Seems the notion of term limitations is back in play – at least on the radio talk shows and probably among a growing number of the electorate.  One can’t be surprised, given the blatant criminality and outright stupidity exhibited by many elected officials.  And, given the fact that so many of our elected “representatives” no longer make any pretense of actually representing the people who elected them.  Many citizens are extremely frustrated and I, for one, can’t blame them.  I am frustrated too.

Yet, before we waste time and effort on a cure for the problem (term limits), are we sure we truly understand the root cause of the problem?

The implementation of term limits would seem to imply the root cause is simply too long spent in office.  While that has a ring of truth (just look at Robert Byrd), it is really the root cause or is it just another symptom?  I contend it is the latter.

Examine the actions of the typical office holder and what do you see?

• The office holders using the resources of the offices they hold to help ensure their reelection,
• The office holders trading/selling the power and influence of their offices in return for contributions to help ensure their reelection,
• The office holders using time and effort to gain reelection that should be used doing the job they were elected to do – the job they are still being paid to do.

I could go on until you are bored stiff but I think the point has been made.  The main recurring theme in an office holder’s life is reelection.  And, doing what is in the best interest of the people in general is not high on the list of activities that help ensure reelection.

From this bit of logic, I easily conclude that the real root problem is incumbency.  Therefore, I propose a “no incumbency” bill.  Some states already have this for their governors and it works fairly well.  However, I would tighten my version up a bit and add a few more rules to make it even better.   The new election rules I propose, for all elected offices in the federal government are:

• No incumbency.  This means that nobody may run for reelection to an office they currently hold.  Further, the ban would extend to members of the current office holder’s immediate family.  The “no members of immediate family” part is to prevent the alternating husband/wife or parent/child nonsense we have seen in the past.  One might reasonably ask “don’t the people have the right to elect anyone they choose, as many times as they choose?”.  In theory, yes they do.  In actual practice, the power of incumbency has become so great that few challengers can overcome it.  How else could one explain how legislators with a less than 10% approval rate get reelected over 90% of the time.  The sad result is far too many people who are, effectively, elected for life.  The no incumbency rule would stop this.  It would not, however, stop anyone from running every other term, so that truly effective people are not barred from the office forever.
• Resign to run.  This means that, should a holder of one elected office decide to run for another, they would be required to resign the existing office before any meaningful actions are taken in pursuit of the new office.  This would include: forming committees, accepting contributions and the like.  Indeed, nobody should be allowed to accept any contribution of money or other support before they are a registered candidate for office.  In addition, resign to run would allow appointment of a new person to the office in question, ensuring the function of the office continues while the previous holder seeks greener pastures.
• No limits on campaign contributions.  Such limitations serve to curtail free speech and encourage “under-the-table” deals.
• Open publication of campaign contributions.  This means that no beneficial use can be made of any campaign contribution before the contributor(s) and the amount given have been openly identified, by individual name, and advertised on the public internet for at least 2 weeks.  In those cases where contributions are made by groups, political action committees or the like, the names of each and every member of the group/committee must be part of the public notice.  I know of no practical way to keep the rich, labor unions, etc. from, in effect, buying political influence through campaign contributions.  However, there is no reason we should not know who our politicians are beholden to – and know it well before any votes are cast.
• Six year presidential terms.  If we disallow a president from being reelected, we should allow them enough time in office to accomplish something meaningful.  Despite what some in the MSM would have us believe, the “ship of state” does not make instant changes of direction on inauguration day.
• Voter initiatives at the federal level.  These could be used to initiate the recall of any elected official, to propose legislation, etc.  However, they should not be used to amend the U S Constitution.
• Eliminate retirement benefits for federal elected offices.  Letting time served be added to that from other federal jobs is reasonable.  Allowing a person to “retire” with benefits after a 2 to 6 year stint in office is ridiculous.  In addition, this would help discourage viewing elected office as a career, rather than temporary service to one’s country.

These rules may seem harsh (as if there were some chance they could actually be enacted).  But, like in every other part of life, rules and regulations tend to be made in response to the failure of some people to exercise restraint, self discipline, honesty, and integrity.  Far too many of our federal elected officials fit this description.

I have heard it said, in quite a few instances, that such-and-such candidate for office “knows nothing about how things are done in Washington”.  Isn’t this a good thing?  A thing that should be encouraged?

Get mad.  Get involved!!

Tweet This Post 

I have wanted to write about this for some time but it seems there was always something more entertaining to write about.  Now I have put it off long enough so, entertaining be damned, I’m writing!

I have long observed that people have very different views about money.  To oversimplify, there seem to be 2 primary views:

1. The view that money is a sort of commodity whose main purpose is to be spent.  Usually, spent as quickly as possible, even if that means spending money not yet earned (assuming debt).
2. The view that money is a resource – a tool that can be used to promote or improve productivity.  Usually with the express purpose of creating even more money.

To my simple reasoning, this goes a long way toward explaining that old saw that the rich get richer while the poor get poorer.  One primary difference between the rich and the poor derives from their view of money – their understanding of the very nature of money.

We all should have learned from Ayn Rand that, at the very basic level, money represents productivity that has been completed with the corresponding consumption deferred.  That is to say, money is basically a buffer between production and consumption.  In a primitive, barter economy, the product of one person’s productivity is exchanged directly for the product of another person’s productivity, usually for consumption by the receiver.  Ergo, money was not needed.  Indeed, the need for money only occurs when one entity can produce more than it can consume in the same time frame – both by direct consumption and by the consumption of products bartered for.

While this may seem too mind-rot simple for a blog, it does raise an interesting point; if one’s only view of money is of something only to be spent, then does it not follow that those with that view would tend to spend it all, including any excess?  Does it not also follow that spending would become the whole point?

Contrast that with the likely actions of those who view money as a tool.  Will these people not tend to save any excess?  And, will these savings not tend to be invested with the hope of making even more money?  And, since money is the result of production, does it not follow that the way to expand one’s supply of money, without expending additional personal effort, is to use it as a tool to promote and improve productivity?

Could it actually be true that a main cause of poverty is the simple lack of understanding of the true nature of money?  After all, the true nature of  money seems such a trivial thing to teach.

Worst still, could it be that our government run schools don’t provide this trivial education because they actually like poverty and the dependence on government it leads to?

And, always remember that the shortage of money is a symptom of poverty.  It, in itself, is not poverty nor is it the root cause of poverty.  The root cause of poverty is a lack of values and/or the unwillingness to achieve them.

Think this over.  Then get even madder.  Buy even more arms.  And stand by.

Tweet This Post 

As we all know, Cultural Diversity is a hot button today in the USA (Unbounded Silliness in America).  Does it occur to any of the over educated morons pushing this stuff that this is actually a sort of national schizophrenia?

I contend that it is culture, not race, skin hue, national origin or any other superficial attribute that determines the conduct of an individual or group life.

For instance, I contend that President Obama is not a “Black” in the cultural context of current American politics.  For sure, his skin has a pleasing brownish hue, for sure he is literally “African American” in that his father was African and his mother American.  However, much of his upbringing was in a white-dominated, European-American culture.  What he most certainly is not, is a product of the post-slavery abuse that shaped the thinking of many American Blacks, and led to the creation of a pseudo-culture that, today, serves mostly to prevent Black progress.

Yes, there is no doubt that Barack wallowed in Black American culture as a way of enhancing his political career.  But, aside from that, he and his thinking are that of the once-great American university system whose present objective seems to be the socialism of America.  Of course, under the benevolent direction of these same august thinkers.

But, back to the main point, that culture is a (the?) primary determinate of success in life.

And, some cultures are better suited to the situation at hand than others.  No, I am not saying that any one culture is superior to others in terms of morality, ethics, or any simular system of valuation.  For sure, some may be — but this is not the point of my contention.  My contention is based solely on the results produced by a culture in terms of individual freedom and general prosperity.

Using my criteria, what is commonly known as Western European culture has shown itself to be the most function in the industrialized countries of the post-industrial-revolution world.  Most especially, in the United States of America.  The prevalent culture of Asia is quickly becoming a close second in terms of prosperity, although not quite so close in terms of individual freedom.

If you accept my premise, then it naturally follows that, in the USA, people who adhere to one of those cultures will show the most prosperity.  And, people who adhere to the US version of Western European culture will enjoy to most individual freedom.

I contend that this is easily observed throughout our nation.  For instance, Blacks who adhere to Western European culture tend to be indistinguishable from whites in terms of prosperity and almost so in terms of individual freedom.  Sadly, a few vestigages of anti-black bias still exist but, if we will allow it, these will disappear in a generation.

Likewise, it is easy to find numerous examples of the very poor coming from Asia, settling in blighted areas of our inner cities, and creating prosperity for their families – in the midst of environments many of us consider impossible.

Meanwhile, the macho, gang-oriented, hip-hop cultures adhered to my many of the so-called “downtrodden” produce only crime, misery and hopelessness.

I think it goes without saying that, the more an interrelated group of people embrace a common culture, the more likely they will cooperate in ensuring their own rights and safety.

Could it be then, that those who push the notion of multiculturalism, the notion that all cultures are equal in the value they bring to their adherents, do so simply to promote the sense of failure, despair, helplessness and hopelessness that leads to chaos, crime and government dependence?

And, are these not the very people who claim such compassion for the “disadvantaged” (especially the children)?

My friends, how can it be more obvious that freedom and prosperity are a choice?  A choice open to anyone, even if a harder path for some than for others.  I say that it is.  I also say that many of the obstacles on that “harder path” are placed there intentionally.  By those who do not want others to take the path to freedom and prosperity.  By those who try to make the path to dependence and subjugation look easier – as a way of increasing their own power and control over others.

What does it take to make you folks mad?  Do you not realize that, if you wait until I, and others, are proven correct, it will be too late?

Suppose I am wrong.  What will have been the harm if I, and others, inspire you to take back control of your government, of your destiny?  Personally, I can’t see a downside to taking responsibility for yourself!!

Tweet This Post 

Most of us know that a free marketplace, unencumbered by government “help” could take care of the current financial “crisis”.  Indeed, we know that a free marketplace could take care of most all financial problems, just as it is the most honest arbiter when shortages occur, just as it is the most amazing vehicle for the creation of wealth and prosperity that humankind has even known.

Well, you say, if a free marketplace is all that great, then why don’t we just sit back, reduce taxes and regulations, and let it do its magic?   Simple question, simple answer — because the marketplace, like nature itself, is faultlessly generous to those who get it right, but very severe in its treatment of those who get it less than right.

Being the spoiled Americans we have become, we want a hybrid form of both marketplace and nature.  That is, we want unlimited rewards when we get it right while being shielded from any discomfort or inconvenience when we get it less than right.  Now, a thinking person would know this cannot be.  But, a government that values the power to govern more than doing the right thing for those who created it will try to convince us it has the power to make this hybrid bit of nonsense come true.  And, the non-thinking among us eat it up like hogs eating slop.

And, what is the main reason used to justify this attempt to pervert both marketplace and nature?  The “children”.  My oh my, what will happen to the children if we let nature or marketplace take it course?  Well, the obvious answer is that they will suffer to varying extents.  While this is regrettable, and no sane person actually wants to see a child suffer, there is an element of reality that must enter the thought process.  The most obvious element of reality in this particular instance is this:  if you are born to, or in the care of, people who allow themselves to remain ignorant, uncaring, and/or dependent on government or other dangerous and addictive substances, you are going to suffer.  And, this will be true without regard to the handouts and empty promises of a dishonest government.

When children are born and raised in such environments, only the strong survive and only extraordinary come out of it as “normal” citizens.  And, those that do, do so by their own effort and determination, in spite of government, not because of it.

Bottom line, these pleas based on suffering children are calculated to get your acceptance of programs that, ultimately, continue the suffering into generations not yet even born.

It is good to have compassion for children and to help them when and where you can.  But do this directly while understanding that the “welfare state” exists solely for the welfare of the state.

Get mad.  Don’t put up with it!

Tweet This Post 

The original dollar hemorrhage, begun during the Bush administration, was called TARP.  A bit of research reveals that Tarp is a common abbreviation for TARPAULIN, a heavy cloth or plastic sheet used to cover things up.  That should have been our first clue.

Whatever the intent, it seems not to have worked, inspiring the new administration to propose yet another gash in the Treasury, starting yet another hemorrhage.  Let us review…

Last fall, just in time for the election, we noticed we were in a recession, just as the Dems and the MSM had been telling us for months.  Then, some entity or entities, currently unknown, started a panic in the Bush administration by liquidating a huge amount of money market funds.  This frightened the Bushies so much that they determined only a massive handout to certain banks could right the situation.  Their idea being that, if showered with sufficient funds, these banks would return to business as usual (BAU), lending money without regard to the borrower’s ability to repay.

The same situation, seen from the favored banker’s point of view looked a bit different.  To them it seemed that, having damaged themselves by caving in to government demands that they make stupid loans, all they had to do was stop lending, start whining, and the government handed them money.  Given the ease with which they were rescued from their own stupidity, the very LAST thing they wanted to do was go back to BAU.  Not when continued refusal to lend, along with continued whining, might keep the handouts flowing.  None of the financial wizards at the government seemed to have thought of this.

Let us do a quick and concise review…

• Government puts pressure on financial institutions to lend to unqualified borrowers.  This was done in the name of Community Investment.
• Somewhere along the line, government also forced the lenders to value the collateral behind these stupid loans using “Mark to Market” accounting, thereby ensuring a number of banks would be rendered artificially bound to fail.
• Meanwhile, the financial institutions begin unloading their bad loans by packaging them with some good loans then selling the whole package to other stupid financial institutions, who were guilty of what was once called “buying a pig in a poke”.
• The financial house of cards begins to collapse, sparked by a MSM-inspired recession and a run on money market funds.
• Government begins to shower money on favored financial institutions, providing the funds needed to devour the smaller artificially-failing financial institutions, making the big boys “too big to fail”.  (Hmmm… I wonder if I could overeat until I become too big to die?  But I digress.)
• Government assumes the favored financial institutions, once their greed is sated, will return to BAU and restart the economy.
• The favored financial institutions, having learned that accepting handouts is far easier and more profitable than working for income, whine for even more handouts.
• Enter new Treasury Secretary Timothy (why pay taxes) Geithner who has a plan.  A plan so brilliant that, as he describes it to a Senate committee, the stock market drops with every word from his mouth.

OK.  You are now up-to-date on this financial soap opera.  But, be not afraid because the Anointed One has assured us that “only government is big enough” to deal with this problem.

So, stop laughing and get angry.  Get very, very angry.

Remember, our only apparent options for ending this travesty are:

1. Convincing the states to call a Constitutional Convention, then adding words to the Constitution that will put the federal government back into the box it belongs in.  Failing that,
2. Convincing the sane states to secede and form a new federal contract along the lines of the original Constitution.  Failing that,
3. Enter a state of open rebellion against our own government.

Or, we could just sit here and wait for a president to publicly proclaim themselves “president for life” and join the ranks of dictatorship.

Tweet This Post 

Well… here I am just back from the World Money Show in Orlando, FL (more on that later).  But I want to start with a link a friend sent me.  Please watch this.  You only think you have seen or heard stupid before:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7mRSI8yWwg

And, as you watch the clip, remember first that it is real.  Remember second that this eejit is the Majority Leader of the U. S. Senate.  That’s right.  He is the guy who determines what will and what will not get voted on in the Senate.  I thought Queen Nancy, our illustrious Squeaker of the House was stupid when she claimed we are losing 500 million jobs per ?? Does it matter per what?  There are not that many people in the whole country at this time.  Could this, perhaps, include those jobs that will be lost in years to come because of the social programs she and Filthy Harry are promoting?  Why can’t they just go somewhere and start a comedy routine?  They would be far funnier in a true comedy role and would damage far fewer people with their stupid humor.

Meanwhile, back at the Money Show.  As one might expect, most of the famous economic prognosticators were there and most had certain recovery in their prognostications.  But, since they make their income selling prognosticatory publications, what else can they really say?  Would you take out a year subscription to a publication that assured you the country, its economy and its markets were all deader than Elvis?  Indeed not.

This got me to thinking about something that might be less than obvious…  most of us agree that the economic situation was ready for a major upheaval as it tried to vomit up all those toxic mortgages that Fannie, Freddy, Barney and Chris helped bring about.  But, have you wondered what actually precipitated the collapse?  After all, could not we have limped along several more years had a recession not raised its ugly head?  I say we probably would have.

So, you ask, what caused this raising of ugly recession heads (knowing full well I am about to tell you)?  OK, so I will.  Remember just a few months ago when were were in that seemingly endless presidential campaign?  Well, from the very start, the liberal, socialist Mean Strident Media (MSM) wanted a socialist to replace GWB.  What better way than to convince the people that, in addition to his other evil acts, GWB had led us straight on (and knowingly) into a recession?  Now, nobody else seemed to notice this recession at first but the MSM kept hammering away.  Until, they got the recession they so wanted.  How, you ask?  Simple.  What starts a recession?  First prize to the gal in the back who said “recessions start when people start acting like they are in a recession”.  In this case, perception truly does become reality.  Now, I doubt the $%^& at the MSM really understood what they had truly started because none of them are actually that intelligent.  But, looking back, could the cause be clearer?

Was electing the Obamination really worth what it will finally have cost, once all the bills are in and all the “aways” have been given?

Get mad.  Get loud.  Tell your elected “representatives” that you have had enough!

Tweet This Post 

Are you angry yet?  If you are, are you translating your anger into action?  No?  Why not?  Are you waiting for it to get worse?

If you are not angry yet, what will it take?   Let us review…

• Representative government has ended.  My evidence?  Try this… an overwhelming number of Americans were against the original bailouts.  Yet, they passed with significant support from both parties.  How about this… a majority of Americans who actually pay taxes are against the so-called “stimulus package”, which is, in reality, has nothing to do with stimulating the economy and everything to do with paying off the unions, those on the dole, and any other entity that can be converted from a productive member of society into a ward of the state.  Many similar examples could be cited as well.  What does this mean?  Simply this: if you no longer have a representative government (meaning a government by people who represent your stated will), then you are no longer self governing.  Instead, you are ruled (meaning a government that bends you to its will without regard to your wishes).  In short, you have lost much of your freedom.  How can this not make you angry?

• The new administration has now appointed a number of people to cabinet positions who are clearly scofflaws.  The most common offense being a failure to pay all of the income tax they owe.  And, when caught in the act, the best we get is “I’m sorry, I made a mistake”.  As if this is an acceptable penalty for an action that, if committed by you and I, would result in all our assets being seized and possible jail time.  Yet several of these people have actually been confirmed by the Senate – with votes from both parties.  In short, we now have a privileged class.  Equality before the law is gone.  You are now reduced to a lower class of citizenship.  How can this not make you angry?

• Your government is spending trillions of dollars that rightly belong to you.  Most of it either wasted on non-productive handouts or funneled to the very fat cats who severely damaged our economy to begin with.  But, while these are nominally your dollars, the fact is that these dollars represent work not yet performed; productivity not yet realized.  This means that you, your children, your grandchildren are being obligated to perform future work to pay back money long since wasted.  In other words, much (most?) of their future labor will be expended, not for the betterment of their own lives, but to pay for the pork being spread over the land today.  In a word, we and our descendants are being spent into a form of debt slavery.  How can this not make you angry?

I could go on and on but this should serve to illustrate the point.  So, I ask again, what will it take to make you angry?

Have we gotten to that point where, as long as you can watch the Super Bowl and American Idol in high definition and have plenty of salty, greasy crap to eat, then all is good?

Unfortunately, for many Americans, the implied answer is YES.  And, I, for one, have abandoned the idea of educating them sufficiently to make them free.  Instead, I just want to be separated from them.  Let those of us who yearn for a different path, the sort of path our Founders tried to blaze for us, let us have our own part of the country where we can live as we see fit, just as we would let the others have their own part where they can “have it their way” (super-sized and with fries).

So, I plead with you… let us get mad, then let us get out!  Quickly while there is still something to save.

Contact your state representatives.  Demand a constitutional convention and/or succession.  Do it today  — tomorrow there may not be anyone there to contact!!

Tweet This Post 

Now that the Democrats/socialists are firmly in charge, what can we say about the changes we can believe in?  Is the nation on the road to recovery?  Has government become honest?  Let us examine just a few items…

ITEM: Squeaker Pelosi announced this past week that she came to Washington to act in a totally non-partisan way.  I think it safe to say that any reasonable person finds this an incorrect statement.  Hence, a question… is the Squeaker:

• A fool who really believes what she is saying, or,

• A liar who is trying to fleece us all while pulling same over our eyes?

I am not sure which one myself but, these being the only two logical choices, our revered Squeaker is either a fool or a liar (possibly both).  Is this not bad enough, whichever the ultimate choice?

ITEM: During the campaign, candidate Obama promised to veto any bill containing “pork”.   As soon as the Senate as done its share of the dirty deed, President Obama will be presented with a bill containing more pork than a prize-winning Hampshire hog.  Do you suppose he will actually veto it?  If he does not, does this not make him a liar who secured the presidency by fraud?

ITEM: In the past week, President Obama has made comments to the effect that now is not the time for business to make profits or grant bonuses.  Does this not indicate a giant leap toward socialism?  Did anyone who bothered to think about it not realize that government handouts are not free (whether to business or individuals)?  Evidently not.  And so, the government will now begin to exact its price.  A price that will is paid in individual and economic freedom.

CONCLUSION: We are now governed (ruled) by fools and liars who will stop at nothing to impose socialism on the United States.  Why would they do this?  Simple.  Continued individual and ecomomic freedom in the United States is a solid impediment to the world government these people have sought and worked toward for so long.   I think these elitist, lying fools actually believe that, once world government becomes a reality, THEY will be the ones in charge.  And, it is no secret that they see themselves as vastly more qualified to make our decisions for us than we are ourselves.  After all, some of us actually are driven by self interest.  We are so stupid that we see our individual selves as more important than the state, than the collective.  How dare we.

We have already seen this farce played out in other cultures, at other times, and we know full well where it leads.  First, the simpletons who bring about the collapse of their own cultures and nations cannot be trusted because they have already shown themselves to be traitors.  Second, all they end up doing is paving the way for a thugocracy that they are, by no means, able to control.

So, it seems we are going to have to play out this sad drama yet again, only this time by bringing the bastion of individual freedom to its knees.  Imagine a Soviet Union with no USA to oppose it.  That may well be our near-term fate.

All because the “sheeple” have allowed themselves to believe that freedom is free.  That rights come from governments.  That they can act with a complete lack of responsibility because they are owed a good life, regardless of not having earned it.

Yet, there may still be hope, but if, and only if, a majority of the people in the “red states” step forward willing to do what must be done.

The cleanest approach open to us is to bombard our state governments to call for a Constitutional Convention.  As I understand it, this would require a request from at least 2/3 of the states.  Quite a number of states already having made the call, albeit for different reasons.  Once the Convention is a reality, ANYTHING in the Constitution is subject to change.  Best of all, the states ratify the changed Constitution by state (one vote per).  This means the blue states lose the power of their population majorities, giving the red states the upper hand.  IF such a convention were called, and used to make constitutional changes that severely limit the power of the federal government, we might actually get the skunk back into the bag.

The only other viable approach that I see is armed rebellion.  I am not convinced that the rest of the world would simply sit on the sidelines while we sort our problems out, otherwise I would tend to favor this approach.

My fellow citizens, our very freedom hangs in the balance.  Let us not go down like a bunch of sheep.  Speak up – loudly.  Exercise your right to own arms while you still can.

Tweet This Post 

I will start the latest diatribe with observations/comments about several bills being considered by our fearless Congress (note that the list was shamelessly plagiarized from capwiz.com)…

H.R. 659 For the relief of certain aliens who were aboard the Golden Venture. For those of you lucky enough to forget, the Golden Venture was a ship carrying Chinese who were trying to gain illegal entry to the US.  It ran aground near NYC and some of the victims/criminals are still in legal limbo.  What is not clear is why there is no relief for the numerous Haitians and Cubans who tried, but failed, to get here on rafts, inner tubes, etc.  I also wonder about the many space aliens who have crashed while hovering over Earth, no doubt filming earthly life as part of a reality sitcom shown back on their home planets.

H.R. 15 creates a nationalized system of free health care.  There is no explanation how the word “free” can be applied to an act that would bankrupt each and every one of us.

H.R. 414, the Camera Phone Predator Alert Act, requires cameras in cell phones to make an audible sound to alert others (such as in locker rooms) when a picture is taken.  Seems too many of the “victims” are being denied the opportunity to turn to their “best side”, pose, or otherwise enhance themselves before being snapped.

H.R. 390 addresses “college football playoff games”.  You have got to be putting me on!  Nobody would submit a bill that stupid.

H.R. 187 says let Cubans play American baseball.   Obviously I wrote the above comment before reading this one.

H.R. 227 states that human life begins at fertilization.   I actually like this one.  Imagine the potential savings in scientific research this makes possible.  No time and resources working out the mysteries of the universe!  Hell no – just submit the questions to congress and let them vote us an answer.  BTW, I am still waiting for the definitive answer RE the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

H.R. 254 moves voting to the weekend.   I guess none of the morons realize how many states let one vote for at least a full month before the official voting day?  Hello — is there any sign of intelligent life in there?

H.R. 113 requires anything funded by an earmark to be audited.  This is good.  Without the audits, we are never sure whether the funds were wasted as intended or accidentally put to some good use.

H.R. 202, which creates a “Museum of Ideas.”   Perhaps it can share space with the “Museum of Stupid Bills”?

H.R. 116 ends political “robocalls” if you are on the “Do Not Call” Registry.  Ah Ha!  Just as I thought!! “Do not call” really means “do not call unless using an obnoxious machine to do the dialing”.

S. 30 wants there to be caller ID honesty.  Well great.  I want there to be congressional honesty but you see how far that has gotten.

H.R. 87 says “Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is,” and invites those who like to pay taxes to voluntarily pay extra taxes.  We need a bill for that?  Can’t they just send in a check?

H.R. 25. calls for a “Fair Tax” (a national sales tax) and abolishing the IRS.   Some people want to take the fun and profit out of every scam.   Might as well ask congresspeople and senators to give up their paid-for-by-tax-dollars illicit sex partners.

H.R. 70 would make it a hate crime to display a noose with the intent to intimidate.  As opposed to the nooses displayed during a real lynching?

H.R. 40 explores paying reparations to African-Americans.  A worthy bill.  Indeed, I think that every one, currently alive, who can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that they have been slaves should collect a bucket load from everyone currently alive who can be proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, to have kept slaves.

H.R. 346 repeals the automatic payraises Congress receives.  How could they, what will all the hard work evidenced by the bills above??

Then, my friends, we have the granddaddy of them all – the Emergency Economic Stimulus Package.  There is so much that could be said about it — if I did not try to limit the use of vulgarity in this blog.

First, one might reasonably ask, why is this an emergency since the situation has existed for several months, with nothing done other than ensuring the captains of finance don’t get hurt by showering billions of cash down on them?  Well, this turns out to be the most easily answered of the questions.  It is an emergency for the simple reason that congress must enact it quickly before the economy shows improvement all on its own.

One thing that can be said about the package: it is a marvel of “new speak”.  For instance:

• It proposes to give an income tax “cut” to millions who don’t currently pay any income tax.  Can we no longer use the term “welfare” to describe the dole?

• It proposes to “strengthen” our system of free enterprise by partially nationalizing much of our financial system and parts of our manufacturing sector.

• It proposes to stimulate the economy while doing little or nothing to stimulate the real productivity engine that actually drives the economy.

• It proposes to rebuild our national infrastructure (roads, bridges, sewers, water systems, etc.) by limiting the use and employment of people who actually know how to rebuild roads, bridges, sewers, water systems, etc., instead by hiring a quota of the hard-core unemployed (that is to say, those who remain unemployed mostly because of an aversion to learning and to work).

• And, worst of all, it proposes to promote “fairness” by using the threat of deadly force (as in armed government agents) to take from the productive, that which they have legally and honestly earned, and give it to others, who in no way earned it, simply to buy their votes.

Remember my friends, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing”. Edmund Burke

Speaking out is a form of doing something.  Why is it that so many of you can cheer so loudly for your favorite sports teams but seem to be struck mute when your country needs some noise on its behalf?

Tweet This Post 

As readers of this blog know, I am an outspoken foe of universal suffrage.  But, I seem to have fallen short in my attempts to explain the evils of universal suffrage.  So, I recommend that all of you (re)read The Law, written by Frederick Bastiat in 1850.  While this work refers to French politics of that time, it is exactly on target today.

http://www.constitution.org/law/bastiat.htm

Is it not amazing how timeless an idea can be when it is based on rational thought?   But, I digress.

Knowing that many of you will not go read the entire pamphlet, I have thoughtfully enclosed an extract that speaks directly to my argument against universal suffrage…

“… Who Shall Judge?

The followers of Rousseau’s school of thought — who consider themselves far advanced, but whom I consider twenty centuries behind the times — will not agree with me on this. But universal suffrage — using the word in its strictest sense — is not one of those sacred dogmas which it is a crime to examine or doubt. In fact, serious objections may be made to universal suffrage.

In the first place, the word universal conceals a gross fallacy. For example, there are 36 million people in France. Thus, to make the right of suffrage universal, there should be 36 million voters. But the most extended system permits only 9 million people to vote. Three persons out of four are excluded. And more than this, they are excluded by the fourth. This fourth person advances the principle of incapacity as his reason for excluding the others.

Universal suffrage means, then, universal suffrage for those who are capable. But there remains this question of fact: Who is capable? Are minors, females, insane persons, and persons who have committed certain major crimes the only ones to be determined incapable?

The Reason Why Voting Is Restricted

A closer examination of the subject shows us the motive which causes the right of suffrage to be based upon the supposition of incapacity. The motive is that the elector or voter does not exercise this right for himself alone, but for everybody.

The most extended elective system and the most restricted elective system are alike in this respect. They differ only in respect to what constitutes incapacity. It is not a difference of principle, but merely a difference of degree.

If, as the republicans of our present-day Greek and Roman schools of thought pretend, the right of suffrage arrives with one’s birth, it would be an injustice for adults to prevent women and children from voting. Why are they prevented? Because they are presumed to be incapable. And why is incapacity a motive for exclusion? Because it is not the voter alone who suffers the consequences of his vote; because each vote touches and affects everyone in the entire community; because the people in the community have a right to demand some safeguards concerning the acts upon which their welfare and existence depend.

The Answer Is to Restrict the Law

I know what might be said in answer to this; what the objections might be. But this is not the place to exhaust a controversy of this nature. I wish merely to observe here that this controversy over universal suffrage (as well as most other political questions) which agitates, excites, and overthrows nations, would lose nearly all of its importance if the law had always been what it ought to be.

In fact, if law were restricted to protecting all persons, all liberties, and all properties; if law were nothing more than the organized combination of the individual’s right to self defense; if law were the obstacle, the check, the punisher of all oppression and plunder — is it likely that we citizens would then argue much about the extent of the franchise?

Under these circumstances, is it likely that the extent of the right to vote would endanger that supreme good, the public peace? Is it likely that the excluded classes would refuse to peaceably await the coming of their right to vote? Is it likely that those who had the right to vote would jealously defend their privilege?

If the law were confined to its proper functions, everyone’s interest in the law would be the same. Is it not clear that, under these circumstances, those who voted could not inconvenience those who did not vote?

The Fatal Idea of Legal Plunder

But on the other hand, imagine that this fatal principle has been introduced: Under the pretense of organization, regulation, protection, or encouragement, the law takes property from one person and gives it to another; the law takes the wealth of all and gives it to a few — whether farmers, manufacturers, shipowners, artists, or comedians. Under these circumstances, then certainly every class will aspire to grasp the law, and logically so.

The excluded classes will furiously demand their right to vote — and will overthrow society rather than not to obtain it. Even beggars and vagabonds will then prove to you that they also have an incontestable title to vote. …”

In a word, one person’s suffrage is often another person’s suffering.

Tweet This Post