, which has already passed the Vermont House 107-37.

Let’s face it, the federal government is huge today. It is a bureaucratic mess and trying to convince Washington D.C. to change something like this is like trying to convince all of America that it must be changed – it’s going to be an uphill battle all the way. Apparently this is just another example of D.C. politicians passing bills of which they haven’t read. The best way to hand situations like this is always at a more local level… like Vermont is trying to do.

27
Nov
12

Terrorism, not terrorist… stupid

What does it mean when our government and/or our politicians play semantics with words such as “terrorism” and “terrorist”?

As I posted on my last post, why is our American government so keen on defining who is, isn’t, could be, and might be a terrorist? Is it to their benefit to reserve the right to label people a “terrorist” as they see fit as to fit their current agenda?

In 2004 Obama reportedly stated that,

Ultimately, terrorism is a tactic. We’re not fighting terrorists, we’re fighting people who engage in terrorism, but have a whole host of rationales and excuses for why they do this,” Obama said. “And to the extent that we can change the sense of opportunity in many of these countries, we can change the manner in which we function in these countries in more positive, proactive ways, then we’re not going to eliminate terrorism entirely but we’re at least going to be able to make more of a dent than if all we’re resorting to is military firepower.

First and foremost I always thought that one who enganges in terrorism, by definition, was a terrorist. Secondly, when he states that people have a “whole host of rationales” of why they do what they do it reminds me of the Department of Homeland Security report stating that Maricopa was a hotspot for terrorism for “various reasons.” But equally scary is the idea that he states that he wants to actively manipulate other countries and that he admits that we never will win against terrorism… yet he still is participating in a top-secret drone strike policy.

What gives?

11
Nov
12

The GOP should help crash America

Those Who Fell To Communism

Photo by by rhapsouldize of DeviantArt

Before the 2012 primary election I argued that the last chance for America is to elect Ron Paul as President of the United States. The main charge against the GOP was that all the contenders – save Ron Paul – were big-government politicians and big-government was exactly what was ruining America. Before you go and get excited please understand that I’m not singling out Democrats here as big-government folks as many people like to try to pin the tail. Fiscally the Democrats want to spend money they don’t have on “social programs” and the Republicans want to spend money they don’t have on wars and nation building. Regulation wise the Democrats want to legislate the market and the Republicans want to legislate morality. They both support progressive taxation, passing laws without reading them, pseudo-safety, spying on citizens, groping citizens as they travel, and controlling their right to protect themselves. They both support fiat currency, the Federal Reserve, Quantitive Easing, fractional-reserve-lending, not auditing the Federal Reserve, bailouts, and fake stimulus checks. And best yet they all are in favor of ceding our sovereignty to the United Nations, Germany, Mexico, NAFTA, the IMF, or whoever asks for it.

I’ve heard a great divide lately after the 2012 Presidential election from all sides. I’ve heard many say that they feel that a second American Civil War is on the horizon. Others simply are realizing that as 47% of Americans don’t even pay incomes taxes on the large, that we are at the crucial turning point where half of Americans are simply voting to maintain eating out of the fiscal trough and they will vote for whoever promises them the most feed – in this case Obama promised the most.

I said before the election that if Ron Paul didn’t get elected President that it was all downhill – that America will fall. I followed that up in my conversations with friends that the faster America falls, the better. Now, I’m not saying that I want America to be overthrown, I simply want her to fall as quickly as possible so that when she does fall there will still be enough people who are able-bodied and who still value Freedom and Individualism to pick up the pieces and rebuild the greatest nation on Earth.

Apparently I’m not the only one. Arnold Ahlert said it best,

As a result, I have a suggestion for the Republicans, one they won’t hear from anyone else: give Barry and Company everything they want, without an iota of resistance. Let ’em raise taxes and the debt ceiling, gut the military, and run up trillions of dollars of additional deficits and debt. Then stand back, and let an utterly corrupt media chronicle the demise — without being able to pin an ounce of the ensuing socialist catastrophe on an ‘obstructionist’ GOP. (link)

I’ve heard more people say that they feel that they should just quit their job and start collecting welfare and food-stamps. I think many of us know people who are indefinitely on these social programs, many of who abuse those programs and it quite frustrating to watch them live the good life while we struggle to do the right things in life – pay for our mortgages, buy groceries for our fridge, and cut our debt down. I personally know of multiple people who own homes on my tax dollar and eat like kings who don’t have jobs and haven’t in some time. There comes a breaking point where we look around and wonder why we are the only one working and struggling while others are living off our sweat in luxury… and then we say fuck it and join in.

Why fight it? Let’s just crash this bitch.

07
Nov
12

2012 Election Results From a Conservative Libertarian in Arizona

The dust isn’t 100% settled but I’ll go ahead and say it – congratulations to Barack Obama for his 2012 American Presidential win. Unfortunately, I can’t go so far as to say congratulations to Obama for winning as I can say congratulations to the Republicans for losing it. The GOP lost this race on their own terms and I unfortunately they seemingly didn’t learn from 2008 with John McCain.

The results are fairly similar between 2008 and 2012. In 2008 Obama won 362 electorial votes with McCain winning 176 (69,456,897 vs 59,934,814popular votes – 52.9% vs 45.7%, link). In 2012 Obama won 303 electorial votes with Romney winning 206 (54,744,018 vs 53,685,409 popular votes – 49.7% vs 48.8%, link). A 3.2% decrease for Obama and a 3.1% increase for the GOP is a pretty trivial number in my opinion as it swings this much every year.

EDIT: According to the final results Barack H. Obama received 332 electorial votes and Willard Mitt Romney received 206 electorial votes (65,899,625 vs 60,928,981 popular, 51.02% vs 47.18%, link). Furthermore Gary Johnson received 1,275,821 popular (0.99%), Jill Stein with 469,500 (0.36%), and other with 580,631 (0.45%). This reinforces my claim that the GOP lost fair-and-square – that if all people who voted for 3rd parties voted with the GOP that Obama still would have won the election.

For the past two years the GOP has nominated a moderate Conservative – for all intensive purposes in my mind, a Socialist-lite. As Jed Babbin said in an article written in in 2008 of John Mcain, “In nuclear physics, every subatomic particle has an opposite. When they collide, they combine to produce another particle that resembles neither. McCain is the political antimatter that collides with conservatism and produces ‘liberal republicanism'” (link). McCain has a fair Conservative scorecard from places like ACU but in reality he is just not a strong Conservative and certainly not a steadfast conservative who will stick by his guns hell or highwater. McCain couldn’t support lower taxes in 2001 and in 2008 he went soft on illegal immigration.

Fast forward four years and the GOP again nominated a bastion of Conservatism birthed into Mitt Romney. stated early in 2012 it was said by Conor Murphy, “[i]f Republicans wish to elect a conservative to the White House, then they would do well to avoid nominating the poster child of big-government Republicanism, Mitt Romney” (link). The biggest selling point of the GOP 2012 contender was “I’m not Barack Obama.” Of course, please forget that Romney supported TARP bailouts, signed anti-gun legislation, grandfathered Romneycare which was the design for Obamacare, prefer to keep the TSA, signed on Agenda-21 friendly legislation, and want to make the PATRIOT Act permanent – all items that are selling points not of a Conservative but rather of a big-government Socialist.

Arguably in recent history since the Reagan Revolution the Republican Party has shifted, not more to the right… but rather to the left – see Bob Dole, George W. Bush and John McCain. Likewise the Democratic Party has shifted to the left – see Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama. So in reality the entire political spectrum is shifting left and moves further away from truly representing us those on the right.
 
It should be painfully obvious at this juncture that because of this shift to the left the GOP is splitting and has been for some time. Those of us on the right want to remain on the right. We do not wish to comprimise and shift left with the GOP. I believe a fairly large faction of GOP and independents want to see the GOP shift right but it seems that the powers to be at the GOP prefer to move left to try to pander to the middle-ground independents and Blue-Dog Democrats.
 
If you watched the GOP debates you would be hard pressed to see many fundamental differences btween most of the candidates – save Ron Paul and Gary Johnson – than Barack Obama. All of them generally supported spying/detaining citizens under the PATRIOT Act or the NDAA, support bailouts, support spending money which they don’t have (Democrats want to spend it on “social programs,” while Republicans want to spend it on “safety”), support progressive taxation, support pre-emptive wars without Congressional declaration, support the war on drugs, support the Federal Reserve manipulating our currency, and last but not least they both do not support creating a viable plan that will reduce the debt.
 
I admit, I am happy that Obama won. America may not survive in one piece as she stands now but maybe this isn’t such a bad thing. Let me explain. Any time a President sits the opposing party becomes the watch-dog opposition. They watch their every move and complain and bitch to try to stop them. For many of us in America today Obama is the most Left-winged President we’ve had. Because of this we’ve become more watchful and aware fo what our politicians are doing. In some sense, we’ve held them more accountable and made them squirm. Beginning in 2007-2008 the Tea Party and the Ron Paul rEVOLution gained immense popularity. These became the watch-dog groups to which many Americans now subscribe to. Since Obama has a second term such groups will be in overdrive watching his every move. Hopefully the people who are concerned about America will realize that they must watch and they must act. If they act then they have the chance to push America back to the right side of the political spectrum.
 
I know that some people will argue that it would have been better to chance the 2012 election and let Romney sit but I say that it would have hurt America’s chance to push the GOP back to the right. As it stands now the GOP has two elections that it lost due to them not picking someone Conservative enough. For 2016 they now have the chance to continue on their path and probably lose another election or swing back to the right and pick up the disenfranchized people on the right – forget the no-man’s land in the middle of the political spectrum as those people will probably willy-nilly decide on what direction they want to vote at the last minute – it’s hard to pander to such a group so why is the gOP trying? Maybe there is even a chance that if those middle-moderates see the GOP return to a principled stance of small-government and true fiscal responsibility (not a fiscal responsibility that says no big spending to social programs but a big fat yes to abhorent military spending) that they will be more appealing to vote for. As of now the GOP, even to me who leans Right, seems like a desperate greyhound dog trying to catch a mechanical rabbit on a track and it’s too ignorant to know that it never will catch it… and that isn’t a pretty sight to many voters. At least the Democratic party seems to stand up and say with conviction that it will do everything that it can to make the world more fair and to create their Utopia.
 
Or maybe Obama will destroy America. Maybe he will drive us straight into the ground of blasé Socialism. It is my hope that if it comes to that then there will be enough of us willing to fight for a new revival – a new America that our Founding Father’s would be proud of where individualism reigns instead of collectivism.
 
It is my hopes that because people are more involved with politics today than I’ve ever seen they start to realize that We The People need to keep our politicians in check. The power of laws needs to be returned to the Congress, to where we can voice our opinions of where we want to take this country every two years in the House and every 4 in the Senate. We can’t sit around and say that “my Congressperson is doing great” and then turn around and say that Congress is doing a horrible job – this makes no sense. We need to make the Congress do it’s job – they need to threaten impeachment when it is warranted and question the Executive branch when it supercedes its power with items such as Executive Orders. Then when the President wants to appoint a puppet in the Supreme Court, the Congress needs to stand up and block that nomination in favor of someone who will judge blindly and without partisanship. But as of now, the Congress generally sits around and does nothing except ceede their power elsewhere and certainly never challenges the Executive branch.
 
In any case, I can only see the second term of Obama as being a good thing for us in the long run. Make no mistake about it, I’m not excited about how the next four years will be for us… if we even have another four years. However, I think that if we want to truly prosper then Obama part two is the best thing that could have happened to us.



Quotes:

"We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth... For my part, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst; and to provide for it." - Patrick Henry

"Politicians and diapers both need to be changed, and for the same reason." - Anonymous

"Right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it." - William Penn

"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country" - Hermann Goering

"I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do this I keep on doing." - Romans 7:18-19

"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." - Mark Twain

Categories