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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
