Meet Francisco Linares of Rolling Hills Estates CA, the man who will very likely be going to jail for six months. Was his crime shoplifting or even armed robbery? No it was much more sinister than that. This man had the nerve to put improvements on his own property with out getting the correct permits.
This crime wave started when Mr. Linares repaired a broken fence that was ultimately the city's responsibility. Of course the city told him that it was his responsibility, but we cant be bogged down with such details. He also had the nerve to add a patio and retaining wall. The question isn't whether the punishment fits the crime, the question is what right does the city have to tell a man what he can or can not do with his property. Why is the permit even needed? When did we allow power hungry thugs to control what we worked for?
The truth of the matter is we have been losing property rights for years. We allow (and call for) smoking bans. Senator Hitlery Clinton even endorses a national smoking ban.
We let the Kelo vs New London pass without even a whimper. For those who don't know this case allows eminent domain to be used to enhance a counties revenue. Meaning if you have a piece of property that the county thinks can generate more tax revenue then it can take it from you (giving you what it feels is market value) and give the land to someone else.
Drug seizures are another abuse of power. A person can lose cash, cars and even property without a trial and ultimately will never get it back. Case in point (courtesy of newsmax)
At Houston’s Hobby Airport, police stopped 49-year-old Ethel Hylton and seized her luggage because a drug dog had scratched it. Agents searched her bags and strip-searched her but found no drugs. They did find $39,110 in cash from an insurance settlement and her life savings, accumulated through over 20 years of work as a hotel housekeeper and hospital janitor. According to the article she never got the money back. No trial, no conviction, but no money. Actually more than $1 Billion of property is confiscated each year without a trial. Welcome to the land of the free.
Even taxes are violation of property rights. Every time the various government thieves take your money they are showing a blatant disregard for private property.
We allow this kind of property violation every day. It is time for Americans to wake up and fight these clear violations of private property before it is too late. We cannot be free if our property is not safe.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Thursday, August 23, 2007
THE BIG SCAM: SOCIAL SECURITY
I don't think that there has been a bigger scam on the American public then Social Security. This programs violates personal freedom and responsibility unlike any other. The fact that practically every news operation and the American public in generally call for saving/enhancing this program is absurd.
First, the idea of mandatory social security tax in and of itself is crazy. People think without it some will have no money for retirement. True some may not, but isn't that their choice. What one chooses to do with their own money whether save it or squander it is their business. Some say we will have to take care of the people who don't save for their retirement. Of course we won't, that is a problem in a socialist government but not in a free one. Secondly how does the government know when you need your money best? If I have a temporary emergency shouldn't I chose to have that money now rather than be forced to use it to save for my future?
Even if you accept the government has a right to treat us like children, why are we forced to invest in their instruments? If I am forced to invest for my future why can't I invest in whatever I feel will give me the highest rate of return? Social Security pays out less than 2% on your money. I can get twice that amount in many CD'S or even some savings accounts. Forget about how much more I could make by putting it in the stock market. Still we are forced by the idiots in both parties to take a terrible return on our money.
Another draw back of social security is when I can take my money. If I can afford to retire at 50, why should I wait until they say I can start collecting. Isn't it my money after all? Additional If I die before I start collecting S.S why I can't leave it to who I want? It is starting to sound like it isn't my money after all.
So with all these benefits you would think Social Security would be safe. HA! Social security will be bankrupt by the time I am old enough to start collecting. Now there is talk of lowering benefits or raising the retirement age. Wow what a deal.
If you want to live in a free country the only right thing to do is to abolish this system and return to a system where people are personally responsibly for their own accounts. For those of you cry babies who still like Social Security move to France and stop bringing me down.
First, the idea of mandatory social security tax in and of itself is crazy. People think without it some will have no money for retirement. True some may not, but isn't that their choice. What one chooses to do with their own money whether save it or squander it is their business. Some say we will have to take care of the people who don't save for their retirement. Of course we won't, that is a problem in a socialist government but not in a free one. Secondly how does the government know when you need your money best? If I have a temporary emergency shouldn't I chose to have that money now rather than be forced to use it to save for my future?
Even if you accept the government has a right to treat us like children, why are we forced to invest in their instruments? If I am forced to invest for my future why can't I invest in whatever I feel will give me the highest rate of return? Social Security pays out less than 2% on your money. I can get twice that amount in many CD'S or even some savings accounts. Forget about how much more I could make by putting it in the stock market. Still we are forced by the idiots in both parties to take a terrible return on our money.
Another draw back of social security is when I can take my money. If I can afford to retire at 50, why should I wait until they say I can start collecting. Isn't it my money after all? Additional If I die before I start collecting S.S why I can't leave it to who I want? It is starting to sound like it isn't my money after all.
So with all these benefits you would think Social Security would be safe. HA! Social security will be bankrupt by the time I am old enough to start collecting. Now there is talk of lowering benefits or raising the retirement age. Wow what a deal.
If you want to live in a free country the only right thing to do is to abolish this system and return to a system where people are personally responsibly for their own accounts. For those of you cry babies who still like Social Security move to France and stop bringing me down.
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
GENERATION IDIOT
So Yahoo has a new "expert" it is Anya Kamenetz, who claims she is a generational advocate. I have read part of her book and heard her on the radio let me tell you she is nothing more than a socialist. I have heard her advocate such things as taxing the rich and taxing wealth and savings. All to help those in my generation who were to stupid and lazy to take care of themselves.
About two weeks ago this brain surgeon embraced the College Cost Reduction Act of 2007, . This is a bill passed by Democrats (who else) makes college more accessible IE takes from one group to give to another.
Anya says this bill is a good start, some of the better points are "graduates whose earnings don't exceed 150 percent of the poverty line (about $15,000 for a single person) would be exempt from repaying student loans." Lets stop here. WHAT!!! You take out a loan and now poof the debt is erased? Who pays the bills? What if you dropped out before you finished and that is the reason you aren't making that much? Isn't college suppose to be an investment so you can make more in the future?
The questions are endless, but to ANYA I guess the rich will pay for it.
She claims it is "right that those who earn more from their education should pay more". First, how do you prove someone earns more from their education rather than their hard work and ability? What does earning have to do with how much you pay? Two people can get the same education yet one has to pay more? This is Fair to Anya.
This jerk embraces socialism at every turn.
It is amazing that someone with her level of intelligence is considered an expert. She is lucky she is good looking because she definitely doesn't have any brains.
About two weeks ago this brain surgeon embraced the College Cost Reduction Act of 2007, . This is a bill passed by Democrats (who else) makes college more accessible IE takes from one group to give to another.
Anya says this bill is a good start, some of the better points are "graduates whose earnings don't exceed 150 percent of the poverty line (about $15,000 for a single person) would be exempt from repaying student loans." Lets stop here. WHAT!!! You take out a loan and now poof the debt is erased? Who pays the bills? What if you dropped out before you finished and that is the reason you aren't making that much? Isn't college suppose to be an investment so you can make more in the future?
The questions are endless, but to ANYA I guess the rich will pay for it.
She claims it is "right that those who earn more from their education should pay more". First, how do you prove someone earns more from their education rather than their hard work and ability? What does earning have to do with how much you pay? Two people can get the same education yet one has to pay more? This is Fair to Anya.
This jerk embraces socialism at every turn.
It is amazing that someone with her level of intelligence is considered an expert. She is lucky she is good looking because she definitely doesn't have any brains.
Monday, July 30, 2007
THE DUMBEST MAN ALIVE
As many of you know I dislike all Democrats and most Republicans. Both parties take turns trying to control our lives. However much I dislike these people John Edwards takes my hatred to new heights. This man, if elected would be more of a threat to our freedom than Osama Bin Laden. He would destroy Capitalism and punish success, like no one in this countries history.
In a recent speech John Edwards has outlined the following plan. He would create the " get ahead program", which is nothing more than more welfare. First, I love the catchy title, who could be against the "get ahead program" "PEOPLE WHO WANT THE POOR TO BE STAY BEHIND, LIKE GEORGE BUSH, EXXON AND HALIBURTON!!!" (I hear libs yelling now). Really they disguise their big welfare programs behind these names because Americans might not buy the title "more money for deadbeats initiative".
This program would give the poor and extra $500/yr for saving the same amount. Wow talk about an amazing rate of return. Add this to the many other handouts like unviveral health care and increased welfare.
And how will he pay for this you ask? Of course by raising taxes on the rich. He wants to increase the rate of capital gains tax to 28% to ensure that high-income investors will pay taxes on their investment income, as well as repeal the Bush tax cuts for the families who make more than $200,000 a year. All this and I quote "to restore fairness to a tax code that has been driven badly out of whack by the wrongheaded rules of the Washington establishment – more wealth for the wealthy and more power for the powerful."
Lets see the poor already pay almost zero federal tax, they use $8 in government services for every $1 they pay. The rich pay the lion share of the taxes and use nearly no services. If you want to restore fairness shouldn't we raise taxes on the poor and their cut programs?
This metro sexual has many great slogans, but seems to ignore the facts. My favorite might be "It's time to end the president's war on work" So you work hard to get ahead and make a lot of money, and if someone wants to keep this money well there is now a war on work? Should we really be taking the definition of the term work from a man who made his money suing people who did work? People like John Edwards are the most dangerous because he will get millions of followers who buy into this crap. My only saving grace is that the two other socialists are ahead in the polls. I will complain about them later.
In a recent speech John Edwards has outlined the following plan. He would create the " get ahead program", which is nothing more than more welfare. First, I love the catchy title, who could be against the "get ahead program" "PEOPLE WHO WANT THE POOR TO BE STAY BEHIND, LIKE GEORGE BUSH, EXXON AND HALIBURTON!!!" (I hear libs yelling now). Really they disguise their big welfare programs behind these names because Americans might not buy the title "more money for deadbeats initiative".
This program would give the poor and extra $500/yr for saving the same amount. Wow talk about an amazing rate of return. Add this to the many other handouts like unviveral health care and increased welfare.
And how will he pay for this you ask? Of course by raising taxes on the rich. He wants to increase the rate of capital gains tax to 28% to ensure that high-income investors will pay taxes on their investment income, as well as repeal the Bush tax cuts for the families who make more than $200,000 a year. All this and I quote "to restore fairness to a tax code that has been driven badly out of whack by the wrongheaded rules of the Washington establishment – more wealth for the wealthy and more power for the powerful."
Lets see the poor already pay almost zero federal tax, they use $8 in government services for every $1 they pay. The rich pay the lion share of the taxes and use nearly no services. If you want to restore fairness shouldn't we raise taxes on the poor and their cut programs?
This metro sexual has many great slogans, but seems to ignore the facts. My favorite might be "It's time to end the president's war on work" So you work hard to get ahead and make a lot of money, and if someone wants to keep this money well there is now a war on work? Should we really be taking the definition of the term work from a man who made his money suing people who did work? People like John Edwards are the most dangerous because he will get millions of followers who buy into this crap. My only saving grace is that the two other socialists are ahead in the polls. I will complain about them later.
Monday, July 23, 2007
JCARD IS BACK
After a brief vacation Jcard has returned more angry then ever. The first thing I read today is a poll on the drudge report that states the majority of people in rich countries believe in socialism (not in so many words, but that was the gist) . Although the US polled better it is still disappointing to read these results.
The question "do you think the government should set pay caps on the heads of companies" was disturbing. Every European country polled higher than 50% in the yes category, while the US polled a little over 30%, while another 25% was unsure. I really don't get this kind of thinking. In a supposedly free countries they want to tell people how rich they can become.
When did we as a country replace admiration for someones success with jealousy? We used to strive for success now we ask for hand outs and want to make the rich weaker. Look around, the average middle class worker works less and has more material wealth than anytime in history (contrary to what Lou Dobbs says). Yet they feel since someone else worked hard and got ahead that that person is the enemy. We will never be great again until we celebrate success and this means no redistribution of wealth.
The question "do you think the government should set pay caps on the heads of companies" was disturbing. Every European country polled higher than 50% in the yes category, while the US polled a little over 30%, while another 25% was unsure. I really don't get this kind of thinking. In a supposedly free countries they want to tell people how rich they can become.
When did we as a country replace admiration for someones success with jealousy? We used to strive for success now we ask for hand outs and want to make the rich weaker. Look around, the average middle class worker works less and has more material wealth than anytime in history (contrary to what Lou Dobbs says). Yet they feel since someone else worked hard and got ahead that that person is the enemy. We will never be great again until we celebrate success and this means no redistribution of wealth.
Monday, July 16, 2007
Debt Ridden
I have always believed that the difference between the rich and the poor is the amount of debt they voluntarily put themselves into. Most of the problems of the poor have nothing to do with Exxon, Conservatives, the rich, or their bosses. Rather it is their own financial mistakes that makes and keeps them poor. When someone spends what they haven't earned they voluntarily make them self an indenture servant. A man can never be free when he is in debt. Even the bible points this out this when it states "the borrower is servant to the lender". The result is people's own actions make them richer or poorer.
The problem arises when the Government spends money and takes debt out in your name. No matter how much financial restraint you may have shown the government is putting you into debt. If you take the current total national debt and break it out by person it is $29,368.63(total debt of 8.8 trillion divided by 303 million). Since the US does not have the same accounting standards as corporations the number is actually considerably higher. This also does not include all the local and state bonds that are issued that the citizens will be accountable for.
The most ironic part of this is that most of this money is spent by liberals who were voted for by the people who put themselves into debt. They screwed themselves now they are screwing you. When it comes time to paying it back, the people who are financial responsible are the ones who will have to foot the bill. Obviously the poor are not going to be able to pay the bill when it comes due, which will increase your share. It is really scary that government officials can borrow money with no consequences and in fact are encouraged to by their voting base to do so. People like John Edwards can call for huge entitlements while the rest of us are left footing the bill.
When a private individual steals your credit card and puts you into debt it is a crime and we put that person into jail. When the government does it we put that person into congress and the White House.
The problem arises when the Government spends money and takes debt out in your name. No matter how much financial restraint you may have shown the government is putting you into debt. If you take the current total national debt and break it out by person it is $29,368.63(total debt of 8.8 trillion divided by 303 million). Since the US does not have the same accounting standards as corporations the number is actually considerably higher. This also does not include all the local and state bonds that are issued that the citizens will be accountable for.
The most ironic part of this is that most of this money is spent by liberals who were voted for by the people who put themselves into debt. They screwed themselves now they are screwing you. When it comes time to paying it back, the people who are financial responsible are the ones who will have to foot the bill. Obviously the poor are not going to be able to pay the bill when it comes due, which will increase your share. It is really scary that government officials can borrow money with no consequences and in fact are encouraged to by their voting base to do so. People like John Edwards can call for huge entitlements while the rest of us are left footing the bill.
When a private individual steals your credit card and puts you into debt it is a crime and we put that person into jail. When the government does it we put that person into congress and the White House.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
How They Want You
Does the government want you to be successful? Do they want you wealthy, financially independent and well informed? I think you know the answer to these questions. To me it is obvious government officials want you to be a working class American slug. I do not believe they want the majority of people to live in poverty, rather they want you to work your 40+ work week come home and turn on the television and turn off what's left of your mind.
What got me thinking about this was rules for retirement accounts Why, I asked myself, can't I pull MY money out of an IRA early if I had successfully invested it. Why am I limited to how much I can contribute? It made me realize even more that they don't want me to retire at 45 and live carefree for the rest of my years. This also may be why the average American can't invest in things such as Hedge funds (they are only for the wealthy by law).
A financial independent person is a powerful person. You are not dependent on them for handouts such as Medicare or Social Security. You will not vote to increase their power over your life. You will not allow them in to interfere with your life. If you can afford your own health care why do you need them? The same goes for retirement. Anytime you increase your own power the power of the government and the people who run it is diminished. Why would they want that to happen? Whenever a politicians states he or she will fight for working families they mean the will fight to keep you there. It is in their best interest to do that.
The only way for politicians to lose power is for Americans to gain it. This does not happen by asking for handouts or begging the government protect us from our own stupid decisions. It happens by working to and becoming successful.
What got me thinking about this was rules for retirement accounts Why, I asked myself, can't I pull MY money out of an IRA early if I had successfully invested it. Why am I limited to how much I can contribute? It made me realize even more that they don't want me to retire at 45 and live carefree for the rest of my years. This also may be why the average American can't invest in things such as Hedge funds (they are only for the wealthy by law).
A financial independent person is a powerful person. You are not dependent on them for handouts such as Medicare or Social Security. You will not vote to increase their power over your life. You will not allow them in to interfere with your life. If you can afford your own health care why do you need them? The same goes for retirement. Anytime you increase your own power the power of the government and the people who run it is diminished. Why would they want that to happen? Whenever a politicians states he or she will fight for working families they mean the will fight to keep you there. It is in their best interest to do that.
The only way for politicians to lose power is for Americans to gain it. This does not happen by asking for handouts or begging the government protect us from our own stupid decisions. It happens by working to and becoming successful.
Sunday, July 8, 2007
THE UNEDUCATED MAJORITY
Today I read a disturbing article courtesy of Yahoo News. I will link this article at the bottom of the page.
The article was titled Poll: Majorities say income gap too wide
It goes on to explain how 70% of American think that the divide between the rich and poor is too wide. It always amazes me how people think this is a bad thing. Americas poor have the highest standard of living of any poor in the history of the world. Only in America can you drive by the projects and see Satellite dishes and new cars. Go to Asia and Africa and see if their poor live this way.
What difference does it make how rich someone else is as long as your standard of living is high. Would you rather live in a country where everyone lives equally in filth? As long as there is the opportunity to get rich then people should not look at the difference as a bad thing.
The article goes on to say "Two-thirds said the government should make sure there is a job for everyone who wants one." Who will really be providing the job for those who want one? There obviously is no market demand for this fictional position or it would be filled. Basically the tax payer would be forced to pay an unneeded salary.
Lastly the article states a "Small majorities said it should provide jobs for people who can't find private employment, increase federal training programs and redistribute money with high taxes on the wealthy." The article does not define a small majority, but any majority who thinks redistribution is acceptable shows a real ignorance for freedom, capitalism and economics.
The only redeeming question was the last one were it two thirds of people think it is not the governments job to ease income distribution. I do not see how you can ask for job creation and redistribution without stating it is the governments job to ease the difference between rich and poor.
It really just amazes me how this country continuously asks for our rights to be taken away. One day when we get our wish we will be sorry we did.
Here is a link to the article
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070706/ap_on_re_us/income_gap_poll_2
The article was titled Poll: Majorities say income gap too wide
It goes on to explain how 70% of American think that the divide between the rich and poor is too wide. It always amazes me how people think this is a bad thing. Americas poor have the highest standard of living of any poor in the history of the world. Only in America can you drive by the projects and see Satellite dishes and new cars. Go to Asia and Africa and see if their poor live this way.
What difference does it make how rich someone else is as long as your standard of living is high. Would you rather live in a country where everyone lives equally in filth? As long as there is the opportunity to get rich then people should not look at the difference as a bad thing.
The article goes on to say "Two-thirds said the government should make sure there is a job for everyone who wants one." Who will really be providing the job for those who want one? There obviously is no market demand for this fictional position or it would be filled. Basically the tax payer would be forced to pay an unneeded salary.
Lastly the article states a "Small majorities said it should provide jobs for people who can't find private employment, increase federal training programs and redistribute money with high taxes on the wealthy." The article does not define a small majority, but any majority who thinks redistribution is acceptable shows a real ignorance for freedom, capitalism and economics.
The only redeeming question was the last one were it two thirds of people think it is not the governments job to ease income distribution. I do not see how you can ask for job creation and redistribution without stating it is the governments job to ease the difference between rich and poor.
It really just amazes me how this country continuously asks for our rights to be taken away. One day when we get our wish we will be sorry we did.
Here is a link to the article
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070706/ap_on_re_us/income_gap_poll_2
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
Our Founding Fathers
On this Fourth of July I would like to discuss our founding fathers and what they envisioned for this country. The American system was a totally unique experience in the history of this planet. It was the first of country that gave the people the power and not the government. It respected and enhanced individual rights to a level never seen before.
Although I believe the founding fathers would be astonished to see how far we have come, I also think that they would be ashamed as to the way the average American let slip away what they worked so hard for. They also would be outraged how a mind set of self reliance has been replaced with an entitlement mentality.
Unlike today’s leaders are founding fathers respected individual rights. They would not steal from the American public in order to give hand outs to big businesses and a dependent poor. They would not strip private land from an individual in order to increase their tax base. There were no "two Americas' to them, only a country of individuals trying to make the most out of life.
Our founding fathers did not give us "the right to happiness" they wrote "The right to pursue happiness" Funny how one word changes so much. This is because they knew the average American did not want to be taken care from Cradle to Grave, but rather wanted the opportunity to be free. Social Security, Medicare, Socialized medicine were against what they stood for because they violated individual rights and responsibility.
The sheer size of the government would probably anger them. I do not think they risked their lives and property to create a government of our size. The fact that the people not only allowed this kind of growth, but also asked for it in many cases, would anger them further.
Additional are the founders of this country knew the risks to freedom and were willing to act to protect against those risks. During the revolution they did not waiver when the fight got tough. Although they took heavy losses they kept fighting until the job was done.
Lastly, the founders would not trade security for freedom. Increasing the size and power of the federal government to make us more secure was not in their nature. They knew that a big government was the greatest enemy to a free country.
Although I believe the founding fathers would be astonished to see how far we have come, I also think that they would be ashamed as to the way the average American let slip away what they worked so hard for. They also would be outraged how a mind set of self reliance has been replaced with an entitlement mentality.
Unlike today’s leaders are founding fathers respected individual rights. They would not steal from the American public in order to give hand outs to big businesses and a dependent poor. They would not strip private land from an individual in order to increase their tax base. There were no "two Americas' to them, only a country of individuals trying to make the most out of life.
Our founding fathers did not give us "the right to happiness" they wrote "The right to pursue happiness" Funny how one word changes so much. This is because they knew the average American did not want to be taken care from Cradle to Grave, but rather wanted the opportunity to be free. Social Security, Medicare, Socialized medicine were against what they stood for because they violated individual rights and responsibility.
The sheer size of the government would probably anger them. I do not think they risked their lives and property to create a government of our size. The fact that the people not only allowed this kind of growth, but also asked for it in many cases, would anger them further.
Additional are the founders of this country knew the risks to freedom and were willing to act to protect against those risks. During the revolution they did not waiver when the fight got tough. Although they took heavy losses they kept fighting until the job was done.
Lastly, the founders would not trade security for freedom. Increasing the size and power of the federal government to make us more secure was not in their nature. They knew that a big government was the greatest enemy to a free country.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Free Speech
What did the founding fathers have in mind when they wrote the first amendment to the Constitution? Maybe a better question is who were they trying to protect this right from? The right to free speech, like every other right in the Constitution, is to be protected from the government. No corporation, company, or individual has the authority or ability to remove this first and most basic right like the government, especially the federal government. Unfortunately the nitwits in office have warped this meaning. They feel it necessary to "protect" free speech. How do the do this you ask? By force, like they do everything. Only a warped government bureaucrat can take the first amendment and use it to suppress free speech. Lets look how this is done.
The first and most obvious way is through by making the airways "public".
By doing this they put them under government control. I can not think of a more dangerous threat to free speech then the government deciding what kind of speech can or cannot be heard under the cloak of "public good". Is giving the government control of the airways honoring the intention of the first amendment? Of course not, considering as I mentioned earlier that it was protection of speech from the government that the founders were worried about.
An offshoot of this is the "fairness doctrine", which is currently being reintroduced in congress. For those of you who don't know the fairness doctrine is legislation that "afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of public importance." In a nutshell this doctrine states that various stations (aimed at talk radio) must present a balanced view of the issues. There is so much wrong with this line of thinking I don't know where to start. First, who the hell is the government to tell anyone what they can or cannot say on a private station? Is it really protecting free speech when you force a private company to air something it does not agree with? The right to not say something is just as important as the right to say something. If I am being forced to say something I don't agree with then that is not free speech. Maybe a station will be forced to air something it finds morally offensive. Will Christan stations be forced to air information that contradicts the bible? I guess the decision will be at the whim of a bureaucrat.
Another problem with the fairness doctrine is who decides what is balanced? Something which I considered totally one sided can be described as fair. A story about man made global warming would be considered fair, while a story regarding it as bogus would need to be balanced.
An additional factor to consider is there are more than two sides to most issues. Does the libertarian argument get equal time on these airways? In my opinion it will suppress free speech further, because so much time will be devoted to towing both party lines that the unique perspective, such as the libertarian argument will not be heard. God forbid a radio station does play a libertarian idea, which bad mouths both parties it could lose its license for violating the law, because there will be noone in the government to protect these views.
Do we really want to give more control to power hungry bureaucrats? If this law passes the press will be screened by the government. Anytime something is considered offensive or threatening to the power of various government officials they can state that not enough time is being devoted to the other side (their side) and threaten them with punishment. I just don't remember reading that in the Constitution.
One last thing I would like to mention is government controlled stations and programing. This is were local governments set up TV shows or channels to spit out their crap. Nothing like having my tax dollars stolen and used to support a view which I disapprove of. In these cases it is a double whammy, they violate our property rights and free speech rights. We have a local show called the Mecklenburgers or as I like to call it the "government propaganda show" which does just this. It basically is a show that is set up like a sit-com, but instead of laughs we get to hear how great government programs are.
We have to put a stop to this now. First, we have to demand the fairness doctrine be defeated. Secondly, we must somehow get the airways out of the public domain, because public=government. Lastly, we must demand that the government never uses tax money to support speech and never tells a private person or company what to say or not say. If this continues we will only lose more of our first amendment rights under the disguise of protection of free speech. Pretty soon JCARD will have to talk about how much he loves to hug trees or conserve energy and nobody wants to hear that.
The first and most obvious way is through by making the airways "public".
By doing this they put them under government control. I can not think of a more dangerous threat to free speech then the government deciding what kind of speech can or cannot be heard under the cloak of "public good". Is giving the government control of the airways honoring the intention of the first amendment? Of course not, considering as I mentioned earlier that it was protection of speech from the government that the founders were worried about.
An offshoot of this is the "fairness doctrine", which is currently being reintroduced in congress. For those of you who don't know the fairness doctrine is legislation that "afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of public importance." In a nutshell this doctrine states that various stations (aimed at talk radio) must present a balanced view of the issues. There is so much wrong with this line of thinking I don't know where to start. First, who the hell is the government to tell anyone what they can or cannot say on a private station? Is it really protecting free speech when you force a private company to air something it does not agree with? The right to not say something is just as important as the right to say something. If I am being forced to say something I don't agree with then that is not free speech. Maybe a station will be forced to air something it finds morally offensive. Will Christan stations be forced to air information that contradicts the bible? I guess the decision will be at the whim of a bureaucrat.
Another problem with the fairness doctrine is who decides what is balanced? Something which I considered totally one sided can be described as fair. A story about man made global warming would be considered fair, while a story regarding it as bogus would need to be balanced.
An additional factor to consider is there are more than two sides to most issues. Does the libertarian argument get equal time on these airways? In my opinion it will suppress free speech further, because so much time will be devoted to towing both party lines that the unique perspective, such as the libertarian argument will not be heard. God forbid a radio station does play a libertarian idea, which bad mouths both parties it could lose its license for violating the law, because there will be noone in the government to protect these views.
Do we really want to give more control to power hungry bureaucrats? If this law passes the press will be screened by the government. Anytime something is considered offensive or threatening to the power of various government officials they can state that not enough time is being devoted to the other side (their side) and threaten them with punishment. I just don't remember reading that in the Constitution.
One last thing I would like to mention is government controlled stations and programing. This is were local governments set up TV shows or channels to spit out their crap. Nothing like having my tax dollars stolen and used to support a view which I disapprove of. In these cases it is a double whammy, they violate our property rights and free speech rights. We have a local show called the Mecklenburgers or as I like to call it the "government propaganda show" which does just this. It basically is a show that is set up like a sit-com, but instead of laughs we get to hear how great government programs are.
We have to put a stop to this now. First, we have to demand the fairness doctrine be defeated. Secondly, we must somehow get the airways out of the public domain, because public=government. Lastly, we must demand that the government never uses tax money to support speech and never tells a private person or company what to say or not say. If this continues we will only lose more of our first amendment rights under the disguise of protection of free speech. Pretty soon JCARD will have to talk about how much he loves to hug trees or conserve energy and nobody wants to hear that.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Scare Tactics
This morning, like most of you I suspect, I woke up with Avian bird flu. Stinks because I was just getting over SARS. I really wish I could drive to the hospital, but since gas in $5 a gallon I can't afford to. Plus I don't want to contribute to global warming, which may just kill me before the bird flu does, probably via hurricane. Even If I do survive what kind of life can I live? I mean the middle class are losing all their jobs over seas, and according to the porky Lou Dobbs we are at war (haven't really figured out who is attacking us just yet).
Of course the above are just a couple of examples of how the news tries to scare us to death. This time last year we could not turn on the news without hearing how the bird flu is the next world-wide epidemic. Expert after expert told us that will be hit and millions would die. It was also a good excuse to blame George Bush for not preparing the country enough for this disaster. Of course these are the same people who stirred up so much fear about SARS that Americans were riding bikes with hospital masks on.
A more recent scare tactic is this gasoline crisis we are having. How many experts told us we would average $4 or maybe even $5/gallon? Now that prices have dropped about $.30 in the past three weeks we hear nothing. Is this what passes for news? How can these people be believed or trusted on any subject? They give no apologizes when they are wrong. They just move on to the next over hyped story.
These scare tactics do more than just whip us into a frenzy, they have real consequences. How many billions were spent on drugs for the bird flu that are now sitting on a self? How many trillions will be lost due to over hyped global warming claims?
Even the poor sharks are victims of the media's stupidity. A couple of years ago during a slow news stint the media covered every last shark attack, as if they were more than normal. The result was every moron with a boat went out there and killed thousands of sharks, whether they were dangerous or not. Not that I am a big environmentalist, but most of these creatures were just minding their own business.
Maybe the news outlets should spend more time on important things, such as the inevitable bankruptcy of Medicare, or the pork spending around the country. How about focusing on the thousands of gross violations of property rights every year by various governments? I guess these things will just have to be read about at JCARDS world.
Of course the above are just a couple of examples of how the news tries to scare us to death. This time last year we could not turn on the news without hearing how the bird flu is the next world-wide epidemic. Expert after expert told us that will be hit and millions would die. It was also a good excuse to blame George Bush for not preparing the country enough for this disaster. Of course these are the same people who stirred up so much fear about SARS that Americans were riding bikes with hospital masks on.
A more recent scare tactic is this gasoline crisis we are having. How many experts told us we would average $4 or maybe even $5/gallon? Now that prices have dropped about $.30 in the past three weeks we hear nothing. Is this what passes for news? How can these people be believed or trusted on any subject? They give no apologizes when they are wrong. They just move on to the next over hyped story.
These scare tactics do more than just whip us into a frenzy, they have real consequences. How many billions were spent on drugs for the bird flu that are now sitting on a self? How many trillions will be lost due to over hyped global warming claims?
Even the poor sharks are victims of the media's stupidity. A couple of years ago during a slow news stint the media covered every last shark attack, as if they were more than normal. The result was every moron with a boat went out there and killed thousands of sharks, whether they were dangerous or not. Not that I am a big environmentalist, but most of these creatures were just minding their own business.
Maybe the news outlets should spend more time on important things, such as the inevitable bankruptcy of Medicare, or the pork spending around the country. How about focusing on the thousands of gross violations of property rights every year by various governments? I guess these things will just have to be read about at JCARDS world.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
HAND OUTS
While everyone is busy debating bills such as amnesty for illegals a little know bill passed the house on June 7. This bill will give legitimacy to the Lumbee tribe of North Carolina. By doing this the Lumbee Indians are recognized as an official tribe by the US Government. This allows them to legally steal hundreds of millions of our money. The politicians of course use buzz words like "health care" and "housing", as if this makes it OK that they are taking our money.
The truth of the matter is it goes much deeper than that. They are eligible for many benefits using our money, this includes welfare and tax free income. If you are not outraged by this then you don't have a job. The country has run up huge unfunded liabilities and these morons in congress are handing money to an entire group of people so they can live off the rest of us. If you think this is the Democrats supporting this you are incorrect. There are vote buyers from both political parties. In order to get this bill passed in the Senate both Senators from North Carolina, (R)Richard Burr and (R) Elizabeth Dole are pushing this through. Could it be that these two are willing to sell out the federal tax payers to give people in there voting district free money?
Are we really surprised by this? The list of people/organizations/companies in our own country and around the world wanting free money can go on forever. I personally know of someone who lived in a tax payer funded shelter. Received food and clothing from this shelter, and had school paid for by the city as well. The best part is the city would over pay his school and give him the refund check. He would then go out and blow it on new sneakers and clothes. We used to joke he was the best dressed man in the shelter. Although in reality the shelter was filled with people like him.
There is also the unearned income tax credit in which people receive more money back then put in depending on their income. I have an idea, how about I decide what happens to my money, where it goes and who gets it. I probably will decide to keep it for my self. How selfish am I?
Then of course there is the dangerous hand outs by our government. Aid to countries like North Korea or areas like Palestine using tax payer money is rampant. I don't know about you, but I would rather not give money to someone who wants me dead.
The list of people who want what wasn't earned is growing. There will be a time when the people who earn the money are outnumbered by the people who steal it. The politicians on both sides are to blame for this. If America is truly a free country a person should have a right to the fruits of his own labor and not be forced to give Charity to people he does not want to.
-Jcard
(If I left out your favorite welfare recipient here are a few more. Farmers, People in war torn countries, Big companies, the addicted, sports teams, wacko scientists, Universities, politicians themselves, anyone on welfare or food stamps, Dave Letterman, illegals who use our hospitals.....I have to stop here my hands are getting tired.)
The truth of the matter is it goes much deeper than that. They are eligible for many benefits using our money, this includes welfare and tax free income. If you are not outraged by this then you don't have a job. The country has run up huge unfunded liabilities and these morons in congress are handing money to an entire group of people so they can live off the rest of us. If you think this is the Democrats supporting this you are incorrect. There are vote buyers from both political parties. In order to get this bill passed in the Senate both Senators from North Carolina, (R)Richard Burr and (R) Elizabeth Dole are pushing this through. Could it be that these two are willing to sell out the federal tax payers to give people in there voting district free money?
Are we really surprised by this? The list of people/organizations/companies in our own country and around the world wanting free money can go on forever. I personally know of someone who lived in a tax payer funded shelter. Received food and clothing from this shelter, and had school paid for by the city as well. The best part is the city would over pay his school and give him the refund check. He would then go out and blow it on new sneakers and clothes. We used to joke he was the best dressed man in the shelter. Although in reality the shelter was filled with people like him.
There is also the unearned income tax credit in which people receive more money back then put in depending on their income. I have an idea, how about I decide what happens to my money, where it goes and who gets it. I probably will decide to keep it for my self. How selfish am I?
Then of course there is the dangerous hand outs by our government. Aid to countries like North Korea or areas like Palestine using tax payer money is rampant. I don't know about you, but I would rather not give money to someone who wants me dead.
The list of people who want what wasn't earned is growing. There will be a time when the people who earn the money are outnumbered by the people who steal it. The politicians on both sides are to blame for this. If America is truly a free country a person should have a right to the fruits of his own labor and not be forced to give Charity to people he does not want to.
-Jcard
(If I left out your favorite welfare recipient here are a few more. Farmers, People in war torn countries, Big companies, the addicted, sports teams, wacko scientists, Universities, politicians themselves, anyone on welfare or food stamps, Dave Letterman, illegals who use our hospitals.....I have to stop here my hands are getting tired.)
Sunday, June 17, 2007
A CRITICAL TIME
This to me is a critical time in politics. Both the Democrats and Republicans are working hard to put us under their control. The Republicans on one hand are pushing through legalisation that some would argue is a total violation of an individual privacy The democrats are out of control socialists who will turn this country into Cuba if given half the chance. Both have little regard for the Constitution and individual rights.
First the Republicans. I came across an article describing a proposed law which I find extremely dangerous. This law is dubbed the LAW AND ORDER agenda, which is proposed by Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas. Under this bill a ISP would be required to track and retain all information about what a persons web surfing habits are. This not only interferes with our privacy rights, but also the rights of the ISP's themselves. What right does the government have to force a private company t o keep records on its customers? These records can be used not only in criminal, but in civil cases, such as divorces or custody hearings. I understand the need to stop web crime, but it should not come at a violation of our freedoms. I do not think any American wants a database of their daily web use stored about them.
I believe Ben Franklin said it best here
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security"
The Republicans also are attempting to legislate our morality. All one has to do is look at the attempted ban on on-line poker to see an example of this. This may be small rights lost, but anyone who believes they have a right to tell a grown adult what he can do in his/her home has a mentality that the people are his to control.
It should be noted that both these examples have bipartisan support, but the Republicans did take the lead on these.
While Republicans have little respect for privacy and social rights, some of the things coming out of the Democrats mouths are frightening and fly in the face of what this country stands for.
The Democrats would like nothing more than to than to destroy the very foundation of our individual rights and prosperity.....the want to destroy Capitalism. Listening to the Democrats speak one concludeds that they want to replace the idea of the "individual" with the idea of society. This starts with destroying capitalism.
These quotes from leading Democrats speak for themselves...
We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society. --Hillary Clinton
I support a health care plan that would cover every child and millions of vulnerable adults, and also bring down health costs for all Americans. I support a strong Patients Bill of Rights, prescription drug benefit in Medicare, and stem cell research- John Edward
Obama says he is "determined to enact universal health care by the end of his first presidential term".
I prefer a 'we're all in it together' society. I believe our government can
once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American
tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none...There is
no greater force for economic growth than free markets. But markets work
best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all
people a chance to succeed. Fairness doesn't just happen. It requires the
right government policies." - Hillary Clinton
Well, what we've offered already, in fact, and that is, of course, we ought to be saying here that when the price of a barrel of oil gets beyond $40 a barrel, where there's plenty of profit here, that those dollars ought to be returned to the consumers in a rebate or plowed back into the research that would allow us to develop alternative technologies. -Chris Dodd
Obama on Insurance . So my emphasis is on driving down the costs, taking on the insurance companies, making sure that they are limited in the ability to extract profits and deny coverage; that we make sure the drug companies have to do what's right by their patients instead of simply hording their profits.
I can go on, but I will stop here. The Democrats will stop at nothing to control every American by putting them in a health program they do not want and forcing them to pay for it. They will add to the budget deficit and the overall size of government. They will also want to take control over the economy by controlling companies that have been successful. Today it is big oil and health care companies, tomorrow who knows.
Once they are given the power to take some companies profits, why not all?
Hillary's comments regarding the individual were most disturbing. This country was founded on individual rights and prosperity.The constitution says " we have a right to pursue happiness" not the right to demand happiness from the people who did pursue it.
This is a critical time in our society, before voting in the "lesser of two evils" think. We can not afford to have one more right no matter how small, taken away from us.
First the Republicans. I came across an article describing a proposed law which I find extremely dangerous. This law is dubbed the LAW AND ORDER agenda, which is proposed by Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas. Under this bill a ISP would be required to track and retain all information about what a persons web surfing habits are. This not only interferes with our privacy rights, but also the rights of the ISP's themselves. What right does the government have to force a private company t o keep records on its customers? These records can be used not only in criminal, but in civil cases, such as divorces or custody hearings. I understand the need to stop web crime, but it should not come at a violation of our freedoms. I do not think any American wants a database of their daily web use stored about them.
I believe Ben Franklin said it best here
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security"
The Republicans also are attempting to legislate our morality. All one has to do is look at the attempted ban on on-line poker to see an example of this. This may be small rights lost, but anyone who believes they have a right to tell a grown adult what he can do in his/her home has a mentality that the people are his to control.
It should be noted that both these examples have bipartisan support, but the Republicans did take the lead on these.
While Republicans have little respect for privacy and social rights, some of the things coming out of the Democrats mouths are frightening and fly in the face of what this country stands for.
The Democrats would like nothing more than to than to destroy the very foundation of our individual rights and prosperity.....the want to destroy Capitalism. Listening to the Democrats speak one concludeds that they want to replace the idea of the "individual" with the idea of society. This starts with destroying capitalism.
These quotes from leading Democrats speak for themselves...
We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society. --Hillary Clinton
I support a health care plan that would cover every child and millions of vulnerable adults, and also bring down health costs for all Americans. I support a strong Patients Bill of Rights, prescription drug benefit in Medicare, and stem cell research- John Edward
Obama says he is "determined to enact universal health care by the end of his first presidential term".
I prefer a 'we're all in it together' society. I believe our government can
once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American
tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none...There is
no greater force for economic growth than free markets. But markets work
best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all
people a chance to succeed. Fairness doesn't just happen. It requires the
right government policies." - Hillary Clinton
Well, what we've offered already, in fact, and that is, of course, we ought to be saying here that when the price of a barrel of oil gets beyond $40 a barrel, where there's plenty of profit here, that those dollars ought to be returned to the consumers in a rebate or plowed back into the research that would allow us to develop alternative technologies. -Chris Dodd
Obama on Insurance . So my emphasis is on driving down the costs, taking on the insurance companies, making sure that they are limited in the ability to extract profits and deny coverage; that we make sure the drug companies have to do what's right by their patients instead of simply hording their profits.
I can go on, but I will stop here. The Democrats will stop at nothing to control every American by putting them in a health program they do not want and forcing them to pay for it. They will add to the budget deficit and the overall size of government. They will also want to take control over the economy by controlling companies that have been successful. Today it is big oil and health care companies, tomorrow who knows.
Once they are given the power to take some companies profits, why not all?
Hillary's comments regarding the individual were most disturbing. This country was founded on individual rights and prosperity.The constitution says " we have a right to pursue happiness" not the right to demand happiness from the people who did pursue it.
This is a critical time in our society, before voting in the "lesser of two evils" think. We can not afford to have one more right no matter how small, taken away from us.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Vicitms?
Victims?
Everywhere you turn you hear stories of people who are going through foreclosures. These poor people are usually labeled victims of the mean mortgage companies or builders who took advantage of them, by giving them money they could not afford. Most of the time we hear of "predatory lending" as if these people are out in the woods and they are hunted by a mortgage agent.The news story usually shows us average an American family who had their life ruined by these evil companies. It tells tales of how they can't get other loans, their credit is ruined or even worse, they are forced into bankruptcy.Government agencies are lining up to help these poor people. Laws are being are being passed all over the country to stop predatory lending, and programs (with our money) are being set up to help people keep their houses.I have another name for these victims....DEADBEATS!
Only in America can a person borrow hundreds of thousands of dollars from someone, not pay them back, stick them with a house they don't want and then turn around and be considered a victim. Wouldn't the victim be the person who isn't getting paid back? How are the banks somehow the criminals in all this? THEY LOST THE MONEY! It is like breaking into someone's house and then demanding they get arrested.These deadbeats have to remember that they entered into a mutual contract, we lend you money you pay us back.But aren't these people tricked into loans they can't a afford? If you are borrowing over a hundred thousand dollars spend a few minutes going over the details. It is incredibly easy to find all the information you need when buying a house. Google "tips for buying a house", I bet all the information they would ever need will be at your fingertips.If these con artists spend half the time getting informed on how to buy a house as they did on watching American Idol they wouldn't be in this mess.
Everywhere you turn you hear stories of people who are going through foreclosures. These poor people are usually labeled victims of the mean mortgage companies or builders who took advantage of them, by giving them money they could not afford. Most of the time we hear of "predatory lending" as if these people are out in the woods and they are hunted by a mortgage agent.The news story usually shows us average an American family who had their life ruined by these evil companies. It tells tales of how they can't get other loans, their credit is ruined or even worse, they are forced into bankruptcy.Government agencies are lining up to help these poor people. Laws are being are being passed all over the country to stop predatory lending, and programs (with our money) are being set up to help people keep their houses.I have another name for these victims....DEADBEATS!
Only in America can a person borrow hundreds of thousands of dollars from someone, not pay them back, stick them with a house they don't want and then turn around and be considered a victim. Wouldn't the victim be the person who isn't getting paid back? How are the banks somehow the criminals in all this? THEY LOST THE MONEY! It is like breaking into someone's house and then demanding they get arrested.These deadbeats have to remember that they entered into a mutual contract, we lend you money you pay us back.But aren't these people tricked into loans they can't a afford? If you are borrowing over a hundred thousand dollars spend a few minutes going over the details. It is incredibly easy to find all the information you need when buying a house. Google "tips for buying a house", I bet all the information they would ever need will be at your fingertips.If these con artists spend half the time getting informed on how to buy a house as they did on watching American Idol they wouldn't be in this mess.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
