Hands in the Cookie Jar

I have a good friend in politics, and we chat a good bit about current events.  This is an email I wrote him regarding the recent budget that passed:

To the point you made a day or so ago about everything being cut (in the budget), it occurred to me that at the point in time when so many people have their hands in the proverbial cookie jar there could be one of only two solutions: break the hands or break the jar.  I submit to you that both must be broken in order for the problem to be eliminated.  The politician seeks to constantly remake the cookie jar through means of repainting while the hands always seek the newest opening.  Until the opening clamps down on the probing finger, a probing finger will always probe.  Until the cookie jar is shattered, someone will always want to fill it with cookies, especially when the recipients of the cookies are so willing to love the baker.

Poison the cookies, bind the hands, and dash the jar.  Create a society where each person maintains his own cookies, is forced to bake them on his own, and is allowed to keep his cookies under lock and key, and armed guard if required.  Touch my cookies without my permission and the toucher shall be appropriately bent into the shape of a carnival pretzel.  Allow those ascribing the fallacies of Karl Marx to create their commune as long as it does not infringe upon those of us who ascribe more to John Locke and Adam Smith.  I would rather see a Marxist absolutely smited by the Invisible Hand as to play with them any longer.

The Point of Viability

A fetus at 20 weeks has a brain, responds to external stimuli, and studies show it can feel pain.  Further, a fetus at 20 weeks can potentially survive a premature birth although in an incubator for a while.  One may argue these facts at 20 weeks, but 24 is the generally accepted time at this point.  Rowe vs. Wade merely states that up until the time a fetus becomes viable, the decision to terminate is a medical decision, but it does not state that after viability (24 weeks) termination is OK.

If you want to take a stand before the 24 week mark, that is fine, but let's not hide behind R vs. W to legitimize the killing of infants after the medically accepted point of viability.  When that 24 week infant is extracted from the womb, it stands a good chance of survival because it is viable.  

This isn't religious.  This is science.  Viability.  The ability of a fetus to survive outside the womb at 24 weeks is scientifically proven, yet the left wing chooses to fight for the right to terminate up until the day prior to birth.  Not a zygote.  An infant.  To snip his/her spine in the eighth month is nothing different that flicking the switch on an incubator in the NICU of a 2 month premature baby.  Don't euphamize it, and don't legitimize it.

Being in the Corporatist State

I can't believe there are people who think that the party of their affiliation is actually against the corporations that they seemingly cannot stand.  Bizarre.

Both political parties reap millions from corporations and politicians reap millions from lobbyists working for coroporations, so when you see a bill that supposedly "restricts" a corporation, how can you sincerely believe that there are no lobby dollars behind it.  As a matter or reason, one might think that politicians--with reputations to vote with their donors--would not then vote against the companies who supplied their donations.  Ridiculous.

Regulations are barriers to entry that prevent smaller companies from ever being able to compete against the so called "oligarchs" as some of you choose to call them.  Ask yourself this question: If Henry Ford lived today, would he have been able to build his car and get it to market?  The answer is no because the large auto manurfacturers have paid lobbyists who managed to buy regulations and red tape that would put Henry Ford in jail or at least keep him from realizing his dream.

If you claim to be anti-corporation, then you really ought to consider being anti-politician.  They are hooked together at the hips.  When you hear of a law that supposedly "protects" the people, you might ought to ask yourself who really stands to gain from this law.  There isn't a single law passed that does not benefit someone somewhere.  Companies always benefit from every single regulation, i.e. regulatory capture.

Claim to be for the little guy, yet rail against freedom and privatization.  In the corporatist state, the little guy is the only one with freedom left until they convince you that you really do need to rent the air to breathe.  Wake up people.  There are no second chances.

Conservatives for the Little Guy

Liberals say conservatives support big businesses. No. We don't. We don't support big business because big business buys votes and bastardizes the system.

Conservatives support small business, freedom to do what one chooses, and reduction in protective regulations--bought and paid for by big business--that create barriers to entry for anyone with less than millions of dollars to compete against the largest companies.

Conservatives are not pro business. Conservatives believe in the little guy.

You can read about a big business plan to pervert or system here.

Death of Innovation

If Henry Ford lived today, I doubt he would be able to build his car, let alone bring it to market.  Corporate regulations, paid for by big businesses, would halt his ability to complete his dream.

Winds of Change

Since the beginning of recorded history, has there ever been a country or government to withstand the test of time or the winds of change? Has any government ever not experienced such major change that shook it to its foundations to make it new again?

I don't think such a country has existed, and if not, how arrogant--and naive--are we, as Americans, to presume that we could never undergo the same fate?

Sebelius: Obama Didn't Know About Website Problems Before Launch

Isn't this how all Presidents, on the eve of their most historic initiative which they've undertaken, discover the glaring flaws in their most cherished programs?  Is this not Obama's biggest, most important "accomplishment" as president?  Does anyone but me ever wonder why Obama only hears about problems after the fact by watching the news?  Do we realize that what it means is that the news media knows more than the "leader of the free world"?Here's a person who supposedly ordered the secret killing of bin Laden, yet he doesn't know that a website doesn't work after a two week government showdown that preceded it and in the midst of tons of negative publicity provided to it by the GOP.  

One might actually think that a proactive person would ensure that a program of such importance to Obama might be tested a thousand times just to ensure success so that he would be able to thumb his nose at his opponents and scream at the top of his lungs, "I TOLD YOU SO!!"  Instead, we hear from Sebelius the quote below, yet her quote doesn't make any sense at all because if she means what she says, then what does it say about her ability to complete "The most important work I've ever done in my life".  

Wow, the most important work you've (Sebelius) ever done, and it failed in front of 250 million people.  Isn't it a bit like walking out on stage thinking you have your clothes on only to discover that you are actually naked?  I challenge anybody to point to a chief executive as inept as Obama and his "team" of nonchalants.

Sebelius: "This is the most important work I've ever done in my life — delivering on an historic act, making sure that we have health security for the millions of Americans," she said. "I think my job is to get this fully implemented and to get the website working right ... I work at the pleasure of the president."

Sebelius: Obama Didn't Know About Website Problems Before Launch

Freedom rising

Are we the fringe? Are we in the minority who believe Obama is a fool? Are we isolating ourselves from the rest of society who actually like this guy?

If we are not, then where is the outrage? Where are the angry hordes demanding an end to his antics?

I'm losing hope in this body politic. These moochers who demand more from me while refusing me that for which I have worked are beyond tolerable. They are dastardly devils bent on class destruction to the ill will of those who have more. It is a jealous rage that drives these freeloaders to the point of their own destruction.

I'm ready for freedom. I'm ready for justice. I'm ready for a constitutional rebound that will set back in place the rights which the moocher class chipped away like beavers building their own little fortress. If there be justice in this world, then let it be brought down upon their heads for the country which they destroyed.

The Answer To Internet Sales Tax

My answer to sales tax fairness between brick mortar companies and online retailers? Abolish the sales tax. It is outdated apparently, and why give the government more regulatory authority than it already has? Freeing the brick and mortar store from its responsibility to pay sales tax instantly levels the playing field.  If the government or voters don't like that, then shift the burden to the consumer. In the same way the state expects its residents to pay sales tax on their own initiative when purchasing from online retailers, let consumers use the honor system when purchasing from brick mortar stores as well.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/10/19/illinois-high-court-throws-out-amazon-sales-tax/3039065/

The Nature of Mankind

It is the nature of mankind to seek control over others.  It is also the nature of mankind to resist being controlled; therefore, in order to control anyone, you must first convince them that they want it when they really do not.

A Principled Stand Against National Healthcare

Someone asked me to convince them why the fight against Obamacare is not based upon greed.  I stated that the Founding Fathers did not intend for big federal programs to exist, and his response was that they had no concept of such programs.  There's nothing to convince.  While government healthcare may not have been conceived during that period, other social services were.  There may be an argument for national healthcare, but it is not a Constitutional one.

Who said anything about greed?  I'm not greedy, yet I oppose it.  I am rational; therefore, I know that anything the government stimulates results in malformed equilibrium.  It is not possible for the government to create mandates without setting an entire situation off kilter.

As long as we rely upon other individuals, not ourselves, to provide healthcare, it will not be a basic right.  In other words, not everyone will have access to everything because the supply is limited.  Complicated brain surgeries, heart transplants, face transplants, experimental cancer treatments, etc. are all limited by scarcity of supply.  Someone needing treatment will be denied.  If it were a human right, there would be no denials, and since it is a person actually performing the medical service, who is anyone to order them (the doctor, hospital, or treatment center) to do it?

If I'm a brain surgeon, I may choose not to operate on someone for my own reasons.  You cannot force me to do it; therefore, your need for a complicate brain surgery may be a need to you but not to me.  You have no right to care.  I may provide it, but it is up to me to decide, and you are free to seek care elsewhere.

The move afoot to identify health care as a human right, as if it were air to breathe, is a bastardization of principles.  Identifying healthcare as a right obligates individuals (doctors) to provide care when they may not choose to do so.  We are not cattle, and we will accept orders for only so long.  The pile of barricades in front of the White House is proof enough of my point of view.

Government Shutdown: Day 14

Is it just me, or did the government stop picking up all the dog poo? I understand furloughing the park rangers, but the dang dogs still got to go. Seriously, stuff been piling up in my yard ever since the government poo collector stopped coming after the government shutdown.

Government Shutdown: Day 13

Here it is, Day 13 of the Government Shutdown.  After the plague of frogs and now the boils, I'm not sure what the next problem will be.  I saw what looked like tiny flying horses today with huge stingers on their tails, and the rivers have turned blood red.  For a moment, I even think the sun went black.  I think they were right about this Obama dude.

Statistics and Truth. Two Different Realities.

The real truth about statistics is that it is possible to pull numbers that demonstrate a correlation between food stamps here in America and genocide in third world countries.  The lesson learned is that you can pull and manipulate statistics to match your viewpoint all day long, but what you cannot do is manipulate the human spirit to accept that which they find unacceptable.

Government Shutdown: Day 8

To my chagrin, I'm now foraging for nuts with my neighbors, the squirrels.  I figure that if anyone knows how to survive during a recession, it has to be the squirrel.  Laugh it up people, but when the dollar falls out and you find yourself panning for pennies at the local pool, I'll be sitting high and dry up in the oaks with a fist full of acorns and pecans chowing down.  And when the revenuers come to collect my nuts, I'll be chucking some down and giving something to cry about.  That's the problem with Obama, he wants to put his hands all over our nuts as if he doesn't have his own or can't find them.  I guess it mostly comes from the fact that his wife looks like a beaver: big buck teeth with a big fat tail.  If she was more squirrel like, he might keep better track of his nuts.  But then again, Obama shows more in common with a gelding than with a steed.

In short, here it is folks, from the heartland.  John Shepard foraging for food in advance of the government shutdown's fallout.  Remember, you heard it here first!

Government Shutdown: Day 7

Today was the dog's day of reckoning.  He got neutered for the good of the people.  Due to the shutdown, our vet was to be furloughed at the start of next week as part of government indoctrination into a new form of birth control.  When asked by the vet if he wanted to keep his nuts, the poor dog just said "Woof".  WTF?  You would think it would be higher on his priority list, but I guess not.  It will be government cheese and no more tail from here on out.  God save the Queen!

Words of Wisdom

One of the great downfalls of our society is an activist judiciary which does not seek to limit government but to find ways to justify it.

Strength in Numbers

Oh this is so well said and true. When we gather together to withdraw our influence, we can change the world.

We No Longer Own Our Federal Land

Due to the shutdown, people can no longer access federal lands. What happened before the land was a national park? Seems to me that lack of guards has  nothing to do with access, or at least it shouldn't. Whose property is it anyway? The taxpayers'. Ability to protect it from what? Ourselves? Who is in charge here? Is our them?

When we establish a national park, is it predicated upon the ability to  provide professional supervision? Why? In the absence of federal law enforcement, are we not allowed to live our lives? Are we barred access from our national treasures? What would happen if the park service were to be given permanent furloughs? Permanent shutdown?

The entire situation is a power grab by the federal government, and the fact that we have allowed it to come this far is outlandish. It is the perfect example of how dysfunctional government is and why they shouldn't be in the business of running anything.

When police go on strike, do they close the streets? The city Hall? When no lifeguards are at the beach, do they close the beach, or do they post a sign describing how you must swim at your own risk if you insist upon swimming? Federal officials have no moral authority to close a park simply because they cannot man the park.

When federal furloughs prevent park services from running, what is to stop the park from remaining open without services? Are there not rangers currently barricading the entries? Those park rangers can respond to distress calls instead of blocking entry. It might even be possible to let visitors know that dangerous conditions exist that prevent officials from responding right away. Further, county sheriffs are constitutionally responsible for protecting life and property anywhere in their counties. One might presume that a sheriff's office might respond to calls about violence or vandalism at the park.

The only reason to shut a park at this point in our society would be to exert power over patronage. The ability to close private companies down on private land is something that only a bureaucrat could enjoy. Common sense dictates that these private companies might actually provide sufficient community supervision in the absence of park officials, but then we might just discover that these rangers might not be needed so much after all.

The fact that certain companies are allowed to remain open while others are shuttered is suspect as well. Upscale hotels in parks remain open because they are "leased" while common concessionaires are closed? Never underestimate the power of elites to find loopholes that exempt them from the plight of the common man. Coincidence that one in question is in Feinstein's neck of the woods?

Regardless of political persuasion, it is entirely obvious that the American people are victims of political gamesmanship. The party in power limits access in hopes that it will blow up in the face of the minority party because the minority power chose to use the only remaining leverage that it had. The truth is that there was no need to negatively impact anyone. Open air monuments need not be closed, and parks could remain open if not for average voters wanting to actually visit--the goal being to anger them to vote out those being blamed for their exclusion of course.  The people currently guarding the parks to prevent access should be providing the services and ensuring access to land the taxpayers pay taxes to enjoy.

As Americans, our ability to enjoy our land ought not depend upon the government's ability to ensure our own safe conduct, and local law enforcement can already protect life and property. Welcome to the world of being a political pawn. Now let's hope our brothers and sisters wake up, rebuke the administration's efforts to restrict access, and speak loud and clear that we will never be caged. No exceptions.

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/6/national-park-rangers-ordered-to-keep-visitors-out/

Government Shutdown: Day 6

John Shepard reporting from inside the Government Shutdown right here at its epicenter: The Shepard Household.  As expected, the alarm clocks seem to be running a bit slower today no doubt due to the government clock failing to send out regular updates.  It also appears that cell phone service is getting faster now that the NSA relay awaits funding.  We went to church this morning and found that it surprisingly is still present.  Thinking that the government wrought disaster might shake to the ground all private institutions, we did not know what might be left of the church building, but we were pleasantly surprised.  More annoying than anything are the neighborhood dogs which seem to be defecating in yards more ever since the shutdown began.  Notwithstanding the minefields left by roving canines, the ravaging hordes of feral cats have been getting more gutsy now that the Human Society may be furloughing their workers.  Oh yeah, and the milk I bought yesterday spoiled.  Stand by tomorrow for my next update, right here in middle America.

Proud to be American

Proud to be American, but embarrassed by many of those who call themselves Americans. You and I are not of the same mold. I remain the same self sufficient type of patriot that founded this country while so many of you have become the freeloading type of leech who merely sucks the life from that which we built.

My Contribution to the Discussion?

Someone asked me in reference to the debate over healthcare: What contribution do you wish to make?  On the surface, it sounds like a great question.  What a great way to foster constructive debate, but wait a second.  Who is anyone to have a say in anything that affects me?  What follows is my response to this individual's presumption that we should have a debate at all:

It isn't my responsibility, nor the government's, to make your life, my life, or anyone else's life any better than what each person decides to make of his or her own life.

In short, I have no contributions other than what I may do to help my fellow person one on one.  What you, and others like you, need to learn is to mind your own business, and stop meddling in the affairs of free people.

No one in our society deserves anything other than the freedoms delineated within the Bill of Rights.  If you desire help or assistance, you should get a job.

Government Shutdown: Day 5

This is John Shepard reporting on Day 5 of the government shutdown as felt within my own domicile.  As expected, the shutdown hit hardest upon the milk supply.  Today, my milk ran out.  Short of finding a cow, I've decided to make a run to Sam's Club and pick up another gallon or two.  Let's pray they have skim because the 2% tastes like cardboard.  In other news, our toilet paper supply is holding steady although we've rationed the kids to two squares per wipe, and we've locked up the kleenex.  Who would have thought that a government shutdown would result in picking our noses with bare fingers because the Kleenex supply is not guaranteed?  Oh, the humanity!  In any case, I am at work today because the shutdown has not had the desired effect of giving me time off.  Perhaps if I worked for the government, I could take a much deserved break, but curse these people wanting to give me money for services.  This dang private economy is for workers, and I'm about fed up!  I'm ready to go surf some waves from TS Karen dangit!  Government shutdown, you are pathetic!  You can't even get a shutdown right such that I can get some time off!!!!  Standby for future reports on the government shutdown as it unfolds.  Right here.  In the heartland.  John Shepard signing off.  Be safe, it is a riotous mess in the streets.

The Last Stand

And when we've had enough, when we've exhausted all patience, when the last drop of sweat is rendered from the ploughsharer's brow, when the last of the people have had struggled too long, then we will stand, but by then, will it be too late?

Government shutdown: Day 4

Day 4 of the government shutdown is almost over. I'm at a birthday party for my son and the good news is that the pizza is still warm and the cake managed to have sugar in spite of the shutdown. Riots have not begun in the streets but tourists are everywhere. They still have their clothes on. More later.

Cruz Against the Establishment

I'll tell you one thing: One word describes Ted Cruz. American.

An anonymous senator complains like a baby because Cruz gets more attention. Reach down and grab a pair you crybaby. Cruz gets more attention because he commands it. It is called command presence.

If the rest of you senators had backbone, then we wouldn't be in the predicament that we're  currently in. Cruz would not have had to go nuclear. You weaklings in the senate needed to be shaken from your sleep.

Establishment senators became complacent in their fat and happy ways. Becoming what we most despise, they decided to live off the graft of DC instead of standing on principle, so Cruz, Paul, and Lee lit a fire that the others could not extinguish. Let it burn. Raise the flag. Let us stand!

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/coburn-mcconnell-senate-leadership/2013/10/03/id/529128?ns_mail_uid=64886509&ns_mail_job=1540176_10032013&promo_code=1513A-1

Battered Voter Syndrome

Maybe Barrack was right.  Perhaps we grew up hearing voices telling us not to trust government and warning us about some crazy tyranny.  Barrack may be onto something by encouraging us to wave off those voices, to submit to them, to allow the government to work in the way Barrack sees fit.  Let's see what that means.

If we're going to accept government as a pathway to everything, we really have to get past the mistrust and overcome the idea that the abusive husband is somehow responsible for his actions.  Like the government, the abusive husband is misunderstood in that he really does know best.  When he beats his wife and kids, it isn't out of hate or misery.  No, it is out of love.  You see, the abusive husband simply wants what is best for his family, so he shows them attention.  The government is the same way.  If not for the government, we all might walk off a cliff because deep down inside all of us are lemmings seeking to follow a criminal down the path to destruction.

When the government prevents us from hurting ourselves, it is for our own good.  We cannot possibly know when to quit drinking sodas, smoking cigarettes, or how to take our birth control.  Likewise, the woman who received the severe beating from her husband ought not have looked at him so harshly or perhaps should have fetched his beer sooner.  The government simply needs more authority to do its job.  Without more authority to kick down doors, it is quite possible that even your next door neighbor may be abusing cats, or worse, molesting them.  We really need to put a stop to this tomfoolery.

Currently, as our government grows, we get more and more guidance, which of course we need to survive.  What if no laws existed to govern the production of toothbrushes?  Can you imagine the oral decay that would occur?  We would all look like the Deliverance Gang, yet not all of us actually grew up in Kentucky.  I don't want to worry about my teeth falling out simply because Toothbrush Inc. decided to sell me a pipe cleaner as a fake toothbrush.  How will I know without government inspections on the toothbrush plant?

In short, the government is not at fault when the NSA spies, the IRS bullies, or people die in Benghazi.  In Fast and Furious, those weapons needed to be sold to druglords in Mexico in order to punish supposedly law abiding gun owners.  We all know they aren't law abiding.  They simply had not had the time to commit a crime yet, but they will eventually.

Give the government the benefit of the doubt, and stop hating abusive husbands.  Better to be abused and loved than to have never been loved at all.  The shackles only hurt a little bit and even then only for a short period of time.  Relax, it's just a pin prick.

A Non-Intervention Approach

As Americans, we have the fortune to be buffeted on both sides by large oceans with neighbors to our north and south who ostensibly are our allies and peaceful.  The rest of the world throughout history has fought regular conflicts right in their cities, but modern weaponry brings new capabilities to places not seen before.  We ought not ignore what may be a provocation to another, and we should not take lightly that our might exercised incorrectly is unjust.  Woe be it for our nation to be the oppressor.

I'm not afraid to fight.  Having been a Marine, it comes natural, but I believe in fighting for a cause worth defending.  When called and threatened, I can meet force with force, but do not take advantage of my willingness.  To send me and my kind into a battle that is not our own is foolhardy at best and dangerously oppressive at worst.  

What we need to provide for ourselves is security, and security always comes in the form of stability.  Will attacking Syria achieve stability?  If attacking Syria can remotely result in instability, then the attack should not occur irrelevant to the justifications by humanitarian reasons.  Will attacking Syria result in a conflict spilling outside of the borders?  Does history demonstrate this?  History demonstrates that middle eastern conflicts stay regional and do not go global.  In short, there is no precedence for an uprising in Syria to spread outside of the Middle East.  There is a precedent for unseating secular dictators that results in total instability.  Is instability good for America?

Syria without Assad may very well result in another religious government.  Would this be better than the current secular dictator?  Look at other middle eastern religious government like Iran.  Are their ayatollahs friendly?  Do they advance our interests?  Or do they work counter to our interests?  I think the answer is clear.

Unseat Assad, the secular dictator, and risk throwing Syria into religious extremism.  Further destabilize an already volatile region and we will lay the groundwork for the next generation of extremists to invade us covertly in order to bomb us in our own country.  If we cannot maintain a non-interventionist strategy for the middle east, we will eventually bring the conflict to our own cities, and what then?

Capitalism Works. Use It.

Remove the government from economics and you have at the very lowest level, people trading with each other, deciding on their own what everything is worth.  Ever been to a yard sale?  Ever buy a car?  People buying a selling makes the economy go.  Government regulations?  Not so much.  Capitalism.  Always worked.  Always will.

I Stand With Rand. Still.

Wonderful way to grab a sound byte and twist it to your will.  Unfortunately for this meme, actions speak louder than words.  Show me when Rand prevented people from walking to a river and collecting water, from digging a well to pump water, or from placing out cisterns to collect rainwater, and I will tell you he is a communist.  Since none of these are what he's discussing (if he even said these words), I call BS on you Rand-haters.

No one has a "right" to have their water delivered to them, in bottles, pipes, or otherwise.  Water is a natural resource, and I've never heard anyone claim to own it at all.  They sell a service in collecting it and distributing it or in purifying it.  If you have a problem with that, go find your water the way people did thousands of years ago or the way they do in Africa right now.

Rand is one of a handful of people Congress right now fighting Republicans and Democrats alike to shine a light on government interference.  Actions, ladies and gentlemen.

I am a free man

At the end of the day, I'm a free man. If I push back, it's because I see people dragging me into statism where you have to apply for everything, and the centralized control ends up being controlled by money. I don't have the money to buy a favor; do you? Allowing the state to grasp control over your money and control your ability to buy and sell is nothing less than attaching the leash to your own neck, and it doesn't happen overnight. One hundred years ago, people lived and breathed the same as they do now except that now you have to have a permit to do anything, but you are OK with it because it is all you've known. You vote for more of it because "Security" is the promise, and piece by piece, you sell your kids into a new age of indentured servitude. You can keep it. As for me and mine, we will fight to prevent it.

Pensions Are Cannibalizing the Nation’s Young People by Joy Pullman

So true.  The law of conservation of energy states that energy is neither created or destroyed.  It is analagous to capital.  Government mandated pensions simply redistribute capital thus negating people's natural drive toward self preservation, and it sounds something like this, "Well, that's taken care of, so I'll just go do this instead of that, like buy a boat, or smoke more cigarettes."

The lesson of scarcity for big government types to learn is that people, like animals, will wake every day intent on feeding, clothing, and sheltering themselves.  When you provide those services free of charge, it boosts capital above naturally scarce levels and enables them to allocate their capital in otherwise irresponsible ways.  Have you ever seen people using food stamps for their food and then use their own money for beer and cigarettes?  If they had to choose between food and beer with their own scarce resources, what would they choose?  Let them live and die by their own choices.  Food or beer.  You decide.

Pensions Are Cannibalizing the Nation’s Young People - Joy Pullman - Page 1

Statism: The End Justifies the Means

No shortages exist of statist people wishing to bring down the republic. Ignorance of history is no logic, and these people produce nothing yet take everything. Their Machiavellian ways submit the end to justify the means, and no matter what gets in their way, they seek to destroy it. Theirs is an uncivilized way that seeks to subvert the individual in favor of the state, to minimize and marginalize the individual at the cost of freedom yet done in the name of that which it destroys. They are a scandalous clan. Elitist to the core, they will not stop until the little people (we) pay enough taxes that their rich and lavish lifestyles may be supported without interruption on the taxpayer's dime.

Political Censorship in Progress: Did Missouri Rodeo Clown/Obama Stunt Go Too Far?

I am a private citizen, and I approved this message:

Respect for elected officials?  Reverence for those chosen to lead us?  At what price, and at what cost?  Further, who decides when criticism is disrespectful or has gone too far?  It sounds like a job for the Morality Police to me, but wait, we do not have that....yet....

As Americans, we reserve the right to treat disrespectfully anyone that we choose.  All one needs to do is pick up the newspaper to see the pages littered intermittently with articles decrying politicos of both parties, so why are we supposed to care when one receives a particularly pointed attack?  Have you ever seen Saturday Night Live?  If not, and satirically horrendous comedy offends you, then you better start asking the FCC to police our discourse because SNL is one show that takes presidential criticism to entirely new levels.

Clown Obama Missouri: Did rodeo stunt go too far? - CSMonitor.com

Personally, I take part in elections, and politicians are employees of the government.  Politicians have no hereditary advantage or unique assignment in receiving their office; therefore, we owe no allegiance to any person tasked with serving the country--especially when they volunteer to do it.  Before you start feeling sorry for politicians, take a look at their compensation package, which continues for life, and their benefits package.  Keep in mind that they just exempted themselves from Obamacare while the rest of us suffer through the unknown.  How many of you go to work everyday and eat worldclass cuisine for a paltry $5 per meal at a taxpayer funded, high class diner right on site in the capitol?

Upon last examination, I discovered that the history of politicians holds plenty of corruption, and when tasked with the greatest decisions, the short end of the stick hits the public up side the head most of the time.  Considering everything to which politicians have subjected us, who will hold them accountable if not for the American People?  So far, the American People are not doing such a hot job, yet we are supposed to refrain from throwing personal insults or having good fun at their expense?  Spare me the civilities while I shed a tear for Lord Nelson over this conundrum.

Most egregious of all are people who proclaim that this rodeo stunt had something to do with Obama's blackness.  Really?  As if there is not enough Sharpton and Jackson around, do we need to immediately assert that criticism of Obama is racial?  What about this: I think Obama is the biggest doofus ever to enter the office of the President.  Did I utter the word "black" once in that sentence?  No I did not because his color has nothing to do with it.  I can accept a President of any color as long as the person supports my free way of life, but even if the person does not, it is not because of the person's color.  All people, white, black, orange, yellow, and redneck, are capable of being idiots.  Take a walk through New York City to see for yourself.

Government and Monopoly

The US government is the only monopoly allowed by law. Why would somebody think that a monopoly in government would be so much more efficient than a monopoly in the private sector? if monopoly works so well, then why not establish one for every product?

Inefficiencies and abuse. That's why. But somehow we think that giving our own government more control will achieve a different result. Are we a nation of adults or of adolescent school children? You decide.

Government Sponsored Elitism

Does anyone really believe that government--run by existing Democrats and Republicans--can stop this from happening, or can we agree that government predestines for this course?   Citing early reviews, the Breitbart website described Damon's latest movie "Elysium" as a "big-budget action film that condemns a future Los Angeles where the super-rich use their wealth and privilege to separate themselves and their families from the city's poor."

In the subject article, Jeb Bush Says Matt Damon's a Hypocrite, Matt Damon seemingly castigates us for not allowing the government to have more control?  I don't get it.  You favor public schools, but you want private schools because public schools are somehow not allowed to be as great as they once were.  Is it just me, or is this double speak?

Abuse of power

Only through the continued abuse of power will the American people be driven to action. Hoping that it stops is naive and unproductive. If you want to unleash the beast, you must rattle it's cage....

I stand for freedom

I stand. For freedom. I stand. For supremacy of ideas. I stand. Without a party. I stand. Independent except for my principles. I stand. Defiant.

Come at me. Republicrats. Come at me. Left wingers. Come at me. Socialists. Come at me. Political sellouts. Come at me. Receive what has been destined to you since the creation of our great country.

I stand defiant against the forces of the destroyer who seek to take what our forefathers fought to achieve. I reject collectivism and any attempt to subvert my individuality to that of a faceless society. Regardless of the fallacious reasoning used against me, to defame me, I will never submit. I will never back down. I will never give in. Until the last breath of freedom leaves my dead body, I will resist by all means available against the forces that threaten to lay waste to our principles. I stand on principle, and those principles keep me free and make me American.

The Modern Argument for Labor Unions?

I have a legitimate question. Many argue the positive aspects of labor unions and credit them with the advent of Wage and Hour Laws, the 40 Hour work week, overtime pay, etc.; however, if labor unions are effective, why is there a need for laws to govern the workplace? Pushing for laws to govern what employers can do is completely different from negotiating with employers for better benefits and wages.  Further, it is entirely dissimilar to conducting a strike when the employer refuses to capitulate to reasonable demands.

Within the workplace, small businesses employ over 80% of the workforce, so would it not stand to reason that 80% of the effects of employment laws bare out on the backs of small businesses?  Ever owned a small business?  Ever had to pay a lawyer $150 per hour simply to determine if your small business is compliant with

individual labor laws?  Ever had to place a call to a state agency for advice about a law the state agency must enforce only to have them tell you that you must call an attorney for proper interpretation?  If so, see the $150 per hour attorney question.

Sure, some laws exist that exempt small businesses, such as those governing equal opportunity, the Family Medical Leave Act, etc.; however, those pale in comparison to every other law at local, state, and federal levels.  So, my question is quite simple: If unions are so effective, why the need for all these labor laws?

What if there were no labor laws or any regulations regarding unions?  Imagine if unions could not use the law in their favor but were not restricted by it either.  Together, workers could band together to make choices without using the bully pulpit of government; they could elect their leaders, pay dues if they like, negotiate with employers when required, and strike to their hearts' content.  Likewise, employers could fire strikers, choose not to hire unionized workers, and use their wages, hours, benefits, etc. to compete with other employers in the workplace for talent.  If someone in the union embezzles money or commits a crime against the members, criminal laws already exist to prosecute that criminal--no need for reporting requirements to the government.

What would happen if the free market worked on its own?  If a potential employee wants to work for an individual for $2 per hour, who is the government to stop him?  If a group of people want to walk off a job because of horrid conditions, who are we to stop them?  Eighty percent of employers are small businesses working less than 50 employees in their company, so how can a union activist or a left wing politic argue that these millions of small businesses will somehow be able to suddenly convert to sweatshops and child labor dens?  Really?  That scenario is not only unfeasible but also not even plausible.  A small company with eight employees is in no position to operate itself as a sweatshop, unless of course the economy is so poor that employees work for their share of the meager profits until the company pulls through.  Who is the government to stop it?  At any point in time, there are hundreds of other small businesses potentially looking to hire someone, and if an employee feels like the employer exploits him, he can simply look for an employer within the thousands of other small businesses who might be more compassionate--or he might just start his own small business.

In summary, if a market is free and people are free, then what can stop an individual from making his or her own decision about his or her livelihood?  If small businesses focused on production instead of compliance, perhaps we might find more positions open and more expansion prevalent.  People will always be hungry and for this hunger they will work, invest, toil, and then, yes, they will eat.  Who is better to determine my own destiny than me?

Unions by Another Name?

To Obama, I say, "Be a man."

Mr. Obama, Take this advice from a humble Marine:

When I began my professional career in the Marine Corps, I tackled it from the point of view that my job was to learn, that I knew certain information, but that there were others who knew better.  My job was to learn from them, not condescend them, to use their knowledge to benefit us, not to tear them down.  Consequently, I took stands when I knew something to be right, and when I was wrong, I called on others to assist and never shrank from responsibility.  I wish our leaders practiced my philosophy.

When I watch politicians who make mistakes, it galls me that they refuse to accept responsibility.  Ronald Reagan accepted responsibility for Iran Contra during a nationally televised address, and I found it impressive.  Do other politicians do such?  No.

When faced with malfunction, Obama tries to turn the tables on his critics and uses derogatory terms like "phony scandal" to describe his critics' accusations.  Instead of facing the difficulties, he shifts blame and denies responsibility, and in doing so, he hides from public view whether or not he takes the problems seriously.

Take for instance if Obama stated to everyone, "This is the worst thing that I have ever heard," and he immediately cleaned house, fired people, changed his cabinet officer in charge, and created mass chaos in the organization that operated so errantly.  What would the feedback be?  Personally, I would have a hard time criticizing him for it.

It is time for politicians to accept responsibility, to stand up and be adult about their problems.  Rebuke bad behavior and punish it appropriately.  When confronted with scandal, cut its head off in public view of everyone and clean it out with fire.  Do not equivocate, and through violence of action, seize the initiative to dictate the course of events that beset us on all sides as evil.

The Plight of the Governed...

Ladies & Gents, you know what I find hilariously disturbing?  I will tell you.  The country is ideologically divided, wouldn't you agree?  Half the country likes government one way, and half the country likes government another way.  Would you agree with that statement?  If true, can we seriously state that either side is wrong or right?  To me, it shakes out as one of preference instead of wrong or right.  In other words, it is possible for a government to operate in any size and efficiency, but it depends upon the governed to decide how much they like.

Left wing people favor a more government approach.  Right wing people favor a more private approach.  Politicians favor a more government approach because they, being part of the government, crave job security.  Politicians sell their votes on case by case basis to lobbyists of the highest bidder, and in so doing guarantee a crony capitalist, corporatist, state/corporate run partnership where individuals like us sacrifice our rights for the politician's hidden privileges--those garnered behind the scenes, under tables, and in dark alleys.

The hapless dichotomy of the pro-government approach for the well-meaning left wing activist is that they inadvertently cede more power to the state which encroaches bit by bit upon the individual liberties of everyone, left wing and right wing inclusive.  The well-meaning right wing does the same by falling for other traps involving well intended regulations and laws in other areas.

If we rely upon government to police itself, it seems to be a bit like asking criminal gangs to do the right thing.  If no integrity exists, then what is the plight of the governed?  As for me, I choose freedom from the tentacles of government, and I believe that if a law does not involve criminal activity, i.e. murder, rape, robbery, etc., then that law stands a good chance of not being needed.

Big government people tend to be very altruistic as if government consistently gives us reason to trust it.  On the contrary, if anything, government has given us many more reasons not to trust it, and it solidifies its power with every new law and regulation.  If you want to defang the government and nullify its power, it is best to remove its mechanisms one at a time--if not all at once.

It amazes me that people we charge with protecting our freedom spend most of their time scheming and plotting how to undercut it.  As such, if you like government, have it, but leave the rest of us without it.  It seems more responsible, not to mention considerate, to err on the side of caution and not do anything that encroaches upon the freedom of another.

I stand as a free man and welcome others like me.  If you oppose freedom, I hope you receive that which you desire, and when you achieve it, please do not bother me to release you from your chains.  Those chains are what you fought to receive, and receive them you shall. 

Iraq: A Post Mortem

I don't mind saying that I told you so about Iraq.  I studied history and terrorism in my military training as a Marine enough to know.  Terrorism prospers in areas of instability, and what did we do in Iraq?  We overthrew a stable, albeit tyrannical, regime that was secular in practice and kept the terror beat down.  Tariq Aziz was a Christian and was one of Hussein's key people.  Do you see anything like that in the Middle East?  Ever?  No.

You want to build a case against a tyrant?  Why don't we build a list of tyrants throughout the world?  We can be like a frog, jumping from lily pad to lily pad in search of the next conquest in order to free the world from tyranny one country at a time.  Be prepared to be disappointed though because there is no magic "government in a bottle" that you can pour out on the ruined country and convert it to a western and "civilized" way of life.

Our mentality has to change.  Reacting to clear and present threats to our national security is one thing, but those times are usually fairly evident to most people.  If large majorities of people oppose an action, there may just be justifiable cause for a pause.  Reducing Iraq to its present state served little purpose now that we have removed ourselves from their system.  Since we no longer prop it up, we gave Al Quaeda instant access with no authoritative regime to stamp it out, and we removed the natural opponent, and counterweight, of Iran and Syria.  In short, we shot ourselves in the foot.  Well. How does it feel?

Iraq arm of Al Qaeda says it was responsible for prison raids near Baghdad | Fox News

Killing Freedom.

Obama isn't alone in killing freedom because with every stroke of pen that launches laws into action, a little piece of freedom dies.  Republicans are guilty of this as well in the name of politicians "achieving results" for their constituents.

When you have to employ a lawyer just to understand the laws of a nation, state, or locality, then you might have too large of a government.  You ought not have to pay $150 per hour just to keep yourself inside the lines of federal laws and regulations.

Less laws, less government, more freedom.

Down with Amnesty! Up with Americans!

I've said something repeatedly: the Form I-9 requires employers to check the legal documentation of workers on the first day of employment for all new hires.  Since few companies actually perform the checks and the federal government does not actually check the form that it requires to be completed, millions of illegal workers are gainfully employed by companies performing illegal actions.

I heard some idiot left winger ridicule the concept of "Self Deportation" as if it could not or would never happen.  If the feds all of a sudden started checking the Form I-9, what would happen?  The jobs for illegals would dry up.  What happens when jobs dry up for illegal immigrants?  Self deportation.  Duh, you stupid morons.

You know what happens when illegals leave?  Wage equilibrium in the job market happens.  This means that corporations who previously skated by on illegal labor (bought cheaply) would then have to pay a marketable wage to Americans.  Minimum wage?  Give me a break.  You don't need a minimum wage when you subtract illegal immigration from the equation.  Minimum wage becomes irrelevant.  Illegal immigrants artificially oversupply the labor market, and oversupply drives labor prices down.  When you hear people say: Americans won't clean ditches for what we pay, what they really mean to say is that they cannot get American workers to work for less than American workers demand.  Once you remove the illegal labor crutch from big corporations as well as small businesses, you start to talk about real wage equilibrium.  That's what I'm talking about. 

Separation of Powers and the Two Party System

When the Founding Fathers created our government within the Constitution, they planned it very carefully.  Like skilled craftsmen, they created three branches of government and imbued within each branch its own checks and balances.  The Executive Branch exercises checks over the Legislative Branch through its power of appointments and over the Legislative Branch through veto power.  The Judicial Branch exercises checks over both the Executive and Legislative Branches through judicial review, and finally the Legislative Branch checks the Judicial by approving appointments and the Executive through override and impeachment.  All the checks and balances work together to prevent any one branch from running roughshod over the people, and it works as long as each individual branch performs its function.  What happens when the system breaks down?

In the two party system, it happens frequently that one party controls a large portion of multiple branches.  If the President decides to ignore parts of the Constitution, what happens when members of his own party decide not to exercise the appropriate checks and balances inherent within the other branches they occupy?  What happens to the rule of law?  While it is correct to presume that if Congress approves of the legal actions of a President, then it is correct in allowing his actions to occur, it is entirely different when Congress implicitly approves of policies that are questionable within the Constitution at best and yet do nothing.  Checks and balances are not necessarily only for illegal actions as they can be exercised over policy decisions as well, but are they effectively utilized in either circumstance?

The two party system bastardizes the system of checks and balances within the Constitution.  If the President's party holds significant numbers in another branch, then it has become common practice for Constitutionally questionable policies to devolve into partisan politics.  What happens when the President extends his own power, and his party refuses to allow the opposition to hold him accountable due to partisan bickering or because of fear of the embarrassment for their party?  As the single most focal position in the government as well as the de facto head of his party, the President holds significant sway over the members of his party.  A conflict of interest arises that negatively impacts other party members' willingness to perhaps stand against him, especially in circumstances that are controversial.  In essence, our three branches of government devolve into two sides with whichever side controlling the majority of branches being able to significantly influence the direction of the government regardless of Constitutionality.

The two party system creates two sides where three were intended to be made.  Only the most egregious of infractions can cause one branch to exercise punitive actions against another, and where party is concerned, members in other branches frequently seek to cover the tracks of their compatriot while the opposition seeks to hold him accountable.  What we receive is a travesty of justice in that the individual branches needed to be completely independent regardless of party membership.  After all, what difference does your party membership make where issues of Constitutionality arise?  Would it not be better for the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches to exercise their true checks and balances regardless of affiliation?

Where partisan politics are concerned, the only issues that exist are two sided.  If one party decides to take a stand that defies logic within the framework of the Constitution, there exist no objective parties to stand against it when that party is in power.  Want to expand the powers of the Executive?  As long as your party controls the other two branches, you may as well do it while you can.  As a country, while ideas hold sway, inevitably the minority can find its own rights eroded under the auspices of a balanced government, and this majority need only be half plus one.  This is the tyranny of the majority that the Founding Fathers thought they prevented yet is alive and well today.

Justice Dept Backed Trayvon Martin Rallies?

Federal authorities from DOJ backed Trayvon Martin rallies?  What possible reason can there be to pay a federal employee to attend a rally or assist or recommend how a rally should be organized.  Even if the intent of DOJ is to observe a civil rights rally and to keep it calm, would that not be the job of the local authorities?  We already pay law enforcement for riot control, and local governments already govern peaceful assemblies.  What this shows is the ability of the government to mobilize itself and others against its constituents.  If true, it would be a scary capability.

Report: Justice Dept Backed Trayvon Martin Rallies

The Life of a Politician

Cronyism. Elitism. Nepotism. Careerism. Narcissism.  All these words typify and embody politicians of both parties.  Why do we tolerate it?  A politician's life ought not be enjoyable.  Rather, it necessarily should be one of toil and diligence.  Time off?  No.  It is time to work, and to remain in your physical office until your task is done.  Got rich while being a politician?  What a wonderful way to prove that you were not doing what the people sent you to do.  A politician's life should be no more glamorous than the trash collector's with the same benefits.  Strap them to the plow and demand more from them.  After all, they asked for it.

New Book: Romney Family Voted 10-2 Against Presidential Run

Lack of passion always translates into loss of victory, especially in politics.  George HW Bush had the same issues before he decided to run for reelection in 1992, and it didn't work out so well either.  Don't equivocate.  Attack with authority.

I hope we can all agree that 2016 will be different, and if you cannot, then give it time.  In our Senate, House, and State Houses, we have several strong candidates with extraordinary passion for the country.  Before 2013, most of these men and women were unknown, but they are proving themselves everyday.  In these few, I will place my hope for the future of this country.

New Book: Romney Family Voted 10-2 Against Presidential Run

Key Obamacare Mandate Delayed; GOP Renews Call for Repeal

Today, the Obama Administration decided to delay until 2015 the mandate requiring businesses to provide health coverage for employees or pay fines, but there is still a big problem: The

Bastage already negatively impacted businesses offering healthcare, and many businesses have already dropped it.  After they dropped coverage, now that individual costs have skyrocketed, WTF are those not covered going to do now?  

In summary, the threat of Obamacare caused many individuals to lose coverage previously provided by employers.  Obamacare has already caused premiums to rise for individuals and employers alike.  Now that premiums are higher, how are those previously covered, now not covered, going to afford post-Obamacare rates?  Morons

Key Obamacare Mandate Delayed; GOP Renews Call for Repeal

Third Party? Perhaps...

When I was 16, I decided that I was most like a Libertarian, but I realized that it was not a viable solution.  My beliefs define me; my party membership does not.  Most of my ideas are compatible with the Republican party, but no politician is perfect.  No politician represents everything I believe, nor can any politician be reelected who pursues my priorities.  In order to be elected, a politician must return money to the district, but I believe that politicians should refuse money--not good for votes.

I believe that in each election, I must vote for the person most fit to lead--not refuse to participate.  In the last election, did I believe that Romney was the perfect person?  No, of course not, but it did not stop me from voting for him because I believe Obama is the devil incarnate.

Vote for Gary Johnson?  Gary Johnson needs to demonstrate that he has a basis of support before I go into the voting booth and cast my vote for him or any other Libertarian.  Show me a new party that shares my principles and can garner double digit percentages.  Then I will join ranks.

Back to basics

I'd like to see us disband a great deal of what we know. Order and discipline are good when it comes to discouraging people from killing or hurting one another or another's property, but somewhere along the way, we took a wrong turn. Nowadays, if there is even a perceived hint of public benefit, we do it. Once the reg passes then it's tax and fee time.

We don't need trail hands. We herd ourselves off to the slaughter.

Hillary Says She Wants a Female President. Yeah, Right!

Hypocrisy of the loud female movement.  The loud ones do not represent all women, and they become hypocrites when they refuse to back all females regardless of political viewpoint.  Backtrack to 2008 when Palin was the VP candidate.  Did you see any of the leading female outlets like NOW backing her candidacy?  Having a female VP would have broken a thousand glass ceilings, but NOW would have nothing of it because Palin is an independent female who stands on her own two feet.  Not a part of any feminist movement, she made it to the top through hard work, not by compromising principle.

Save me the rhetoric Hillary.  If the Republicans fielded a Female candidate against a white male Democrat, none of your words would have any meaning.  In spite of the fact that you state that a female president would make a grand statement to everyone in the world, you would only back her if she were necessarily Democrat.

For your overwhelming imbecility and hollow words, I award you fifty BAHAHAs, a lifetime of idiocy, and three virtual backslaps across your face to be awarded by the Conservative female of my choice.


Clinton: Female President Would Send Right Signal