I heard an analogy once using monkeys and it goes something like this:
Take 5 monkeys and put them in a small room with a stepladder bolted to the floor and a bunch of bananas hanging from the ceiling over the stepladder. Every time any of the monkeys attempt to climb the stepladder, spray them all up against the wall with a firehose. After a time, they will all come to associate touching the ladder with being sprayed and will give up trying to obtain the bananas.
Then take one of the original monkeys out and replace it with a new one. As soon as the new monkey attempts to climb the ladder, the other four, not wanting to get sprayed with the firehose will beat him mercilessly every time he reaches for the ladder. Once he finally associates touching the ladder with getting beat up, remove another one of the original monkeys to repeat the process until all the original monkeys were replaced and what you have left are a bunch of monkeys programmed to not ever go near the ladder, but none of them know the original reason why, only associating it with the beatings.
Pretty much how Congress got to be the way it is, isn't it?
But more importantly, that's how many of us have come to hold many of the opinions we do - getting beat up by the masses. Think about why you believe what you do.
Sunday, December 30, 2012
Tuesday, December 25, 2012
Fiscal Cliff? ...or Three Card Monte?
Fiscal Cliff, my butt.
Yea, we're all fools. Government has perfected the three card monte scam. It's called 'matching funds' and this whole fiasco of a debt crisis is just a show. Taxes always go up, because they all keep creating new programs that need funds. It's all just a show of them deciding from which vehicle do they get their loot, but it still comes from your pockets. Just take a look at how states abuse the matching funds of the Medicaid program. That's only the tip of the iceberg as there are literally hundreds of matching funds projects going on.
It's not rocket science. We hear about it all the time with things like this article, "The Effect of Federal Budget Cuts on States and Localities", yet no one seems to grasp the concept. It's a pretty good illustration of the dilemma, but there is one minor thing in the article disturbs me. He wrote:
They don't give a rat's patootey about how much your home is 'worth' on the market. Market value has absolutely nothing to do with tax assessments and their property tax base. All they care about is how much of your money they need to extract to enact their delusions of grandeur. The tax 'base' is simply the total number of taxable properties located within their jurisdiction from which they can plunder the loot. For example, I used to live in a town with a considerable number of government facilities, courthouses, and religious exempted properties for it was the county seat. Anyone who owned a similar property in a town without all those exempted properties paid much, much less in taxes. Two similar properties on the same road could have vastly different tax levies simply depending on a township property line being between them. Nothing drives away homeowners of average means more than unbalanced giveaways in tax-exempt properties. They have their operating budget full of promises to people to vote for them, and they will extract it from you one way or another. The rich tend to settle in those locations, for it's another giveaway they use to simply write off the taxes.
Yea, we're all fools. Government has perfected the three card monte scam. It's called 'matching funds' and this whole fiasco of a debt crisis is just a show. Taxes always go up, because they all keep creating new programs that need funds. It's all just a show of them deciding from which vehicle do they get their loot, but it still comes from your pockets. Just take a look at how states abuse the matching funds of the Medicaid program. That's only the tip of the iceberg as there are literally hundreds of matching funds projects going on.
It's not rocket science. We hear about it all the time with things like this article, "The Effect of Federal Budget Cuts on States and Localities", yet no one seems to grasp the concept. It's a pretty good illustration of the dilemma, but there is one minor thing in the article disturbs me. He wrote:
Finally, there are indirect cost-cutting or tax-increasing measures. Under federal tax laws, homeowners now write off their mortgage interest costs. Over the years, this favoritism has driven up housing prices. Real estate values, now in very bad shape, serve as the foundation for local property taxes. But the feds lose $100 billion or so from the interest deduction. That makes it an attractive target for reducing the federal deficit. But such a step might permanently bend down future growth in housing prices and accordingly, the property tax base.
They don't give a rat's patootey about how much your home is 'worth' on the market. Market value has absolutely nothing to do with tax assessments and their property tax base. All they care about is how much of your money they need to extract to enact their delusions of grandeur. The tax 'base' is simply the total number of taxable properties located within their jurisdiction from which they can plunder the loot. For example, I used to live in a town with a considerable number of government facilities, courthouses, and religious exempted properties for it was the county seat. Anyone who owned a similar property in a town without all those exempted properties paid much, much less in taxes. Two similar properties on the same road could have vastly different tax levies simply depending on a township property line being between them. Nothing drives away homeowners of average means more than unbalanced giveaways in tax-exempt properties. They have their operating budget full of promises to people to vote for them, and they will extract it from you one way or another. The rich tend to settle in those locations, for it's another giveaway they use to simply write off the taxes.
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
People Control
Here we go again. Another deranged psychopath and all things important are dropped to start attacking the second amendment.
The interpretations of the second amendment that a bunch of rebels who just fought a bloody war to overthrow control of a tyrannical government would so carelessly cast their fortunes under the creation of a similar one while adamantly preserving their right to keep a hunting rifle always amaze me. The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting rifles for game or guns to defend property against common criminals, it's the right to bare arms, period.
One of the arguments that anti-gun people use is for that sure, a few may be allowed for personal self-defense, presumably citizen against criminal. However, using that same argument against our founders' thoughts, the King's army was protecting them so no need for those pesky rebellious colonists to have armories and military grade weapons of their own. That first shot heard around the world was against the British march to seize their armories at Lexington and Concord to disarm the colonists. They would take them, but they didn't care about their hunting rifles, they wanted their cannons. Those patriots who founded this country and wrote that Constitution were traitorous rebels. Representatives from several of the original colonies had very serious reservations over handing power over to a central government to maintain a standing army and giving up their arms as that would have meant they risked their lives overthrowing one tyrannical government for another. No, I don't think preserving their right to keep a hunting rifle handy to get dinner was the top thing on their mind at the moment.
If all this fuss is over so-called "assault" weapons (which they're not, they're only semi-automatic firing), perhaps you can explain the rationale behind the police, national guard and even regular army troops being used to go door to door and confiscate small caliber handguns from little old ladies in their own homes after hurricane Katrina and leaving them defenseless? Also, why does our government go around the world arming rebels in other countries, as they continually try every method they can to disarm our own citizens? Don't they trust us as much as they trust all the potential terrorists they're arming around the world? And with all the misnamed 'assault' weapons in circulation out there, where are all the huge gun battles and big shootouts that we see in hollywood movies like between the old gangsters and the feds during prohibition even though swat team raids are escalating across the country over little things like food co-ops, farmers selling raw milk, and even delinqency or fraud on student loans?
And it's almost always a lone, deranged gunman we hear about firing up these gun (people) control debates. You don't control guns, you control people - by taking away their defenses. I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist, but I sure wouldn't rule out false flags to achieve exactly that. Mentally unstable people can be coached or coaxed to do just about anything.
The interpretations of the second amendment that a bunch of rebels who just fought a bloody war to overthrow control of a tyrannical government would so carelessly cast their fortunes under the creation of a similar one while adamantly preserving their right to keep a hunting rifle always amaze me. The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting rifles for game or guns to defend property against common criminals, it's the right to bare arms, period.
One of the arguments that anti-gun people use is for that sure, a few may be allowed for personal self-defense, presumably citizen against criminal. However, using that same argument against our founders' thoughts, the King's army was protecting them so no need for those pesky rebellious colonists to have armories and military grade weapons of their own. That first shot heard around the world was against the British march to seize their armories at Lexington and Concord to disarm the colonists. They would take them, but they didn't care about their hunting rifles, they wanted their cannons. Those patriots who founded this country and wrote that Constitution were traitorous rebels. Representatives from several of the original colonies had very serious reservations over handing power over to a central government to maintain a standing army and giving up their arms as that would have meant they risked their lives overthrowing one tyrannical government for another. No, I don't think preserving their right to keep a hunting rifle handy to get dinner was the top thing on their mind at the moment.
If all this fuss is over so-called "assault" weapons (which they're not, they're only semi-automatic firing), perhaps you can explain the rationale behind the police, national guard and even regular army troops being used to go door to door and confiscate small caliber handguns from little old ladies in their own homes after hurricane Katrina and leaving them defenseless? Also, why does our government go around the world arming rebels in other countries, as they continually try every method they can to disarm our own citizens? Don't they trust us as much as they trust all the potential terrorists they're arming around the world? And with all the misnamed 'assault' weapons in circulation out there, where are all the huge gun battles and big shootouts that we see in hollywood movies like between the old gangsters and the feds during prohibition even though swat team raids are escalating across the country over little things like food co-ops, farmers selling raw milk, and even delinqency or fraud on student loans?
And it's almost always a lone, deranged gunman we hear about firing up these gun (people) control debates. You don't control guns, you control people - by taking away their defenses. I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist, but I sure wouldn't rule out false flags to achieve exactly that. Mentally unstable people can be coached or coaxed to do just about anything.
Benghazi Attacks = Systematic Failure?
Well surprise, surprise... The accountability review board Secretary of State Hillary convened to look into the Benghazi attacks has issued its report to have found: no one accountable. Imagine that?!? Well, not entirely. According to the report, the board "remains fully convinced that responsibility for the tragic loss of life, injuries, and damage to U.S. facilities and property rests solely and completely with the terrorists who perpetrated the attack." So there you have it, it's the terrorists' fault.
They also blame "systematic failure" and "management deficiencies at senior levels" and, quite expectedly, the usual obligatory reference from their government report writing template which points to a lack of funds for them to accomplish their mission in stating, "For many years the State Department has been engaged in a struggle to obtain the resources necessary to carry out its work, with varying degrees of success", "a few State Department managers to favor restricting the use of resources as a general orientation" and "budgetary austerity looms large ahead". It simply means, we haven't been able to squeeze more cash out of the slaves to buy everything we want and then some, so we tried to do more with less and, therefore, failure isn't our fault.
Well, there's another 1000 manhours worth of taxpayer funds wasted (extremely gross estimate of the board claiming to have interviewed "over 100 individuals, reviewed thousands of pages of documents, and viewed hours of video footage") to pay a monkey court with a predetermined outcome.
I don't know why I continue to read these things. I used to laugh at them, but after years of reading the same crap over and over covering up ineptitude with claims doing the best they can with resource shortfalls, they're just not funny anymore.
They also blame "systematic failure" and "management deficiencies at senior levels" and, quite expectedly, the usual obligatory reference from their government report writing template which points to a lack of funds for them to accomplish their mission in stating, "For many years the State Department has been engaged in a struggle to obtain the resources necessary to carry out its work, with varying degrees of success", "a few State Department managers to favor restricting the use of resources as a general orientation" and "budgetary austerity looms large ahead". It simply means, we haven't been able to squeeze more cash out of the slaves to buy everything we want and then some, so we tried to do more with less and, therefore, failure isn't our fault.
Well, there's another 1000 manhours worth of taxpayer funds wasted (extremely gross estimate of the board claiming to have interviewed "over 100 individuals, reviewed thousands of pages of documents, and viewed hours of video footage") to pay a monkey court with a predetermined outcome.
I don't know why I continue to read these things. I used to laugh at them, but after years of reading the same crap over and over covering up ineptitude with claims doing the best they can with resource shortfalls, they're just not funny anymore.
Friday, November 30, 2012
Utterly Disgusting and Evil
I used to think that people, all people, were basically good inside. I believed it was basically circumstances that often drove them to do horrible things. I easily explained away the atrocities reported from war as being due to the extreme stresses of combat, people reaching their breaking point. However, I'm at a loss of rationalizations or words to explain the things I've just read in the following two posts:
The republican Mother - Conspiracy of Silence
Mind-Numbed Robot - Obama's sexual issues (They're not what you think)
This has been just sitting here for a few days, as I was too disgusted to even work on it. At least The republican Mother came through today with a little hope for humanity.
Perhaps....
The republican Mother - Conspiracy of Silence
Mind-Numbed Robot - Obama's sexual issues (They're not what you think)
This has been just sitting here for a few days, as I was too disgusted to even work on it. At least The republican Mother came through today with a little hope for humanity.
Perhaps....
Saturday, November 24, 2012
Intelligence Bounded by Diminishing Returns
Government managers generally do not understand the basic economic principles behind the Law of Diminishing Returns. For most, the best solutions to government failures they can think up with their indoctrinated brain functions are more money to buy more equipment and add more manpower, but in reality that will not inevitably result in better intelligence without proper management of the overall system.
The NY Times just reported a story a month ago that bolsters the administration's defense that the confusion of their initial announcements as to whether the debacle in Benghazi was the result of 'peaceful' demonstrations turned violent or not was due to and inept intelligence assessment system. Claims were that the original assessment and thus public announcements blaming the Benghazi attacks on peaceful demonstrations turned violent came from CIA 'talking points'. Yet weeks later they were still sifting through new field reports that seemed to contradict this initial assessment. Excuse me, but that is the most idiotic claim I've ever heard. Everyone knew exactly what was going on as the event was unfolding from direct contact with personnel in the US mission in Benghazi which was under attack.
But that's beside the point. This event will inevitably lead to investigation of yet another so called 'intelligence failure' and the prognosis will most likely be to increase or at least slow down decreases to the national intelligence budget. That's simply the way things work in Washington.
The NY Times just reported a story a month ago that bolsters the administration's defense that the confusion of their initial announcements as to whether the debacle in Benghazi was the result of 'peaceful' demonstrations turned violent or not was due to and inept intelligence assessment system. Claims were that the original assessment and thus public announcements blaming the Benghazi attacks on peaceful demonstrations turned violent came from CIA 'talking points'. Yet weeks later they were still sifting through new field reports that seemed to contradict this initial assessment. Excuse me, but that is the most idiotic claim I've ever heard. Everyone knew exactly what was going on as the event was unfolding from direct contact with personnel in the US mission in Benghazi which was under attack.
But that's beside the point. This event will inevitably lead to investigation of yet another so called 'intelligence failure' and the prognosis will most likely be to increase or at least slow down decreases to the national intelligence budget. That's simply the way things work in Washington.
Changing the Rules (over and over and over again)
Imagine playing a game where everytime you were about to do something like buy a property in Monopoly, your opponent would change the rules and say you have to get an education card from the Community Chest first. Want to buy a railroad, you need an engineer certificate. Utility? You need a born with a silver spoon in your mouth Chance card. You would soon give up in frustration and quit playing, wouldn't you? So why do we accept it from our government overlords?
You Didn't Build That!
Obama caught hell earlier this year during the election campaigns for his "you didn't build that" speech. Truth is they DON'T want you to build anything by yourself. If you did, they couldn't keep their nitwit goverment bureaucrats employed.
You Didn't Build That!
Obama caught hell earlier this year during the election campaigns for his "you didn't build that" speech. Truth is they DON'T want you to build anything by yourself. If you did, they couldn't keep their nitwit goverment bureaucrats employed.
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
None so Blind as They Who Will NOT See
Republicans are falling all over themselves in utter bewilderment at their failure to capture the executive branch in this past election.
It's simple. The GOP is a bunch of crooks. What they did to Ron Paul and his electors during the primaries was criminal.
How is that any different than all your complaints of Obama's transgressions?
We now have a the most lawless federal government ever, and that includes the entire 'leadership' of both major political parties.
Democrats and Republicans are predators fighting over the lives of our children just as nature shows in the Battle of Kruger.
Until the masses realize it and get together to kick their ass to win the future of our children back... it will just keep going downhill.
It's simple. The GOP is a bunch of crooks. What they did to Ron Paul and his electors during the primaries was criminal.
How is that any different than all your complaints of Obama's transgressions?
We now have a the most lawless federal government ever, and that includes the entire 'leadership' of both major political parties.
Democrats and Republicans are predators fighting over the lives of our children just as nature shows in the Battle of Kruger.
Until the masses realize it and get together to kick their ass to win the future of our children back... it will just keep going downhill.
Saturday, September 22, 2012
S.3457 Veterans Jobs Corps Act = A Load of Crap
The Democrats are certainly trying to make a lot of political hay over the Republican defeat of S.3457 Veterans Job Corps Act of 2012. They're especially livid over Sen Coburn calling it crap, but he's right.
The bill offers up one billion dollars over 5 years to make more government job positions specifically designed to keeping veterans as slaves to the state long after their oath of enlistment and last tour of duty is over.
The bill offers up one billion dollars over 5 years to make more government job positions specifically designed to keeping veterans as slaves to the state long after their oath of enlistment and last tour of duty is over.
Saturday, September 15, 2012
Thursday, September 13, 2012
The Preserving Rural Resources Act: Reducing Regulatory Burdens On Our Family Farmers
Nathan Hammock claims he's spent approximately $30,000 to multiple government agencies for approval to build a farm pond and not a shovel full of dirt has been moved after 2 1/2 years of fighting the approval process.
This is disgusting.
This is disgusting.
Sunday, September 9, 2012
How 'Pro-Choice' Are You?
Reason.tv created an intriguing short video at the Democratic National Convention asking people about their thoughts on choice.
Now this is not to denigrate Democrats or liberals for there is plenty of hypocrisy in everyone's opinions on the way things ought to be to go around. There are considerable numbers of Republicans and conservatives who are staunchly pro-life, yet they certainly don't mind dropping a bomb or two here or there. As one lady said at 3:40 in that video, "So maybe there are some contradictions, but people are made up of contradictions." Ain't that the truth! But the larger question is: Do we have to put up with it? Of course not!
Now this is not to denigrate Democrats or liberals for there is plenty of hypocrisy in everyone's opinions on the way things ought to be to go around. There are considerable numbers of Republicans and conservatives who are staunchly pro-life, yet they certainly don't mind dropping a bomb or two here or there. As one lady said at 3:40 in that video, "So maybe there are some contradictions, but people are made up of contradictions." Ain't that the truth! But the larger question is: Do we have to put up with it? Of course not!
Friday, August 24, 2012
Russell A. Kirsch Continues to Deliver
In a great story in the process of going viral, a young blogger named Joel Runyon, who already had the power of positive thinking as shown at Impossible HQ, writes about how a chance encounter with Russell Kirsch led to An Unexpected Ass Kicking.
Joel's lessons learned are a must read as well. Not much for me to add, except I'll surely be using this for a common frame of reference in future posts. Until then: Enjoy my "gift" to you for today! I sure love giving gifts that someone else made and didn't cost me so much as a dime. :)
Joel's lessons learned are a must read as well. Not much for me to add, except I'll surely be using this for a common frame of reference in future posts. Until then: Enjoy my "gift" to you for today! I sure love giving gifts that someone else made and didn't cost me so much as a dime. :)
Thursday, August 23, 2012
Brandon Raub - American Hero or Ticking Bomb?
The republican Mother is following the developing Brandon Raub story. Her latest post Brandon Raub: Crazy Like a Fox? gives us a most profound thought on what young Brandon may or may not realized he was doing when he predicted his detainment. She says:
Now this is scary. I've been looking at many other situations where Americans or permanent residents have been picked up and even convicted on skimpy evidence or coerced confessions. They need to be tied to the escalating use of swat teams to prosecute the War on Drugs, which is spilling over into arrests of non-violent offenders in other areas such as student loan fraud and food co-ops. There are so many more out there that I was planning on someday putting something together to better "connect the dots", but until then, here are a few.
But getting back to Brandon and his comments, the one I found most interesting was the one made on August 14, a couple days before his arrest. "The Revolution will come for me. Men will be at my door soon to pick me up to lead it."Adam Kokesh's interview with Brandon blows my mind, for he certainly sounds perfectly sane yet he's still being held after 72 hours on the opinion of someone who Ben Swann describes as a "special judge who is actually just a lawyer and part of what Virginia calls a Civil Commitment Board".
Now this is scary. I've been looking at many other situations where Americans or permanent residents have been picked up and even convicted on skimpy evidence or coerced confessions. They need to be tied to the escalating use of swat teams to prosecute the War on Drugs, which is spilling over into arrests of non-violent offenders in other areas such as student loan fraud and food co-ops. There are so many more out there that I was planning on someday putting something together to better "connect the dots", but until then, here are a few.
- Justice for Yassin Aref - Monster or unwitting innocent victim?
- The Lackawanna Six - Many questions abound about how big of a threat they really were. See also this.
- Robert Perske - Advocate for justice for those with learning disabilities.
- The Agitator - Radley Balko performs exhaustive investigative reporting on civil liberties and the criminal justice system.
- Sultans of Swat - Can they seriously come for you?
That's enough to give a glimpse into the serious implications of possible effects behind our government's imposition of the Patriot Act, NDAA, and other excesses into the usurpation of our Constitutionally protected rights. Of course, without anyone left actively supporting their oath to abiding by that Constitution anymore, you have no rights.
Update (28 Aug 12) - Brandon, who was taken into custody on Aug 16, was ordered release by Circuit Judge W.Allan Sharret on Aug 23.
Brandon discusses his ordeal with John Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute.
Update (28 Aug 12) - Brandon, who was taken into custody on Aug 16, was ordered release by Circuit Judge W.Allan Sharret on Aug 23.
Brandon discusses his ordeal with John Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute.
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Who's Checking the Fact Checkers?
I'm kind of tired of saying this. We've had to live with Clinton claiming a success in the budget battles going from an annual budget deficit to a surplus, then we lived with Newt Gingrich doing the same saying he was the reason for it.
Here's the federal deficit chart from from the CBO that Factcheck.org uses to tell us Clinton was a hero in The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton:
.jpg)
Interesting indeed. Factcheck.org added an update saying readers noted a USAToday article which stated, "The Clinton administration reported a surplus of $559 billion in its final four budget years. The audited numbers showed a deficit of $484 billion." That's over a trillion dollar difference!!! Oh my!!!
Even after looking into that USAToday article, Factcheck still claimed a surplus in the three of the last four years of Clinton budgets, "But even under accrual accounting, the annual reports showed surpluses of $69.2 billion in fiscal 1998, $76.9 billion in fiscal 1999, and $46 billion for fiscal year 2000."
I don't know how they figured that out, for those three reports they were so kind to link to show increases in total federal debt for each of those years to be $155.9 billion, $126.9 billion, and $20.9 billion respectively even with Factcheck continuing to claim there were budget surpluses. Yes, federal debt held by the public went down in each of those years so they were paying off some of their debts, but federal debt held in government accounts increased much more than the public held debt decreased.
Then we have this picture from Dueling Debt Deceptions from the very same fact checking organization claiming Clinton ran surpluses:
Ok, so then where did the $1.54 trillion increase in total federal debt come from during those very same Clinton years? Perhaps these fact checkers should start better checking their own facts.
(Update 11 Sep 12) - Craig Steiner explains it much better than I did over at the Myth of the Clinton Surplus.
Here's the federal deficit chart from from the CBO that Factcheck.org uses to tell us Clinton was a hero in The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton:
Interesting indeed. Factcheck.org added an update saying readers noted a USAToday article which stated, "The Clinton administration reported a surplus of $559 billion in its final four budget years. The audited numbers showed a deficit of $484 billion." That's over a trillion dollar difference!!! Oh my!!!
Even after looking into that USAToday article, Factcheck still claimed a surplus in the three of the last four years of Clinton budgets, "But even under accrual accounting, the annual reports showed surpluses of $69.2 billion in fiscal 1998, $76.9 billion in fiscal 1999, and $46 billion for fiscal year 2000."
I don't know how they figured that out, for those three reports they were so kind to link to show increases in total federal debt for each of those years to be $155.9 billion, $126.9 billion, and $20.9 billion respectively even with Factcheck continuing to claim there were budget surpluses. Yes, federal debt held by the public went down in each of those years so they were paying off some of their debts, but federal debt held in government accounts increased much more than the public held debt decreased.
Then we have this picture from Dueling Debt Deceptions from the very same fact checking organization claiming Clinton ran surpluses:
Ok, so then where did the $1.54 trillion increase in total federal debt come from during those very same Clinton years? Perhaps these fact checkers should start better checking their own facts.
(Update 11 Sep 12) - Craig Steiner explains it much better than I did over at the Myth of the Clinton Surplus.
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Welcome Back, Jim Traficant
For those who don't know him, Jim is a problem for the Feds who just won't go away even after they sent him away to serve 7 years in the prison system. He was the thorn in the side of the Democrats as Ron Paul is to the Republicans. He was scared then when they put him under indictment, but after having gone to prison, he no longer is and he's speaking out. Welcome Back!
I saw a video of him giving a speech a Freedom Palooza in July 2011. That speech is about 36 minutes long divided into 3 videos and it's well worth watching in its entirety. In part 3, he recited this verse about a well-known incident that happened when he was in office which he claimed to have spoken on the House floor:
Jim details some of those ways when he talks about taxes and he has a plan. Get rid of the IRS, repeal the 16th and 17th amendments, repeal the Federal Reserve Act, get rid of the Dept of Education, Energy, and the EPA. Replace them all with a simple 25% sales tax, period. What?!? I won't explain it all here -- yet (even though I have been identifying parts of it and will continue to put it all together), for Jim details very well how it would work in his speech.
Don't just shoot from the hip saying it won't work. Watch the speech, then try to tell us why it won't work.
Freedom Palooza 2011, Traficant (1 of 3)
Freedom Palooza 2011, Traficant (2 of 3)
Freedom Palooza 2011, Traficant (3 of 3)
I saw a video of him giving a speech a Freedom Palooza in July 2011. That speech is about 36 minutes long divided into 3 videos and it's well worth watching in its entirety. In part 3, he recited this verse about a well-known incident that happened when he was in office which he claimed to have spoken on the House floor:
There was once a woman from Manassas
Who got tired of all the hassles
Claiming she'd been raped by her spouse
in her very own house
went in the kitchen to get a knife
fully prepared to take her husband's life
But realizing such a crime was too heinous
decided instead to cut off his "painless".
I don't know if this guy plays the piano
but from here on out, he'll sing like a soprano
But if he really, really did rape his wife
maybe, just maybe, he deserved that knife
After reciting it he says there was a much deeper message in there. To me it is crystal clear that it is a stern warning to Congress to stop raping the American people for we, unimaginable to many of us ourselves because we're brainwashed to accept the repeated abuse, have many means available to help us emasculate the rapists.
Jim details some of those ways when he talks about taxes and he has a plan. Get rid of the IRS, repeal the 16th and 17th amendments, repeal the Federal Reserve Act, get rid of the Dept of Education, Energy, and the EPA. Replace them all with a simple 25% sales tax, period. What?!? I won't explain it all here -- yet (even though I have been identifying parts of it and will continue to put it all together), for Jim details very well how it would work in his speech.
Don't just shoot from the hip saying it won't work. Watch the speech, then try to tell us why it won't work.
Freedom Palooza 2011, Traficant (1 of 3)
Freedom Palooza 2011, Traficant (2 of 3)
Freedom Palooza 2011, Traficant (3 of 3)
Sunday, August 12, 2012
S.679, Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011
Paul Ryan recently voted along with 95 other House Republicans on July 31st to pass S.679, Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011. Word on the street that this action was requested and approved by Romney. So it's no surprise his newly picked running mate voted for it. Speculation is that Romney picked Ryan to shore up his image with conservatives. Funny thing is that other conservatives Romney could have picked like Marco Rubio voted against it. Another interesting bit of information is The Daily Caller claims their sources told them, "that there is concern in the ranks among conservatives opposed to the legislation that House leaders will bring the legislation up for a voice vote to avoid putting members on the record." Hmmmm....
In one fell swoop, this Congress has divested itself of yet another authority and simultaneously strengthened the power of the President by alleviating itself from the drudgery and grind of confirming numerous agency appointments for positions that many different Congresses involved in the formation of those agencies and positions thought were important enough to demand their attention. They did this because they have so many more important things to do in their daily duties enumerated in Article 1, section 8 that they can't get it all done and are extremely tired at the end of the day, not to mention that it will sure cut into their fact-finding junket time.
Now some will argue that this is the greatest thing Congress has yet accomplished to alleviate the overworked Senate of exhausting minutia to concentrate on more important matters. Indeed, that's what the wording of the bill states that it's meant to accomplish.
There's certainly nothing wrong with this bill's Constitutionality, for indeed, Article 2, section two states, "...and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."
If these positions are so unimportant, why can't the Senate just give them a quick thumbs up or down and move on? If the positions are indeed that unimportant, why continue to have them to begin with? Instead of delegating appointment with no need for Congressional confirmation, why not just do away with the positions and really streamline government, not to mention reduce expenditures of using taxpayer money to employ these unimportant people?
If they're so unimportant, then why bog down the President to make such appointments when the Constitution states they could vest appointment in the courts of law or heads of the departments where the positions exist as well? Surely the President has more important things on his plate as well.
No, there's a reason why they gave the President such unfettered authority rather than bumping it down to the department heads. There's a reason why they were contemplating a voice vote to avoid record. Perhaps we should consider ramifications of this in terms of similarities with the Enabling Act.
Last thought: Slowly... Slowly...
It will be interesting to see who fills these appointments after this coming election...
In one fell swoop, this Congress has divested itself of yet another authority and simultaneously strengthened the power of the President by alleviating itself from the drudgery and grind of confirming numerous agency appointments for positions that many different Congresses involved in the formation of those agencies and positions thought were important enough to demand their attention. They did this because they have so many more important things to do in their daily duties enumerated in Article 1, section 8 that they can't get it all done and are extremely tired at the end of the day, not to mention that it will sure cut into their fact-finding junket time.
Now some will argue that this is the greatest thing Congress has yet accomplished to alleviate the overworked Senate of exhausting minutia to concentrate on more important matters. Indeed, that's what the wording of the bill states that it's meant to accomplish.
There's certainly nothing wrong with this bill's Constitutionality, for indeed, Article 2, section two states, "...and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."
If these positions are so unimportant, why can't the Senate just give them a quick thumbs up or down and move on? If the positions are indeed that unimportant, why continue to have them to begin with? Instead of delegating appointment with no need for Congressional confirmation, why not just do away with the positions and really streamline government, not to mention reduce expenditures of using taxpayer money to employ these unimportant people?
If they're so unimportant, then why bog down the President to make such appointments when the Constitution states they could vest appointment in the courts of law or heads of the departments where the positions exist as well? Surely the President has more important things on his plate as well.
No, there's a reason why they gave the President such unfettered authority rather than bumping it down to the department heads. There's a reason why they were contemplating a voice vote to avoid record. Perhaps we should consider ramifications of this in terms of similarities with the Enabling Act.
Last thought: Slowly... Slowly...
Update (23 Aug 12) - I've had a few remarks that I was being as disingenuous and deceitful as Harry Reid alleging Mitt Romney paid no income taxes for 10 years based on an anonymous phone call.
I had seen the proof in a statement from a Representative, but was having such a hard time finding it when writing this because of the wonders that is known as facebook. I still can't find it through my facebook account, but luckily it's available through a google search.
In reponse to a query, Justin Amash (R-MI) replied:
Leadership informed GOP Reps that passage of the bill was a "Romney ask," so dozens of Reps flipped to "yes".I've heard that this may effect several hundred appointments, but I'm too lazy atm to look it up. This seems like nothing more than a huge giveaway to the President in providing him with many well-paying government jobs to favored donors to the campaign of whomever wins. Republican or Democrat, it doesn't matter. Business as usual inside the beltway.
It will be interesting to see who fills these appointments after this coming election...
Friday, August 10, 2012
Three Commitments to Freedom
Sometime someone comes along and says exactly what is on your mind or in your feelings that you may often have difficulty in expressing yourself in your own words. Yet they may find a way do it in words that are nothing less than pure poetry.
Such is the case for me with Robery Perry Hardison (1933-2009) aka Barefoot Bob. Barefoot continues to pass on many wisdoms he gained in his journey through life on his website, Barefoots World. Bob has captured quite a few of his valuable lessons learned and the whole site is worth meandering through. I focus here on his most intriguing thoughts on "Three Commitments to Freedom".
1) Dedication to Freedom - Foundational Commandment: "Harm no one, then do what thou wilt"
2) Stay in the Now - "The Now Moment is a Multidimensional Vehicle that can take you anywhere and anywhen you wish to go."
3) Follow the Energy - making our lives into a flow rather than a struggle.
Take the journey through Bob's mind and you may find yourself being happier for the experience. I know I am. :)
Such is the case for me with Robery Perry Hardison (1933-2009) aka Barefoot Bob. Barefoot continues to pass on many wisdoms he gained in his journey through life on his website, Barefoots World. Bob has captured quite a few of his valuable lessons learned and the whole site is worth meandering through. I focus here on his most intriguing thoughts on "Three Commitments to Freedom".
1) Dedication to Freedom - Foundational Commandment: "Harm no one, then do what thou wilt"
2) Stay in the Now - "The Now Moment is a Multidimensional Vehicle that can take you anywhere and anywhen you wish to go."
3) Follow the Energy - making our lives into a flow rather than a struggle.
Take the journey through Bob's mind and you may find yourself being happier for the experience. I know I am. :)
Social Contract
Very interesting discussion over at Tom Woods, "When Did I Sign This 'Social Contract'?"
More later.
Update (21 Aug 12) - My comment on that thread:
Tom, when you received what may be considered stolen goods in obtaining your property which was most likely unjustly expropriated from a number of others who held claim to it before you, you entered into the contract to protect your rights to that property.
NAP is simply a principle, not a contract. It may be a basis behind certain contracts, but no more or less so than a contract based on a principle of mutually assured destruction. It's merely mutually assured non-destruction. MAD vs MAN. :)
Libertarianism seems to fail to consider that rights are nothing more than a conceptual fiction. Nothing is inalienable, except through contract that all sides endeavor to uphold. Rights do not exist in nature, only constant struggle.
http://uncertainoutcomes.blogs...
More later.
Update (21 Aug 12) - My comment on that thread:
Tom, when you received what may be considered stolen goods in obtaining your property which was most likely unjustly expropriated from a number of others who held claim to it before you, you entered into the contract to protect your rights to that property.
NAP is simply a principle, not a contract. It may be a basis behind certain contracts, but no more or less so than a contract based on a principle of mutually assured destruction. It's merely mutually assured non-destruction. MAD vs MAN. :)
Libertarianism seems to fail to consider that rights are nothing more than a conceptual fiction. Nothing is inalienable, except through contract that all sides endeavor to uphold. Rights do not exist in nature, only constant struggle.
http://uncertainoutcomes.blogs...
Saturday, July 28, 2012
Marriage, the Chick-fil-A debates
What a delight to see the outrage erupt from both sides over the relatively benign comments of Chick-fil-A's CEO, Dan Cathy. Cathy said in his now famous interview in the Washington Times article, "Chick-fil-A chief’s views on marriage alienate gays, Muppets":
Nothing wrong or particularly inflammatory with that, simply a man expressing his views. However, this simple statement caused such an uproar in the gay community that several prominent Democrat office holders stepped up the dialogue proclaiming disdain towards Cathy for daring to speak publicly what was on his mind and threatening that they would use their "power" of office to make it difficult for the company to conduct business in their cities. "How dare Cathy speak his mind?!?" is their message to us all. Indeed the Mayor of Boston and Chicago both came out with scathing words against not only Cathy but the entire Chick-fil-A enterprise, which as far as we know, has broken no anti-discrimination laws.
“We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that. We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles,”
Nothing wrong or particularly inflammatory with that, simply a man expressing his views. However, this simple statement caused such an uproar in the gay community that several prominent Democrat office holders stepped up the dialogue proclaiming disdain towards Cathy for daring to speak publicly what was on his mind and threatening that they would use their "power" of office to make it difficult for the company to conduct business in their cities. "How dare Cathy speak his mind?!?" is their message to us all. Indeed the Mayor of Boston and Chicago both came out with scathing words against not only Cathy but the entire Chick-fil-A enterprise, which as far as we know, has broken no anti-discrimination laws.
Saturday, June 30, 2012
Tax Primer
Ok, I've had it with reading all the Obamacare "mandate" discussions over whether it is effectively a tax or not. People seem to want it both ways. Conservatives first screaming it was a tax when enacted then lambasting Chief Justice Roberts for calling it one while they want it to be called an individual "mandate" to make it unconstitutional under the Commerce clause. Liberals claiming it's not a tax, but reveling in the SCOTUS decision. Well, you can't have it both ways, choosing whatever to fit your want.
First of all, they (the government) already can and do tax everything, to include non-activity. Think about this Obamacare “mandate” as you would in terms of a mortgage “deduction”. The mortgage interest deduction can also be called a "mandate". What they are telling you is you must buy a dwelling ~and~ you must take out a mortgage to get a “deduction”. Simply renting one or buying your house for cash and not being in debt isn’t good enough. You must have a mortgage or you will pay a "penalty" by being taxed more, plain and simple. And the bigger the mortgage and the more debt it puts you into forcing you to pay more interest (that translates into more profits for the banks which is also taxed) the better will be your reduction in the tax “penalty” for not having a mortgage. It's win-win for the banks which sell more mortgages and the government which collects more taxes (they only get 15% on your income, but 35% of corporate profits) and a huge loss for you being forced to go into debt to buy something you may not need. All in all, it's simply designed to take more money from you. I won't go into how corporations lower their tax exposure today, but be assured that it is a pyrrhic victory for the consumer who must pay the corporate tax, regardless.
So, do you think the banks helped create the mortgage interest deduction, just as the insurance industry helped create Obamacare?
First of all, they (the government) already can and do tax everything, to include non-activity. Think about this Obamacare “mandate” as you would in terms of a mortgage “deduction”. The mortgage interest deduction can also be called a "mandate". What they are telling you is you must buy a dwelling ~and~ you must take out a mortgage to get a “deduction”. Simply renting one or buying your house for cash and not being in debt isn’t good enough. You must have a mortgage or you will pay a "penalty" by being taxed more, plain and simple. And the bigger the mortgage and the more debt it puts you into forcing you to pay more interest (that translates into more profits for the banks which is also taxed) the better will be your reduction in the tax “penalty” for not having a mortgage. It's win-win for the banks which sell more mortgages and the government which collects more taxes (they only get 15% on your income, but 35% of corporate profits) and a huge loss for you being forced to go into debt to buy something you may not need. All in all, it's simply designed to take more money from you. I won't go into how corporations lower their tax exposure today, but be assured that it is a pyrrhic victory for the consumer who must pay the corporate tax, regardless.
So, do you think the banks helped create the mortgage interest deduction, just as the insurance industry helped create Obamacare?
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
Beware!!! ~ Rock Snot
I went fishing the other day and ran into a sign warning of infestation of an "invasive species" of diatom called rock snot or Didymosphenia geminata and how it was ruining my favorite recreational activity. We have this crucial election coming up which will determine the fate of the nation and now we have to worry about rock snot. Oh joy!
Anyway, my curiosity (as with all things) led me to the internet to find out as much as I can about this "new" menace. Apparently, there is much concern around the world with nearly all the "experts" placing the blame squarely on human recreational activity as the "primary" transport mechanism.
Why indict human activity? It's claimed that it only takes a single cell to start an infestation. Only a single cell, so what about waterfowl? To date, I've only found a single one that even mentions waterfowl as a possible means of spreading the organism and nothing in any of the damnations of human recreation to even suggest those cute ducks and geese of committing such an atrocity.
The funny thing is that there's another invasive species called the water chestnut and it's well known to be transported by waterfowl, but not even considered for rock snot by most folks? Hmmm.
Anyway, my curiosity (as with all things) led me to the internet to find out as much as I can about this "new" menace. Apparently, there is much concern around the world with nearly all the "experts" placing the blame squarely on human recreational activity as the "primary" transport mechanism.
Why indict human activity? It's claimed that it only takes a single cell to start an infestation. Only a single cell, so what about waterfowl? To date, I've only found a single one that even mentions waterfowl as a possible means of spreading the organism and nothing in any of the damnations of human recreation to even suggest those cute ducks and geese of committing such an atrocity.
The funny thing is that there's another invasive species called the water chestnut and it's well known to be transported by waterfowl, but not even considered for rock snot by most folks? Hmmm.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)