Posts Tagged ‘Sovereign

24
Nov
12

Maricopa Arizona — were you aware that the Federal Government labels you as a hotspot for terrorist activity?

I like Arizona. I have never felt unsafe here. Admittedly this is probably largely due to the fact that I live in suburbia-Chandler where there is barely a bar around. Nevertheless, I feel that Arizona does a lot right and that I feel safe.

However, according to a report written by the University of Maryland for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) in January 2012 Maricopa County is a hot spot for terrorism (p 2).

Terrorism? I honestly have no idea what they are talking about but apparently we have had 7 “single issue” terrorist attacks from 1970-2008 (p 18) with 6 of them being in the 2000’s (p 23).

What is more troubling is their definitions of who is considered “extreme right-wing.” They describe someone as extreme right-wing as a,

“group that believe that one’s personal and/or national ‘way of life’ is under attack and is either already lost or that the threat is imminent (for some threat is from a specific ethnic, racial, or religious group), and believe in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism. Groups may also be fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation), anti-global, suspicious of centralized federal authority, reverent of individual liberty,and believe in conspiracy theories that involve great threat to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty.” (p 8-9)

Now mind you, the START report is the report that was written for the Department of Homeland Security to combat terrorism. So I must ask, why is one that trains with firearms or survialism considered terrorism? Or why is it considered terrorism if one believes that sovereignty is a good thing?

I’m already shooting myself here in the foot in regards to this START report, but this just goes hand-in-hand with the 2009 Department of Homeland Security report entitled Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment (here). In this specific document the DHS also calls out people concerned about “martial law, impending civil strife or racial conflict, suspension of the U.S. Constitution, and the creation of citizen detention camps” (p 4). So now we have two separate government documents that are labeling anyone that is concerned about the role of government… to be terrorist. The 2009 report also specifically calls out anyone that has purchased ammunition in bulk or that is a returning veteran.

Pair all these reports with the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that allows indefinite detention of American citizens without charge or trial and you have the making of a police state that even North Korea would be proud of. The only difference is that in America people still think they are free and will call you out as a kook (or now a terrorist) if you try to say otherwise.

07
Oct
12

Why Mitt Romney is not a Conservative

First off, I want to be clear here. I’m not saying who you should vote for. The main thing I want is for you to vote AND know who you are voting for and why. If you don’t know who you are voting for or why then I don’t really see a point in voting except to pat yourself on the back, put on your “I voted sticker,” and feel all warm inside that you were a good-American doing your duty.

For far too long I’ve heard people say that they are tired of having crappy politicians to vote between. That neither candidate really matches their views and that all politicians are snakes in the grass. Long has America been ensnared in the two-party system of a false-dichotomy logical fallacy. You don’t have to vote for someone just because they have a (D) or (R) behind their name. As we know many politicians say what they want, when they want, to whatever audience they need to pander to. I for one am done with that.

I am a Conservative Libertarian. My general belief is that all people who are free should do as they wish so long as it doesn’t affect (aka harm) someone else. Likewise, a freeman’s government should respect other countries even if they are in disagreement. We aren’t in a Utopia and warring with people – domestic or foreign – isn’t going to get us that Utopia. The following list is something that I’ve attempted to compile in showing why I believe that Romney is not a Conservative and thus not a candidate that I can cast my vote for even though he is the acclaimed Republican nominee. In the interest of fairness, I tried to provide as many links as I could to provide evidence of my claims.

Why Mitt Romney is not a Conservative – not now, not as a President.

FOREIGN POLICY:
YES: Interfere and intervene with other countries policies and politics 1
NO: End the Afghanistan war, do not obtain a Constitutional Declaration of War 2, 34
YES: Support Israel unilaterally (even though they are Nuclear), including financial and weapon backing 3, 33
YES: Remain in the United Nations, although scale back 7
YES: Invade Iran. 5, 8
YES: Agenda 21 by United Nations 24, 25, 26
YES: Unilateral and unchecked foreign aid 37

I believe that a true Conservative believes in sovereignty, both domestic and foreign. To have a policy or belief that we need to fix, manipulate, or save other countries from their own political issues is simply Unamerican. America is who she is today because we threw off our own [British] chains – not because some country came and liberated us. If we are going to demand that they recognize and respect our sovereignty, laws, and freedoms than a Conservative should also recognize and respect other countries sovereignty, laws, and freedoms even if we don’t agree with them. Last but not least, we are able to act and retaliate for acts of aggression towards the United States and that is outlined in the Constitution via a Congressional Declaration of War (the President isn’t a dictator who takes us to war when he feels like it). I argue that Romney is not a Conservative because he believes that American government should actively interfere and police the world and does not believe in the CIA’s findings on blowback. Furthermore, he does not respect other country’s sovereignty while demanding they recognize ours.

ECONOMY:
YES: Subsidize farms 9, 11, 12
YES: Bailouts 13, 14
YES: TARP 27, 28, 29, 30
YES: Cap and trade 10, 31
YES: Managed trade (aka “fair trade”), not free trade. Supports CAFTA, NAFTA, WTO, Fast Track TPA, and other “free-trade” agreements. 6, 32

I believe that a true Conservative believes in a free market (with very few regulations), both domestic and foreign. It is free trade that demands that we cooperate. If we don’t cooperate, then we can’t obtain or produce what we need. By supporting “fair trade” we create bureaucratic nonsense in dictating who gets what and how and what is right and wrong. The only thing a Conservative should believe is right is the law of capitalism – supply and demand. When you begin to regulate an economy you being to introduce corporatism which in turn stifles innovation and threatens property rights. I argue that Romney is not a Conservative because he believes that government should heavily interfere with society and capitalism in an attempt to “create a better and more fair world.”

DOMESTIC:
YES: PATRIOT ACT 18
YES: TSA 22
YES: NDAA 18
YES: Gun control laws and bans – took no stand on the United Nations Gun Ban. GOA gave him a D- rating (lowest of all GOP candidates) and NRA did not endorse him until after the first debate (political move). 4, 19, 20, 21
YES: Continue the War on Drugs 22, 23
NO: Legalization of recreational or medical marijuana. 23

I believe that a true Conservative leads a laissez-faire attitude towards it’s people and their domestic doings. It is of no interest to the government to mandate and dictate how we carry our personal lives. And if it is, where is that right given to the federal government in the Constitution? To grope, spy on, and threaten people with the suspicion that they could be dangerous is an abomination. What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty, unreasonable search, or probable cause? Of course any American wants to be safe but as Benjamin Franklin said, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Conservatives should afford it’s people freedom to do as they wish in the privacy of their lives. Only fascists demand that they dictate society and it’s morality. I argue that Romney is not a Conservative because he believes that government should treat all Americans with suspicion and disallow them to live their lives as they see fit, as freemen.

HEALTHCARE:
YES: Romneycare, will not repeal Obamacare 15, 16, 17
NO: Legalize medical marijuana 23, 35, 36

I believe that a true Conservative should have nearly no say in how a citizen treats their body. Let’s face the facts, Obamacare was based off of Romneycare. Romney cannot campaign against something he created. But even so, he’s doesn’t even want to repeal it… just “amend it.” With the Supreme Court ruling that it was a tax this is another point – Romney will campaign that he wants to lower taxes but if Obamacare is still in place… then he will still be taxing us. I argue that Romney is not a Conservative because he believes that despite the scientific research showing the bad of some vaccines and the good of [illegal] drugs that he still believes that the government should dictate what we can and cannot put into our own bodies. Of all property that we have our body is the most sacred and enduring. To mandate our medicine through the FDA and doctor laws (i.e. they can only prescribe Rx, not “unproven” treatments such as Gerson Therapy) is essentially saying that we don’t have the right to our body. This is utmost unacceptable, especially of a Conservative.

I have not included things such as taxes and the Federal Reserve because I’m not sure if those are really “Conservative” values. I do know that I agree strongly with many of the Founding Fathers such as Thomas Jefferson when he states,  “I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.” Nevertheless, the financial issues are a huge point to me as well. I truly don’t believe that Romney, despite all his business sense, has a clue about federal economies and/or federal debt management. His financial outline surely is less damaging than Obama’s but it still creates an increasing Federal deficit – we need someone that is eagerly aggressive to fix the debt issue. We can’t spend our way out of the problem like Obama wants to do and we can’t slow down spending like Romney wants to do and expect us to magically rebound. CUT spending aggressively.  It is that simple. And this isn’t even touching on the Federal Reserve abomination that needs to be cut (also, not an issue Romney even addresses).

Last but not least because of this I have long since chosen to support Ron Paul. However, because Ron Paul was not selected by the GOP, I am now endorsing the Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson.

05
Jun
12

Senate tries to get LOST

Original found here.

Just like a horror movie series, evil-minded Soviet-era treaties just keep coming back to life, aided by their acolytes in the United States Senate.

John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and mate of the Heinz ketchup fortune, last week decided to revisit the aptly named Law of the Sea Treaty — or LOST.

This treaty was originally rejected by President Reagan, but the LOST agenda has been lurking around the corridors of the United Nations ever since.

The treaty, which was endorsed by the former Soviet Union, would reduce our military power, rob us of rights over our own coastal resources, subject U.S. actions in international waters to the authority of foreign countries and submit our country to an international taxing agency that would “redistribute” our wealth to other nations, including some of our enemies.

Naturally, the liberals like it. And by liberals I mean not just Democrats but some of the RINOs hiding in the GOP camp, such as the five living Republican secretaries of state, from Kissinger to Rice.

The best reasons conjured for approving LOST include joining the international community in regulating the seas, “having a seat at the table” to negotiate rights over resources and having legal recourse should other nations violate our rights. Most incredibly, promoters of this treaty seem to think we’ll believe it increases our national security.

First, joining the international community to regulate the seas: We can already do that without the United Nations being given authority over us. It’s called diplomacy and negotiation.

Having a seat at the table: Unless you’re talking about an invitation to a gourmet feast or at least Thanksgiving dinner, a seat at the table isn’t worth much. Easy marks have a seat at the table, then they get taken for everything they’re worth and dumped in a back alley for their trouble.

Legal recourse against other nations that violate our rights: We have that already, again without the U.N. It’s called the United States military –and it’s a lot more effective than a pronouncement from some international courtroom.

As for increasing our national security, only a liberal could think that joining a treaty that requires us to give away secrets and our best technology to foreign nations that may use it against us is a way to secure the country.

The biggest stupidity of this treaty, however, is its granting of taxing authority to a Jamaica-based International Seabed Authority, especially at a time when the U.S. economy is suffering under its third year of recession. To raise taxes now would drive a stake through American businesses and the middle class.

The LOST convention represents a complete violation of the trust voters put in their representatives. Naturally, President Obama is already on board. Conservative voters need to tell their Senators to vote against it and keep LOST from being ratified.

Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/5497/senate-considers-ceding-power-to-u-n-sinking-u-s-economy-in-one-blow/#ixzz1wyyNVHOx
Just like a horror movie series, evil-minded Soviet-era treaties just keep coming back to life, aided by their acolytes in the United States Senate.

John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and mate of the Heinz ketchup fortune, last week decided to revisit the aptly named Law of the Sea Treaty — or LOST.

This treaty was originally rejected by President Reagan, but the LOST agenda has been lurking around the corridors of the United Nations ever since.

The treaty, which was endorsed by the former Soviet Union, would reduce our military power, rob us of rights over our own coastal resources, subject U.S. actions in international waters to the authority of foreign countries and submit our country to an international taxing agency that would “redistribute” our wealth to other nations, including some of our enemies.

Naturally, the liberals like it. And by liberals I mean not just Democrats but some of the RINOs hiding in the GOP camp, such as the five living Republican secretaries of state, from Kissinger to Rice.

The best reasons conjured for approving LOST include joining the international community in regulating the seas, “having a seat at the table” to negotiate rights over resources and having legal recourse should other nations violate our rights. Most incredibly, promoters of this treaty seem to think we’ll believe it increases our national security.

First, joining the international community to regulate the seas: We can already do that without the United Nations being given authority over us. It’s called diplomacy and negotiation.

Having a seat at the table: Unless you’re talking about an invitation to a gourmet feast or at least Thanksgiving dinner, a seat at the table isn’t worth much. Easy marks have a seat at the table, then they get taken for everything they’re worth and dumped in a back alley for their trouble.

Legal recourse against other nations that violate our rights: We have that already, again without the U.N. It’s called the United States military –and it’s a lot more effective than a pronouncement from some international courtroom.

As for increasing our national security, only a liberal could think that joining a treaty that requires us to give away secrets and our best technology to foreign nations that may use it against us is a way to secure the country.

The biggest stupidity of this treaty, however, is its granting of taxing authority to a Jamaica-based International Seabed Authority, especially at a time when the U.S. economy is suffering under its third year of recession. To raise taxes now would drive a stake through American businesses and the middle class.

The LOST convention represents a complete violation of the trust voters put in their representatives. Naturally, President Obama is already on board. Conservative voters need to tell their Senators to vote against it and keep LOST from being ratified.

06
Mar
10

Taxes: This or That

If someone came to you on Day 1 of your working life… or even now… what option would you choose?

Option 1:
The government will take out a small portion of your paycheck to help pay for services for you in the future (taxes). The services would include money for if you become unemployed, money for if you should you become disabled, and money for when you get old and want to retire (among other things, but let’s just go for these items).

Option 2:
The government does not take anything out of your paycheck (no taxes). If you fall on unfortunate times the government will not help you out – unemployed? Too bad. Disabled? Too bad. Want to retire? Hope you saved.

Option 1 offers you more of a safety net. However, Option 2 gives you more money up front to save, spend, and possibly invest and make more in the long run.

What would you pick?

04
Feb
09

Return the Power to the States!

Face it, the Federal Government is running amok. It is time to return the power to the States.

(Daily Paul original here)(Arizona House of Representatives, bill HCR2024 here)

REFERENCE TITLE: Sovereignty; Tenth Amendment. | HCR 2024

Introduced by

Representatives Burges, Ash, Biggs, Boone, Gowan, Mason, Montenegro, Pancrazi, Seel, Williams: Barto, Campbell CL, Court, Crandall, Crump, Driggs, Fleming, Goodale, Hendrix, Kavanagh, Lesko, McComish, McGuire, Miranda B, Murphy, Nichols, Pratt, Quelland, Stevens, Tobin, Weiers JP, Senator Harper

Whereas, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”; and

Continue reading ‘Return the Power to the States!’




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