The politics of self destruction

The 'bailout' of the big three automakers has stalled in the Senate, largely because the UAW is refusing to make any concessions on wages. It seems to me like the UAW would rather see their employers go out of business and lose their jobs, rather than take a pay cut.

It boggles my mind- especially considering that some forklift drivers in the UAW are making over $100,000 dollars a year. From the article:

Many bankrupt autoworkers own two homes -- one is usually up north -- which means multiple mortgages. Most have two or more cars and sometimes a boat or snowmobile payment, according to information culled from cases filed by autoworkers in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the Eastern District of Michigan.

Yet, I am supposed to feel sorry for a person who makes double what the average Toyota worker makes, and accept that my tax dollars are going to pay these higher wages? For years, UAW officials have boasted that the Union workers they represent make 67% more than non-union workers. Now that these outrageous wages are bankrupting their employers, I say that you are getting the predictable results of being noncompetitive in the marketplace.

Not with my tax dollars you don't. Consider this: On September 30, 2008, the National Debt was $10,024,724,896,912. As of December 10, the National Debt is $10,648,440,877,252. That is an annual growth rate of 32%. At that rate, our debt will double every 27 months. Except we are not moving at that rate, but a much higher rate than that.

If this continues, the Obama administration will be facing a $15 trillion debt before the end of its first year. Can you say hyperinflation?

Obama is not the President, yet

I was watching MSNBC yesterday morning when I saw Obama holding a news conference. He was standing behind a lectern that was labeled "Office of the President Elect." There is only one small problem there: The election of the President has not occurred yet. The popular vote that was held at the beginning of the month was to select delegates that will elect the President, but the actual election will not be until next month.

One might think that I am picking nits by saying that, but Obama is the one who is ordering that people build things like lecterns labeled with a title that does not exist. Sure, the President-elect has an office, but the President-elect has no Constitutional Authority, and even if it did, Obama is not yet the President-elect.

So why is he doing this? Is he attempting to take over early? I find his behavior to be extremely narcissistic. While I still feel that neither McCain or Obama would make good Presidents, I think that Obama will sorely disappoint many of his supporters.

I got a 100% on the quiz you find here by answering all 33 questions correctly. If you do not score at least a 75% on this test, I don't see where you know enough about politics to have an opinion.

National Ammo Day

November 19 is National Ammo Day.

It is a nationwide BUYcott of ammunition. You buy ammunition. 100 Rounds a person.

The goals of Ammo Day:

The goal of National Ammo Day is to empty the ammunition from the shelves of your local gun store, sporting goods, or hardware store and put that ammunition in the hands of law-abiding citizens. Make your support of the Second Amendment known--by voting with your dollars!

There are an estimated 75 MILLION gun owners in the United States of America. If each gun owner or Second Amendment supporter buys 100 rounds of ammunition, that’s 7.5 BILLION rounds in the hands of law-abiding citizens!

You know what to do: Buy 100 rounds (or equivalent for hand-loaders).

If you cannot purchase ammo:

1. Write a letter to your Representatives to let them know you support the Second Amendment, and would not support taxation schemes and gimmicks that limit or restrict a person’s ability buy ammo.
2. Join or contribute to a gun rights organization.

Facts:

• Number of firearms in America: 228,000,000
• Number of firearm owning households: At least 50,600,000
• Projected firearm owning households in America: 60-85 million
• Number of guns used in crimes: 450,000
• Percentage of guns used in crimes: 0.09%

Over 50 million law-abiding, gun owning households committed NO crime today… but collectively, we stop 2.5 million crimes per year… 6,849 a day!

Fact: Every day, 550 rapes, 1,100 murders, and 5,200 other violent crimes are prevented just by showing a gun. In less than 0.9% of the time is the gun ever actually fired. That is right- guns do not need to be fired in order to stop a crime, and they rarely are. This is why statistics that use self defense shootings as a base, suggesting that guns are ineffective in deterring crime, are incorrect.

Law abiding gun owners should keep up the good work and keep your ammo supply stocked!

The gun/ammunition manufacturers have been taking the brunt of all the frivolous lawsuits, trying to put these folks out of business. Well, not if we can help it! And we CAN help it by buying ammunition on November 19!

Bailout the Automakers?

When we are in the free market, goods and services tend to be paid what they are worth to others, that is, what you can sell something for is determined by what that thing is worth to those who would buy it, and that worth largely depends on the supply and demand law. If you have something that is a one of a kind, but everyone wants one, then the value is high. If you are selling something that is readily available, but almost no one desires one, then the value is low. This is why you can't sell your lawn clippings for very high amounts of money. Of course, all of this depends on a market that is truly a free market, and not one that is being manipulated.

That is why the Auto makers are being forced into bankruptcy. Manipulation. The union auto workers are asking for wages that are so high as to make their employers unable to compete. I want to get it out right now, I want fair wages and benefits for all workers, and I am a union worker in my own field, so it is not like I am anti-union.

Making cars has become an automated process, and with every process that becomes automated, we assume that quality will go up, and the size of the work force goes down, but the high tech jobs created in maintaining the new technology are more lucrative. That is the advantage to the employer and employee in automating the assembly line. The current UAW contract has a protection clause in it that allows GM to automate the assembly line, but here’s the catch: they still have to pay the worker whose job was automated full pay and benefits. You cannot run a business profitably with contracts like that, and now the Automakers want us, the American taxpayers, to foot the bill for this folly.

Fork lift drivers in the UAW make up to $100,000 a year. If you were to tell me that they made $40,000 plus benefits, and I might not bat an eye, but $100,000? What’s wrong with that picture? In addition, GM’s “non-productive” payroll is creeping up to an unsustainable number and at some point paying people that don’t produce will put you out of business. The free market would not pay an uneducated, unskilled worker that kind of coin. The unions in their greed are forcing their employers out of business, and now they and their employers are expecting the taxpayer to bail them out, all the while trying to scapegoat CEO salaries.

Formerly Great Britain

Well, well, well. Proving that our founding fathers were correct when they wrote the Bill of Rights, Great Britain followed a National Gun Ban (passed in 1997) with a national knife ban, and now the British Government has announced that they will begin censoring the press, in order to protect national security.

Australia banned guns in 1996. Since that time, gun crime has skyrocketed by over 45%, thus proving that gun control does not work in reducing crime. Just last month, the Australian government announced that they will begin censoring the internet.

This seems to follow a pattern. Every dictatorship that has ever existed on this planet has counted on a few regulations to enable their governance of the masses (in no particular order):

1 Deny the masses a means to communicate
2 Deny the governed a means of protest or organization
3 Round up the rabble-rousers and toss them in jail (or even kill them)
4 Deny your subjects the means of resistance (weapons)
5 Chill protest by placing government agents in the homes of likely troublemakers

Is it any wonder that each of these points is covered under the Bill of Rights? Can you think of any ways in which governments today are implementing the above policies? Of course, it is always done to protect you from (child porn, drugs, terrorism, crime, etc.) and is purely for your own good.

Weapons are always among the first to go, soon to be followed by speech and press freedoms. First, you take the means to resist, then the ability to complain and protest, and then the ability to resist is severely curtailed.

Change and hope

I have received some emails regarding my last post, accusing me of being an Obama supporter. Far from it, and if you dig into my blog you will see that I despise both of the current political parties. Every year, one party or the other makes promises that they will make our lives better by restricting our freedoms. As a result, we lose freedoms and liberties, while gaining no real improvement. Let me show you:

1 We have been engaged in a "War on Poverty" since 1964. The poverty level has remained near 12% ever since the United States abolished the gold standard in 1973, with the current level being 12.7%. It is important to note that the method the Government is using to calculate the poverty line only takes inflation into account, instead of the more accurate model, which compares the percentage of the cost of living to household income. Using this method, the current cost of living has risen from 30% of individual income in 1965 to 50% of household income in 2003. Where it used to take one income to support a family, it now takes two. This means that the effective poverty rate, when expressed as a real percentage of household income, has more than doubled since the “War on Poverty” began.

The reason this has happened is that a country cannot tax itself into prosperity. The average American spends 40% of his productive life as a slave to the collective, and that is not enough. We as a nation then borrow even more. All of this accomplishes nothing.

2 We have been engaged in a "War on Drugs" for the better part of 40 years. What has this gotten us? No-knock warrants, property forfeiture, midnight raids, and police seizing property of citizens without trial. We have the highest level of incarceration of any advanced country, yet drugs are cheaper and easier to get than ever before. Odds are that every American reading this is within a 15 minute drive of at least one drug dealer.

3 20,000 Gun laws have resulted in the criminalization of machine guns, the carrying of weapons, mail order weapons, weapons that look scary, and weapons that are accurate over long ranges, yet gun crime still happens. Criminals still get guns. Criminals still break the law. Honest citizens are now left without the most effective tools for self defense-

Politicians do what politicians do. What do they do? Pander to whomever they can to get elected. Some pander to one side, while others pander to the other side, all the while sacrificing your rights on the alter of their careers.

Remain ever vigilant.

I was out of the country

I was out of the country for over a week, and I voted by absentee ballot. Upon my return, we had a new President-elect. A few thoughts on the election:

1 Sure, we elected our first black President. This does not prove that we have overcome racism. Voting for a man because he is black while ignoring his stance on the issues is just as racist as NOT voting for a man because he is black while igoring his stance on the issues, yet 95% of blacks in this country did just that.

2 Anyone under the age of 30 who is complaining about Bush being the worst President ever likely has no idea what they are talking about. After all, if you are under 30, you only know 2 Presidents. (You were only 14 when Clinton entered office. What is your frame of reference?)

3 Have you read that Obama wants to have compulsory community service for all junior high, high school, and college students. On his official page (change.gov) he spells out plans for mandatory community service- 50 hours a year for junior high and high school, and 100 hours a year for college students. Since I found it, he has changed the page, but the original can be found on Google cache here.

How long until they get spiffy new uniforms, and are encouraged to inform on their parents?

Guns don't kill people...

crazy lesbian Liberals with screwdrivers kill people, and then commit suicide. At least, that is the way things appear to have gone down, according to Palm Beach police. It seems that Carol Anne Burger, a writer for the Liberal Huffington Post, stabbed her estranged wife 22 times before taking her own life by pressing a pistol under her chin, thus proving the Liberal axiom that guns kill.

Perhaps that is why Liberals are for gun control- they project their own violent leanings upon others. Of course, their being dead will not cost Obama any votes- Acorn always finds a way for dead people to vote for Obama. Wouldn't want to infringe on the rights of the dead, don'tcha know.

Tax protesters

There is an old saying that Americans have one thing in common: They all believe they are better than average drivers. There is one other trait that many Americans share- they each think they understand the law, even when they do not. Nowhere is this more true than with tax protesters.

There are numerous fallacies that are held by them that simply drive me crazy. For example:

- Arguments that tax laws only apply to corporate officers and government employees. This belief stems from the following definition from the tax code:

“For purposes of this chapter, the term ‘employee’ includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term ‘employee’ also includes an officer of a corporation.” I.R.C. section 3401(c).

This erroneous belief stems from a misunderstanding of the word "includes." To illustrate, if I said, "My gun collection includes a Colt Combat Commander and a Mossberg 500," would that mean that my collection did not contain a Kimber Ultra Carry? Of course it wouldn't. Using the word "includes" does not mean "only includes."

Similarly, many protesters claim that when section 7701(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code states that:

“The term ‘person’ shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.”

That there are no people in the country EXCEPT corporations and trusts. Of course that is ridiculous.

There are tons of tax arguments, and the reasons they are wrong, that can be found here. Read them, and we can discuss them after you have an understanding of the principles involved.

I agree that progressive income taxes are wrong. I agree that taking my money to give to someone else in a socialistic redistribution of wealth is the equivalent of armed robbery. I disagree that the tax code has such ludicrous loopholes.

There goes the Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Those are the words that are enshrined in the Bill of Rights, more specifically the Fourth Amendment. I have been looking really hard, and I cannot seem to find the part where the Government is allowed to use radar to see what you look like naked, that the Government can refuse your entry to trains and subways if you refuse to be searched. (Not just in New York)

Do some homework: Ask yourself where the Bill of Rights has been violated. I think we have hit all ten. The Republic is dead. The fun part is going to be where I get to point out to my Republican friends that the powers being abused by Obama are the same ones they gleefully gave W.

Robin Hood

This article refers to Obama as "Robin Hood," stating that he will be "confiscating money from the rich to give to the poor." This is in reference to his statement that he will take the profits of small-business owners and "spread the wealth around" to those with lesser incomes.

That does not mean that he is Robin Hood, because Robin Hood stole from the GOVERNMENT and gave the money back to the taxpayers. See, the reason the people in the Robin Hood tales were in the state they were in was because the Sheriff of Nottingham was confiscating the wealth of the citizens to make himself rich.

I believe that anyone who advocates taxing successful people to give to the poor underclass is rather more like another historical figure- Karl Marx.

In conjunction with McCain's claims that he wishes to take oil company profits and redistribute them, the differences in this election are of degree only.

The bailout is bad for us

Many have been claiming that the bailout is needed to keep the economy from melting down. The problem here is that we are giving money to the investment banks to keep them from failing. This ignores the fact that the money that was "lost" was not lost, but merely changed hands. This money is still circulating in the economy, having been acquired and spent by the people who sold their homes to the now defaulting borrowers.

The amount of cash that will be injected into the US economy is staggering. By some estimates, over $1 trillion dollars will be placed into circulation to bail out the banking industry. That is in addition to the $400 billion that has already been spent since Feb 5. The entire country only produces $14 trillion a year in goods and services, so this amount represents 10% of our annual productivity.

A currency becomes worth less when there is an increase in the amount of money which is not supported by growth in the output of goods and services. This devaluation is called inflation. The amount of goods and services being produced in this country is falling, therefore we should be needing LESS money in circulation, not more. As the demand for cash falls and the supply rises, the law of supply and demand dictates that the value of the cash will fall.

The Federal Reserve's normal response to inflation is to raise interest rates to constrict the money supply, thus forcing the supply and demand balance to increase the value of the money. This is not happening because it is an election year, and because increasing interest rates will only increase the default rates on the loans already out there. What does this mean for us as citizens? It means that everything you buy just got more expensive. Oil, gas, food, clothing.

Governments often hide true inflation, as I believe the United States is doing now. The methods for hiding inflation are:

• Outright lying in official statistics such as money supply, inflation or reserves. They have been telling us that inflation is lower than it is. What did gas, milk, and clothes cost last year? Gold is $900 an ounce and gasoline is $3.67 at the corner store as I write this. A year ago, an ounce of gold was $734 and a gallon of gasoline was $3.01, two years ago gold was $589. If those numbers are representative, inflation is really hovering around 20%.
  


• Suppression of publication of money supply statistics, or inflation indices. Maybe this is why the M3 money supply statistics are no longer published, and haven't been since 2006.
  


• Price and wage controls. This can be accomplished by Federalizing industries like oil, banking, or health care. This idea is being suggested already. One only has to look at the TSA to see what will happen there- costs will dramatically increase because of government inefficiency. These increased costs will inject even more cash into the system, and will create a black market where the real prices will drive sales.
  


• Forced savings schemes, designed to suck up excess liquidity. These savings schemes may be described as pensions schemes, emergency funds, war funds, or something similar.


• Adjusting the components of the Consumer price index, to remove those items whose prices are rising the fastest. Like publishing the "core inflation" rate- excluding food and energy from the calculation and trying to convince us that the core rate is more accurate.
  

Look next for the government to begin price and wage controls.

The cure of a bail out may well be worse than the disease it is supposed to fix.

Censorship for everyone but pedophiles

A court this week blocked a group of hackers from releasing their findings on how to circumvent the payment system used by Boston's subway system, saying that "It is extremely important to maintain the security and integrity of the Fare Media systems, with an insecure, compromised system, even basic revenue controls, to name one example, become significantly challenging."

Meaning, of course, that we do not want to interrupt the government's revenue stream.

Meanwhile, Amazon continues to sell books that are instructions on how to commit pedophilia. Now, I understand that this is a free speech issue, and I agree that the pedophiles have a right under our constitution to say what they want, as long as they do not actually carry through and commit the acts that are talked about.

However, don't the hackers deserve to have their free speech rights protected as well?

More insanity

This time the insanity comes from a court in Quebec. It seems the courts in the great white north are deciding what punishments are appropriate when a parent grounds a child.

The Canadian court has lifted a 12-year-old girl's grounding, overturning her father's punishment for disobeying his orders to stay off the Internet. The girl used a free, court appointed attorney to appeal the punishment- the father had grounded her from participating in a school trip- the judge in the case ruled that the punishment was too harsh.

The girl had chatted on websites he tried to block, and then posted "inappropriate" pictures of herself online using a friend's computer. Couple this with the article discussed here, where a thirteen year old girl has been lying about her age in order to have sex with men, who are then thrown into jail when they find out the girl's true age and contact her parents, and we see that the children of today are learning how to play the system.

This is a "Lord of the Flies," or even a "Children of the Corn" system where parents are unable to control their children or teach them right from wrong, but are still legally responsible for what they do. What we wind up teaching them is that right is what you can get away with, and wrong merely means you got caught and couldn't wriggle free on a legal technicality.

Shame on all of us for allowing our legal systems to become so twisted.

What is the difference

You keep hearing from the Republicans that we should vote for McCain because he is better than Obama. Yet, here he is saying that oil companies should "return" their profits to the American people.

In the past McCain has indicated he would consider a tax on oil companies, saying he didn't want to see companies making "obscene profits" that distort the market.

The Democrats are ready to nationalize the oil industry.

Both want to Nationalize the health care industry.

I have been searching my copy of the Constitution, and I cannot seem to find the section that grants this power to the executive.

Tell me again how it matters which dictator I vote for.

The protection from Government Intrusion

“No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”—Amendment III, Bill of Rights

This amendment was considered important enough to be the third listed protection in the bill of rights, right after the freedom to associate with other citizens, speak out against abuse, and to keep arms to resist tyranny. One has to wonder if there was a large problem with soldiers over staying their welcome while staying in people's homes.

It is a fairly effective form of intimidation: putting an agent of the State inside the houses of people whom the State considers “troublesome.” Having an agent of the State live with the troublemakers has an absolutely chilling effect, and most especially when the agents start abusing the power—"pushing the envelope," as such agents so often do. This would have been known to the authors of the Bill of Rights. The Third Amendment was put there to prevent just this sort of thing.

It was impossible for the founders to foresee the advent of electronics, video cameras, microphone "bugs" and the like, but the fact remains the same: the presence of agents of the State present in people’s homes, intimidating them by their very presence, and by their presence also enforcing the State’s policies, as well as reporting (to a superior rank or office) any opposition towards the State. Whether the actual person is present, or the person is "virtually" present, the effect is the same: a chilling of the rights of the people to oppose the policies of their Government.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."—Amendment IV, Bill of Rights

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." —Amendment V, Bill of Rights


Why am I mentioning these particular parts of the Bill of Rights this morning? Because I woke to find that the police in our Nation's Capitol are searching people, demanding their papers, and wanting to know what their business is. Even scarier, some citizens are cheering them on, demanding that the Government keep them "safe," whatever that is.

We are searched to enter aircraft. We submit to random searches at work, school, and in our cars. We outlaw guns, "hate speech," legislate morality, and agree to allow our email and telephone calls filtered and monitored. We submit to "random drug screens" and allow our tax rates to climb to pay for it all. Still crime increases, and the government tells us that things would only get better, and we would all be safer, if they had just a little more power.

This is how the Republic dies. Not by invasion, nor by enemy action- but to be destroyed by our own demands, sheep bleating demands for our own safety.

(formerly) Great Britain

In the area where Great Britain used to be, there comes a story about a woman who is told that she needs a lifeguard and insurance to have a 2 foot deep wading pool in her yard. Even more disturbing is this statement:

They are even supposed to ask the council for permission before having a barbecue.

This is the system that many want to copy here in the US?

St George, MO again

In my previous posts about St George, we discovered that cops were using their badges and guns to threaten and intimidate citizens. The mayor is an ex cop who was investigated for making sexual advances on a minor, under color of his authority as a cop.

Now, that same mayor has resigned after being charged with possession of child porn and drugs. I think the feds need to do some investigating of a certain town in Missouri.

March 17, 2008

Mike is a man like any other. He runs a business. He kisses his wife goodbye in the morning before he leaves for work. Mike has only one trait that makes him different from nearly every other human being on the planet.

You see, Mike is alive, but he should be dead.

Mike left the restaurant where he had lunch, and began to walk back to his office. That is the last thing he remembers about that day, and about the week that followed. The rest of the events of that day have been reconstructed from those who witnessed the events that transpired.

As he walked down the sidewalk, Mike clutched his chest and slumped to the sidewalk. As luck would have it, Mike's first lucky break of the day was that three nearby citizens saw him fall, and they knew CPR. One of them called 911 while the other two began CPR. Mike received his second break when the ambulance beat the train to the crossing a block away. Had they not done so, the ambulance would have been delayed by several minutes at a time when minutes count most.

The paramedics on the scene took over CPR and placed him on the monitor. Noting that Mike was in ventricular fibrillation, they shocked him at 200 joules. He converted, as often happens, to asystole. CPR was resumed. Mike was transferred to a backboard and placed on a stretcher. The paramedics noted that Mike was again in V-Fib, and again shocked him at 200 joules. This time, he converted to a sinus rhythm, albeit with frequent PVC's. A pulse check found a weak pulse. The medics started an IV, and intubated Mike. The medics then started a 150mg infusion of cordarone, and rushed Mike to the hospital.

He spent a week in the hospital, and during that period, Mike received an implanted pacemaker/defibrillator. He was discharged and I got to meet him again yesterday. He could not thank me enough for being the paramedic on that call. He also reminded me that March 17th was not the first time I had met him. You see, I had also taken him to the hospital 2 years ago, when he had a stroke. During that event, TPA had ensured that he had no lasting deficits.

Days like this are the reason why we become medics. To the citizen bystanders that performed CPR on Mike that day, I say: Thanks. Mike would be dead without you. To the rest of you:

Learn CPR. You might just save a life.

Real spies look for virtual terrorists

In yet another sign that the Feds have too much money, the US intelligence (huh?) community is data mining online games such as World of Warcraft to try and catch terrorists who try and infiltrate the online world.

My best guess here is that some analyst at the CIA got caught playing video games, and he managed to convince the chain of command that he was hunting Bin Laden by looking for him in the online gaming community.

On rights and duties

I admit that posting has been light. A week long cruise to the Caribbean, two jobs, and a full time course load will tend to do that. Without further delay, here is the rant of the day:

On the campaign trail in Lewiston, Maine, Hillary Clinton made the following statement:

“I am the only candidate left in this race on either side who is committed to universal health care,” she said. “It is a core value, it is a human right. It is not a privilege.”

In order for something to be a right, it means that a person is entitled to it by merely existing. The right to be free from unreasonable searches, free speech, and others are rights which are due all people. Governments are established to ensure that no one tramples on the rights of others.

Calling health care a right means that a person gets health care whether or not they have the ability to pay for that care. That means that if a person cannot pay for the care that they receive, then one of two things has to happen: either the doctor (and other health care workers- everyone from the maker of the drug to the guy who mops the hospital floor) must work for free, or that people who work and pay taxes must have a portion of their pay taken from them in order to pay for it.

What I don't understand is how one man's right can create a duty upon another. The fact that the money stolen to pay for the health care is spread across a country is irrelevant. Let me use an example:

1 A man meets me as I leave my bank, and threatens me with death if I do not give him money. Is this morally wrong?
2 That same man, it turns out, is robbing me because he makes less than half of what I make. Does that make a difference?
3 That same man gets 5 neighbors who are in similar circumstances to assist him in robbing everyone who leaves my bank. Does that make it better?
4 Those 5 neighbors become a network of 5,000 people all across the state. Is it now OK for them to rob me, and others who make more money than them?
5 What if those 5,000 become a million?

What changed? nothing. Taking money from one person, simply to give to another, in order to correct some perceived inequality of outcome is robbery no matter what spin you put on it.

People in this country have gotten the idea that equality of opportunity means that the result should be equality of outcome, and if this does not happen it means that the successful have somehow cheated and should be punished. Ridiculous.

The Brady Center to promote defenseless victims

I was reading Tam's gloating over Tennessee's score of 7 on the latest Brady scorecard, so I thought that I would go over there and see what my own state of Florida scored. California was the most gun banning state, with a score of 79 out of 100. We scored a respectable 8 out of 100, which makes us the 12th state in terms of gun owner freedom.

In 2006, California had a murder rate of 6.8 per 100,000. Florida had a murder rate of 6.27 per 100,000.

How are those gun laws working to prevent crime again?

While checking out the site, I saw and read a few of the articles on there. What a crock of total bullshit. This article advocates the prohibition of firearms on College campuses, because they don't want the students "caught in the crossfire." In Virginia Tech just last year, 32 students were killed when they weren't caught in the crossfire. No one was able to defend anyone, due to a law requiring that the students play the part of disarmed victims. The shooter owned the guns, despite being prohibited by law from owning them. He carried guns onto campus, despite it being illegal and against college rules. He committed murder, despite the laws against it.

How did those gun laws save lives again?

The same article goes on to state that "18 year olds could carry guns to class." That statement is a lie as well. It is illegal to brandish or open carry a firearm in Florida, except under certain circumstances like hunting, or shooting competitions, etc. Therefore, the only way to carry to class would be concealed, which requires a permit. to get this permit, you must be 21 years old.

I especially love this quote:

Plus, college gun owners are more likely than the average student to:


• Engage in binge drinking,
• Need an alcoholic drink first thing in the morning,
• Use cocaine or crack,
• Be arrested for a DUI,
• Vandalize property, and
• Get in trouble with police.

Since crack, vandalizing property, DUI, and drinking under 21 are all illegal in the first place, what makes you think that a student will all of a sudden become a model citizen when gun laws are concerned? The ones willing to buy and sell crack already have guns, that is why we need something to defend ourselves with. The solution here is not to take away rights from law abiding citizens because other citizens break the law.

I could easily say that since the Brady campaign is headquartered in DC, and DC citizens are more likely to commit crimes than citizens of Tulsa, we should restrict their right to post this drivel on the internet.

Asshats.

Where the money goes.

According to the IRS, for fiscal year 2006, the U.S. government took in $2.407 Trillion and spent $2.655 trillion. The money was spent thusly:

$955 billion was spent on Medicare, Social Security, and Social Security Disability
$504 Billion was spent on Social (Welfare) Programs (including public health)
$319 Billion was spent on Physical, human, and community development

meaning that over $1,778 Billion, (or 67%) of the total outlays was for wealth redistribution efforts.

$212 billion went to pay interest on our staggering National debt.

The remaining $675 billion of the budget paid for National Defense, Veteran's Benefits, Law Enforcement, and general government.

The source of the $2.407 in tax money the government took in?
$1708 Billion of it was in payroll taxes
$313 billion from corporate taxes
$217 billion was borrowed
$168 billion was from all other taxes

What does all of this mean?
If giveaway programs were eliminated, the United States government could operate with the payroll taxes eliminated and replaced by a 5% sales tax. That would cost you less than what social security currently does.

Fat chance getting the people weaned off the government handout, though.

Your Vagina may not be a clown car

but it may just be a cash register. The same government that spends $337 billion more than it takes in every year is giving money away to stimulate the economy, to the tune of another $170 billion. The plan is to pay people $600 each, plus $300 for each child. People who make more than a certain amount (in other words, those who actually succeed in life) will not receive the money. Instead, those that produce nothing but children get the big payola.

That means that a woman who has been sitting at home on welfare and using her vagina to bust out six kids with three different dads will get $2400, while I support her illegitimate children through the welfare system, all because she does not know how to keep her legs closed.


Where will they get it? Well, they either will borrow more money or print more money. Either solution is another bread and circuses decision that brings this country closer to economic ruin. How do you stimulate an economy by taxing it, and then putting that money back in the economy? That is like trying to make a rope longer by cutting off one end, and tying the cut off piece to the other end.

Stupid vote buying effort that will only get idiots to vote for you. Unfortunately, that seems to be the majority of the electorate.

Philosophy differences

There are few things that illustrate the libertarian viewpoint more vividly than the current mortgage crisis. Thousands of home buyers buying homes that they cannot afford, and then the bank being surprised when they stop paying for them. I cannot say that the entire mess has been a surprise, with what I have seen over the past few years.
This brings us to the viewpoints of the various political camps in this country:

Liberal: The liberal viewpoint blames the lender. After all, if the lender made the loan to a person who could not afford it, even though they knew it, it is their own fault. Those evil corporations have been turning a profit off the little guys for years. The predatory lenders are now getting their comeuppance. The government should step in and protect the little guy by fixing interest rates, and finding other ways to let the little guy keep his house.

Conservative: The people who borrowed money that they could not afford are to blame here. After all, they signed on the dotted line, so why should the investors suffer? They loaned the money out with the expectation that they would be repaid, so the borrower should repay it. The government should step in and protect the assets of the lenders and their investors by making bankruptcy harder, and perhaps infusing some cash into the lenders as assistance. After all, if the banks go, so does the economy.

libertarian: The lenders and the consumers both entered into a contract. They both had opportunity to decide for themselves whether or not it was a good idea to participate. If the borrower defaults because the lender allowed him to overextend himself with an adjustable rate, interest only balloon payment that they knew could not be repaid, so be it. If the lender loaned money that they knew the borrower did not have the means to repay without resorting to financial gymnastics, so be it. The government should stay out of it, because it is not my fault that the parties involved were greedy, and were trying to trick the system. One way or the other, this will fix itself.

In the long run, the government screws up everything it touches. It is better if they stay out of it and stop trying to generate wealth through taxation, which reminds me of a man trying to lift himself off of the ground by standing in a bucket and pulling feverishly on the handle.

Parental refusals

Alot is being made about this story. I cannot speak for the police side of things, but I can give some insight into how paramedics do business, especially in my neck of the woods.

Patient consent seems like a pretty easy subject when we are in school as a parafetus. In fact, many programs gloss over the subject, but in my experience no single issue gets medics in trouble as often as the subject of consent and refusals. What complicates things further is when a patient is forced to go to the hospital against his will, or a child has to go over the objections of a parent.

In order to explain how this happens, a little explanation about consent and mental capacity is in order. In order for patient care to happen, the patient must consent to this care. The law allows a medic to care for a person who for some reason is incapable of making an informed decision for themselves. Examples include unconscious or intoxicated adults, and children in the absence of their parent or guardian. This is called "implied consent."

In the case of a child with a parent in attendance, this can get even stickier. Even though the parent has the right to refuse, the paramedic is still obligated to report the injury to the authorities if he feels that the life or welfare of the child is in danger. In this case, according to the article, the medic had plenty of clues to lead him down that path:

1 The mechanism of injury: The child was drug by a moving car
2 Facial trauma, "a black eye and visible bruising," facial edema, and a dilated pupil
3 The only way to rule out a brain injury is to do a head CT. This cannot be done in the field, so referring him for more treatment was appropriate.

The social workers saw the same thing, and offered to pay for the treatment. The father refused, and when they told him they could get a court order, he replied that they would need to "bring an army." So, the workers reported their findings to the Judge.

The judge, believing that the probable cause was there, issued a warrant and court order. The deputies attempted to enforce the order, and the father again refused. So, the Deputies enforced the warrant.

The child was evaluated, treated, and released.

The entire thing was properly done, in my opinion. The paramedics reported possible child neglect to child services. Child services attempted to handle it. Warrant obtained, after a judge found probable cause. Father resisted, warrant served. What did the father think would happen? The cops would just go away and discard the warrant, while saying "Oh well, we tried."

What would people be saying had the medics and social workers NOT done what they did, and the child had died? This happens all the time, and when it does, the DCF workers and medics get into hot water for it. Damned if you do, and damned if you don't. At least if I act, I don't have a dead child on my conscience.

and until you have held a dead child in your arms, you can't possibly tell me what that is like.