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