The great Savior and Messiah is in a bit of a pickle. RCP Poll averages for this week have Obama's approval ratings at an all time low, and dropping fast! His current average is 51.8% Approval, with 42% disapproval.
During the period of Aug 24 - Aug 26th of Bush's first term, he ranked as 55% approval with only 36% disapproval.
Obama, in late August of his first term is LESS POPULAR than George W Bush, and MORE PEOPLE DISAPPROVE with his job as President.
Obama's poll numbers place him behind Jimmy Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., and GW Bush at this same time in August of their first term (Ford excluded because he replaced Nixon mid-term). Obama is only slightly more popular than Clinton, with disapproval numbers about the same.
What this means for Obama is that, barring some national crisis that bumps his numbers, he is on pace to be the worst president in recent history.
Way to go there, Slugger!
I bet you HOPE public opinion could be CHANGEd... not with the crap you're ramming down our throats. More likely you will have to assume dictatorial powers to crush opposition to your pathetic government.
If the "go-it-alone" approach in Iraq was such a bad idea for Bush, what makes you think it will work in America on Health Care or any other bill?
You would be better off setting the cruise control and waiting for 2010 and 2012 to come and wipe your mistakes away.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Ted Kennedy - An American Tragedy
Standing in line for breakfast this morning, I heard over the radio air waves that Ted Kennedy had died from his brain tumor. My heart sank, as it does always when I hear a report of a loss of human life. I respect every breath taken by every man and woman - even those of such vicious character that they would dedicate their lives to destroying the fabric of our society.
Ted Kennedy was no American Hero, rather, he was an American Tragedy.
Kennedy's advantage was his family. The political savvy of his brothers played into his favor as he entered the political arena, and it was their assassinations that cemented his presence for the rest of his life.
He was a drunk, a murderer gone free, and such a radical liberal that he became known as the "Liberal Lion", fighting for open borders, universal health care, and several other radical ideals bent on pushing the US further into a centrally controlled socialist state. He lacked the political aura of his late brothers, and made up for it with brute force. He was a relic of a destroyed dynasty, barely surviving multiple near death incidents, and ultimately dragged the Kennedy name through the mud.
Kennedy is a prime example of why I support term limits for Senators and Congressmen. He used his family's name to prolong a very bad relationship between America and the Kennedy's... and his inability to rise above the senate was a prime example of his regional influence but national disregard.
Now to the discussion about Kennedy's replacement... In MA, there is currently a law on the books that does not allow a political appointment in the case of vacancy. The Governor is required to have a special election within 145 of a declared vacancy - death is indeed a vacancy, unless you're in Chicago. Kennedy was pushing a partisan bill allowing the governor to appoint a partisan, as opposed to allowing the people to choose. Should Mitt Romney have run for re-election and won, we would be seeing the appointment of a Republican Senator in MA should this bill be accepted. Of course, such a bill would not be likely if Romney were still in office.
Ted Kennedy was no American Hero, rather, he was an American Tragedy.
Kennedy's advantage was his family. The political savvy of his brothers played into his favor as he entered the political arena, and it was their assassinations that cemented his presence for the rest of his life.
He was a drunk, a murderer gone free, and such a radical liberal that he became known as the "Liberal Lion", fighting for open borders, universal health care, and several other radical ideals bent on pushing the US further into a centrally controlled socialist state. He lacked the political aura of his late brothers, and made up for it with brute force. He was a relic of a destroyed dynasty, barely surviving multiple near death incidents, and ultimately dragged the Kennedy name through the mud.
Kennedy is a prime example of why I support term limits for Senators and Congressmen. He used his family's name to prolong a very bad relationship between America and the Kennedy's... and his inability to rise above the senate was a prime example of his regional influence but national disregard.
Now to the discussion about Kennedy's replacement... In MA, there is currently a law on the books that does not allow a political appointment in the case of vacancy. The Governor is required to have a special election within 145 of a declared vacancy - death is indeed a vacancy, unless you're in Chicago. Kennedy was pushing a partisan bill allowing the governor to appoint a partisan, as opposed to allowing the people to choose. Should Mitt Romney have run for re-election and won, we would be seeing the appointment of a Republican Senator in MA should this bill be accepted. Of course, such a bill would not be likely if Romney were still in office.
"I want to make sure that as a Democrat we have a Democratic voice in there forKennedy's legacy - partisan politics aimed at the survival of his special interests and the destruction of American Liberties - even the simplest liberty of the Right to Vote. God Speed, Senator. You were one of a kind!
the five months that it might be vacant," said Rep. Michael J. Moran, who chairs
the legislative Election Laws Committee, told the newspaper. Asked whether he
would support the change if Republican Mitt Romney were still governor, Moran
laughed and said, "Of course there's a political side to this."
Monday, August 24, 2009
Obama Deception - Full video... watch in entirety
This is what I am talking about... the extermination of freedom is underway. Are you going to stop it?
Orwellian in Nature...
I ask, in what time do we live? What era is this, that men surrender their liberty for bondage when so many before them have fought for the very opposite? What fiber of our being has been so corrupted that we not only surrender our arms, but do so with cries of favor for our master? How have the mighty in soul been so defiled in character that they willfully bend on knee to shackles?
Those who have an ear, let them hear the truth... you have been deceived, are currently being deceived, and will continue to be so blind if you do not open your eyes.
It is not the state of political parties - it is the driving force of the rulers over the ruled.
Which are you?
Those who have an ear, let them hear the truth... you have been deceived, are currently being deceived, and will continue to be so blind if you do not open your eyes.
It is not the state of political parties - it is the driving force of the rulers over the ruled.
Which are you?
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
"Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac."
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past."
"Winston could not definitely remember a time when his country had not been at war." (From 1984, Orwell)
GOP Ahead in Polls, but...
Real Clear Politics latest generic congressional poll shows that the Republican Party holds a 5 point lead over the Democrats, and that on average, the two parties are neck in neck... a far cry from a year ago when Democrats were enjoying a nearly 20 point advantage...
However, headlines such as "Harry Reid may lose seat to Republican Challenger" are meaningless when a vote for Republicans is nothing more than an opposition vote! The GOP has done little to resolve the issues with its leadership since the major whooping it was given in November of 2008. There has been much wound licking, but little actual realization at the top of the party ticket, leading me to believe that, should there be another Presidential election tomorrow, the GOP would still be inclined to run a horrible McCain style candidate and campaign.
What has not been realized is the one thing that is going to be overshadowed by the sudden popularity of the GOP - Consistent Message about Small Government.
The formula is simple: When Democrats act like Republicans they win, when Republicans act like Democrats they lose. Simpler yet, when either party stands against the growth of government, they are the victor - and it usually happens when they are in the minority.
Yes - if we sweep out the new Democrats and replace them with a Republican majority, there would be no change... NO CHANGE.
Sure, the topic of discussion may vary a little, however, the substance would remain the same... "How can we grow government to control one or more aspects of your life in order to obtain our objective?"
Where the GOP stands to make gains is to openly and honestly declare that THEY are the prescription for the ailment that is overbearing government. The GOP MUST make measurable steps in reducing the size of the government, returning it to a subordinate to the people.
The GOP leadership, in order to maintain a permanent majority, must set out a road map to liberty - a plan to return the country to the free men. They must sell this plan to the public, and follow through on every word. What would such a plan look like?
There must be a solid plan to eliminate government programs and agencies which are cancerous, including the Federal Reserve, the Department of Education, and other such money pits.
There must be an increased awareness of the role of the states and the people, stressing the importance of state governments to take the responsibilities to support programs which are needed/wanted by their residents.
There must be a clear message that "Compassionate Conservatism", or forced neoconservatism is over. We must be the party of liberty, not a forced social agenda. We need to draw the line in the sand on forced lifestyles! If we can differentiate ourselves here, we pick up a permanent majority.
As I have said in previous posts, the era of thinking that "our worst is still better than their best" is done. We need to define our message, stay on message, and support leaders for their ability to lead on that message - not merely because there is an R or a D after their name... We must break this style of thinking, and in doing so, we must show competency in our own ability to hold the public trust in a manner that leads to liberty.
Anything less is criminal. Anything less is merely more of the same.
However, headlines such as "Harry Reid may lose seat to Republican Challenger" are meaningless when a vote for Republicans is nothing more than an opposition vote! The GOP has done little to resolve the issues with its leadership since the major whooping it was given in November of 2008. There has been much wound licking, but little actual realization at the top of the party ticket, leading me to believe that, should there be another Presidential election tomorrow, the GOP would still be inclined to run a horrible McCain style candidate and campaign.
What has not been realized is the one thing that is going to be overshadowed by the sudden popularity of the GOP - Consistent Message about Small Government.
The formula is simple: When Democrats act like Republicans they win, when Republicans act like Democrats they lose. Simpler yet, when either party stands against the growth of government, they are the victor - and it usually happens when they are in the minority.
Yes - if we sweep out the new Democrats and replace them with a Republican majority, there would be no change... NO CHANGE.
Sure, the topic of discussion may vary a little, however, the substance would remain the same... "How can we grow government to control one or more aspects of your life in order to obtain our objective?"
Where the GOP stands to make gains is to openly and honestly declare that THEY are the prescription for the ailment that is overbearing government. The GOP MUST make measurable steps in reducing the size of the government, returning it to a subordinate to the people.
The GOP leadership, in order to maintain a permanent majority, must set out a road map to liberty - a plan to return the country to the free men. They must sell this plan to the public, and follow through on every word. What would such a plan look like?
There must be a solid plan to eliminate government programs and agencies which are cancerous, including the Federal Reserve, the Department of Education, and other such money pits.
There must be an increased awareness of the role of the states and the people, stressing the importance of state governments to take the responsibilities to support programs which are needed/wanted by their residents.
There must be a clear message that "Compassionate Conservatism", or forced neoconservatism is over. We must be the party of liberty, not a forced social agenda. We need to draw the line in the sand on forced lifestyles! If we can differentiate ourselves here, we pick up a permanent majority.
As I have said in previous posts, the era of thinking that "our worst is still better than their best" is done. We need to define our message, stay on message, and support leaders for their ability to lead on that message - not merely because there is an R or a D after their name... We must break this style of thinking, and in doing so, we must show competency in our own ability to hold the public trust in a manner that leads to liberty.
Anything less is criminal. Anything less is merely more of the same.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Obama's Iconography - Branding America the Fool
H/T to MAinfo for providing this video. It needs to be seen... it needs to be aired in its entirety on all Conservative TV News shows. It should be aired in primetime... an 8 minute buy on all stations across the nation to discus the danger of Obama's Iconography.
Watch the video in its entirety. It is powerful!
Watch the video in its entirety. It is powerful!
Feel free to use the following image at your leisure:
The Liberty Republican WANTS Healthcare Reform?
Astonishingly, Yes! However...
Obama has it wrong, the GOP has it wrong, the Federal Gummint has it wrong, and Liberal Scoundrels definitely have it wrong.
Let's look at some facts... Obama claims that the US spends more money than anyone in the world on Healthcare, but we have one of the lowest life expectancies per capita. How can that be? The answer: HEATH LEDGER. Heath died at age 28, adding a very low data point to our mortality schedule. In fact, you are more likely to die in an accident or murder in the US than anywhere else in the world. Americans have an unusual tendency to perish in homicides or accidents. We are 12 times more likely than the Japanese to be murdered and nearly twice as likely to be killed in auto wrecks. In their 2006 book, "The Business of Health," economists Robert L. Ohsfeldt and John E. Schneider set out to determine where the U.S. would rank in life span among developed nations if homicides and accidents are factored out. Their answer? First place.
First Place? So why all the fuss?
According to the Commonwelath fund, as reported by Newsweek, the answer comes down to Primary Care Visits. This report stated that nearly 25% of Americans reported waiting MORE THAN 6 DAYS when trying to schedule a visit with their Primary Care Physician.
AHA! The answer is staring us right there in the face... a free market healthcare system drove the best doctors into the higher paying specialties, because they could be compensated at a higher rate for their special talent! But that can't be the entire story... what about the reason why there isn't a swarm of young doctors looking to fill the vacuum in the Primary Care world. Therein lies the question.
In a country that has become lawsuit happy over personal injury, and a medical field that has become increasingly complicated and overbearingly understaffed, it is no wonder that the number of PCP is in decline.
What about the 47 Million Poor Souls who are dieing RIGHT NOW because they don't have health insurance allowing them to even SEE a doctor? Well, the following illustration is, in fact, a very accurate representation of the Democrat's "numbers"
Now, let's talk Healthcare reform. I said I was for it... right... so why the Obamacare bashing and the attack of all those in the Fed? Because I want to reform the government OUT of the Healthcare business altogether.
The system, IMHO, should be reformed to eliminate Medicare, Medicaid, and any other agency or program aimed at government regulated healthcare. There should be a private, affordable, and truly competitive set of services that will provide low cost coverage for healthcare needs. The government should reform laws PROTECTING the doctors from malpractice lawsuits - 25% of which are won by the patients, meaning that 3/4 of all lawsuits are most likely frivolous - driving up insurance costs and reflecting in premiums.
Patients and their families need to be more realistic. For instance, a 98 y/o woman has lower G/I bleeding. She is rushed to the hospital, the doctors begin giving her fluids and units of red blood cells. They determine that the best chance is exploratory surgery to find the cause, time is of the essence. They operate, she dies, the family sues for being one of the 12,000 deaths from unnecessary surgery.
What is the RESPONSIBLE THING TO DO HERE? First, start by understanding that Grandma is 98 YEARS OLD. It is most likely that her body was simply failing because it was done living. Nothing the doctors did could have saved her life - but inactivity would have also resulted in a lawsuit, I am sure.
Realistic expectations and responsible citizens are two solutions to the problem. Personal Responsibility of your own health, lifestyle, and habits is another solution. Finally, there should be a referendum of the states which officially cites the 10th amendment and that the Federal Government has NO AUTHORITY to collect taxes for, nor legislate or execute laws or practices related to healthcare.
My solution would encourage more local practices, community doctors, and incentivize healthy communities.
Obama has it wrong, the GOP has it wrong, the Federal Gummint has it wrong, and Liberal Scoundrels definitely have it wrong.
Let's look at some facts... Obama claims that the US spends more money than anyone in the world on Healthcare, but we have one of the lowest life expectancies per capita. How can that be? The answer: HEATH LEDGER. Heath died at age 28, adding a very low data point to our mortality schedule. In fact, you are more likely to die in an accident or murder in the US than anywhere else in the world. Americans have an unusual tendency to perish in homicides or accidents. We are 12 times more likely than the Japanese to be murdered and nearly twice as likely to be killed in auto wrecks. In their 2006 book, "The Business of Health," economists Robert L. Ohsfeldt and John E. Schneider set out to determine where the U.S. would rank in life span among developed nations if homicides and accidents are factored out. Their answer? First place.
First Place? So why all the fuss?
According to the Commonwelath fund, as reported by Newsweek, the answer comes down to Primary Care Visits. This report stated that nearly 25% of Americans reported waiting MORE THAN 6 DAYS when trying to schedule a visit with their Primary Care Physician.
New Zealand scored best, with just 3 percent waiting that long, followed by Australia (10 percent), Germany (13 percent), and Britain (15 percent). Canada rounded out the bottom, with more than a third waiting six days or more. Only 26 percent of Americans and Canadians reported being able see their doctor on the day they called, compared with 60 percent in the Netherlands and 48 percent in Britain. "Where we do well is on …selective surgery," she says. Only 8 percent of Americans have to wait four months or more for an elective procedure, and 62 percent wait less than a month. In Britain, 41 percent of patients have to wait four months or more. The disparity between primary and elective care, says Davis, is mostly due to a shortage of primary-care docs in the U.S.; we produce more specialists because specialists earn a lot more.
AHA! The answer is staring us right there in the face... a free market healthcare system drove the best doctors into the higher paying specialties, because they could be compensated at a higher rate for their special talent! But that can't be the entire story... what about the reason why there isn't a swarm of young doctors looking to fill the vacuum in the Primary Care world. Therein lies the question.
The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) produced an article highlighting medical malpractice lawsuit statistics, with regard to patient deaths:
106,000 patients die each year from the negative effects of medication
80,000 patients die each year due to complications from infections incurred in hospitals
20,000 deaths per year occur from other hospital errors
12,000 people die every year as a result of unnecessary surgery
7,000 medical malpractice deaths per year are attributed to medication errors in hospitals
This totals up to 225,000 deaths each year, due to medical negligence of some nature. And that number is ever growing.
In 2006, a report was produced by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, in which it is stated that medication errors are one of the most common medical mistakes, causing injury or harm to at least 1.5 million people every year.
In a country that has become lawsuit happy over personal injury, and a medical field that has become increasingly complicated and overbearingly understaffed, it is no wonder that the number of PCP is in decline.
What about the 47 Million Poor Souls who are dieing RIGHT NOW because they don't have health insurance allowing them to even SEE a doctor? Well, the following illustration is, in fact, a very accurate representation of the Democrat's "numbers"
Now, let's talk Healthcare reform. I said I was for it... right... so why the Obamacare bashing and the attack of all those in the Fed? Because I want to reform the government OUT of the Healthcare business altogether.
The system, IMHO, should be reformed to eliminate Medicare, Medicaid, and any other agency or program aimed at government regulated healthcare. There should be a private, affordable, and truly competitive set of services that will provide low cost coverage for healthcare needs. The government should reform laws PROTECTING the doctors from malpractice lawsuits - 25% of which are won by the patients, meaning that 3/4 of all lawsuits are most likely frivolous - driving up insurance costs and reflecting in premiums.
Patients and their families need to be more realistic. For instance, a 98 y/o woman has lower G/I bleeding. She is rushed to the hospital, the doctors begin giving her fluids and units of red blood cells. They determine that the best chance is exploratory surgery to find the cause, time is of the essence. They operate, she dies, the family sues for being one of the 12,000 deaths from unnecessary surgery.
What is the RESPONSIBLE THING TO DO HERE? First, start by understanding that Grandma is 98 YEARS OLD. It is most likely that her body was simply failing because it was done living. Nothing the doctors did could have saved her life - but inactivity would have also resulted in a lawsuit, I am sure.
Realistic expectations and responsible citizens are two solutions to the problem. Personal Responsibility of your own health, lifestyle, and habits is another solution. Finally, there should be a referendum of the states which officially cites the 10th amendment and that the Federal Government has NO AUTHORITY to collect taxes for, nor legislate or execute laws or practices related to healthcare.
My solution would encourage more local practices, community doctors, and incentivize healthy communities.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Patriotism, Love of Liberty is Radical Extremism in America
The Associated Press ran a story picked up by Fox News, reporting on an individual assessment done by the Southern Poverty Law Center which warns that Right Wing Extremism is on the rise... the driving factor for the rise? Hatred of a Black President, or so says the report.
What is equally disturbing is the "lumping" that is taking place... in some cases it is subtle, but the overall intent is not without notice.
The report mentions the "Aztlan" situation - but calls it a conspiracy. Ask anyone vaguely familiar with La Raza (Like our new Justice Sotomayor), and you will surely gain full knowledge of the open plan to recolonize the American Southwest for future desires to break away from the US as Aztlan. Watch the following video... and ask yourself - is this a radical conspiracy made up by Right Wing Extremists or an actual movement?
It goes on to demonize those who dislike paying taxes, those who own or embrace the ownership of "assault rifles", and finally, compares the entire lot to Timothy McVeigh.
There are a few things happening here... It begins by attempting to make your opponent seem illogical - painting them as looney, irrational, and paranoid. Once this is accomplished, the propaganda corps (aka the Media) can use reports such as this to make reference to the paranoia that has been documented by such esteemed groups, such as the SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center).
Let me be perfectly clear - there is a smear campaign in full swing. ANY AND ALL opposition to the liberal agenda (and that includes the agenda Bush was pushing too) is being openly condemned as Racist, Hateful, and Un-American. This swarm of attacks by the Government and their lapdog groups, such as the SPLC, is a pre-emptive strike against those who dare to stand up and question the legality, morality, or ideology of the Ruling Class. We are being targeted as radical, and the threat of the full force and might of the US Government is in tow - as was seen when the DHS released their report on "Extremist Groups" back in March/April, allowing "law enforcement" to treat protesters like terrorists.
I am reminded of a statement made by an old professor (not of mine, rather of the recent past):
The truth behind the militia movement, the separatist movement, the anti-government movement, or any other "right wing extremist" thought pattern or ideology is simple.
"There was a dream that was [America]... It shall be realized.
Not to romanticise this in any way... but the idea is simple... the hero always fights against the oppressor. When the US government becomes oppressive to her people, trading liberty for security, it is then when a hero is needed. Reagan stated that the most dangerous armament is the will of free men... how prophetic those words!
Questioning our government is never extreme. Preparing for the unknown is never extreme. Dreaming of something more, something that can be... it is never extreme...
What is equally disturbing is the "lumping" that is taking place... in some cases it is subtle, but the overall intent is not without notice.
The report mentions the "Aztlan" situation - but calls it a conspiracy. Ask anyone vaguely familiar with La Raza (Like our new Justice Sotomayor), and you will surely gain full knowledge of the open plan to recolonize the American Southwest for future desires to break away from the US as Aztlan. Watch the following video... and ask yourself - is this a radical conspiracy made up by Right Wing Extremists or an actual movement?
It goes on to demonize those who dislike paying taxes, those who own or embrace the ownership of "assault rifles", and finally, compares the entire lot to Timothy McVeigh.
There are a few things happening here... It begins by attempting to make your opponent seem illogical - painting them as looney, irrational, and paranoid. Once this is accomplished, the propaganda corps (aka the Media) can use reports such as this to make reference to the paranoia that has been documented by such esteemed groups, such as the SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center).
Let me be perfectly clear - there is a smear campaign in full swing. ANY AND ALL opposition to the liberal agenda (and that includes the agenda Bush was pushing too) is being openly condemned as Racist, Hateful, and Un-American. This swarm of attacks by the Government and their lapdog groups, such as the SPLC, is a pre-emptive strike against those who dare to stand up and question the legality, morality, or ideology of the Ruling Class. We are being targeted as radical, and the threat of the full force and might of the US Government is in tow - as was seen when the DHS released their report on "Extremist Groups" back in March/April, allowing "law enforcement" to treat protesters like terrorists.
I am reminded of a statement made by an old professor (not of mine, rather of the recent past):
"death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush. It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment" - Robert Maynard HutchinsIt is the return to apathy and indifference that the mainstream figures, and the SPLC, are hoping for. They strive for an unmotivated mass of consumers with no anchor in core fundamental beliefs. They desire the neutering of an activist society, especially one whose idea of liberty differs so vastly from their own. Let there be no mistake - these are nothing more than politically motivated false reports with a clear agenda - an agenda of mass misinformation.
The truth behind the militia movement, the separatist movement, the anti-government movement, or any other "right wing extremist" thought pattern or ideology is simple.
"There was a dream that was [America]... It shall be realized.
Not to romanticise this in any way... but the idea is simple... the hero always fights against the oppressor. When the US government becomes oppressive to her people, trading liberty for security, it is then when a hero is needed. Reagan stated that the most dangerous armament is the will of free men... how prophetic those words!
Questioning our government is never extreme. Preparing for the unknown is never extreme. Dreaming of something more, something that can be... it is never extreme...
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
A Million Kajillion MPG - Buy Government Motors!
CNN.com Money writes, as most news agency is spreading the propaganda, that the Gov. Motors (GM) Chevy Volt will be EPA Rated at 230 MPG. They go so far as to boast that the rating was formulated in a way to help consumers compare standard combustion engine vehicles to the new GM Volt.
This is absolute lunacy. It makes just as much sense to give the Volt an EPA rating of a Million Kajillion MPG...
The simple fact is that the volt, and other fully electric vehicles, CANNOT be measured in a MPG rating.
For instance, suppose the Volt has an optional Solar Roof, with a Triple Junction Gallium Arsenide Solar Array over the area of the roof, capable of providing a full battery recharge during the work day... well... same vehicle, but now you never need to run your gas generator... so it has unlimited mileage with NO FUEL USE...
The reports are nothing but propaganda aimed at perking up the ears of the uneducated masses. We would be better served by a more intelligent discussion about what revolutionary changes something like the Volt can bring... simply relating to We The People in kindergarten terms is insulting!
Do I think we need to embrace technologies put forth by the Volt? Absolutely.
Do I think we need trickery and idiocracy to sell new technologies? No.
Alas, remember that we are the children and the gu'mint is our daddy... tell me what to do!
This is absolute lunacy. It makes just as much sense to give the Volt an EPA rating of a Million Kajillion MPG...
The simple fact is that the volt, and other fully electric vehicles, CANNOT be measured in a MPG rating.
For instance, suppose the Volt has an optional Solar Roof, with a Triple Junction Gallium Arsenide Solar Array over the area of the roof, capable of providing a full battery recharge during the work day... well... same vehicle, but now you never need to run your gas generator... so it has unlimited mileage with NO FUEL USE...
The reports are nothing but propaganda aimed at perking up the ears of the uneducated masses. We would be better served by a more intelligent discussion about what revolutionary changes something like the Volt can bring... simply relating to We The People in kindergarten terms is insulting!
Do I think we need to embrace technologies put forth by the Volt? Absolutely.
Do I think we need trickery and idiocracy to sell new technologies? No.
Alas, remember that we are the children and the gu'mint is our daddy... tell me what to do!
Amendment X - a Call to...???
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
The all limiting, all encompassing liberty amendment. It is the one amendment that has the power to tear down a leviathan and return freedom to the states and people.
But what was the purpose of explicitly limiting the powers of a federal government to those documented in the Constitution, and no others?
Here is a great History Lesson from the Tenth Amendment Center:
If this is the case, and the argument of "implied sovereign authority" is moot, then the President of the United States and the members of Congress have no authority to dictate banking and housing bailouts, mandatory healthcare, cash for clunkers, or any other "program" that excessively burdens my explicit right of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness... and therefore the actions of the Federal Government are in violation of the contract between the Federal Government and the People, commonly known as being Un-Constitutional.
Of course, the US Government operates under the premise of "Sovereign Immunity" which means that unless they explicitly waive their immunity, explicitly allowing a suit to be taken, then a citizen cannot take suit against the Government.
The federal government has become an authoritarian dictatorial body, with no means for checks and balances accountable to the people. Elections are hardly tools for change, rather merely opinions of the consumers. No real element of change comes, especially in the way of returning the Federal Government to its Constitutional bounds.
So I pose a question, what power is left to the citizen, aside from petitioning the state for redress of grievances?
The all limiting, all encompassing liberty amendment. It is the one amendment that has the power to tear down a leviathan and return freedom to the states and people.
But what was the purpose of explicitly limiting the powers of a federal government to those documented in the Constitution, and no others?
Here is a great History Lesson from the Tenth Amendment Center:
Throughout the period of the Continental and Confederation Congresses (1776-1788), advocates of a strong central government argued that, in addition to whatever express powers Congress had received from the states, Congress also enjoyed additional “inherent sovereign authority.” This theory would allow Congress to exercise many powers not on the list granted by the Articles of Confederation.
During this period, the “inherent sovereign authority” argument was made by John Adams, Benjamin Rush, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and the Hartford Convention of 1780. They argued that Congress necessarily had inherent sovereign authority because it was America’s agent for foreign affairs. They sometimes argued that the British Crown conveyed inherent sovereign authority to Congress by the 1783 peace treaty recognizing independence.
The best-known exposition of inherent sovereign authority appeared in James Wilson’s Considerations on the Bank of North America. Wilson’s purpose in composing this paper was to justify Congress’s decision to charter a national bank, even though the Articles of Confederation had given Congress no such power.
Opponents of the Constitution admitted that the Constitution enumerated federal powers, but they feared that Wilson & Company might raise the same “inherent sovereign authority” claim again. Accordingly, most of the states demanded a constitutional amendment explicitly limiting the federal government to those enumerated in the Constitution. That amendment became the Tenth.
What is particularly surprising in light of this history and the Tenth Amendment’s explicit wording, is that some people still argued that the federal government had a vast reservoir of “inherent sovereign authority.”
The subject came up in a 1907 case (Kansas v. Colorado), but the Supreme Court rejected the idea, citing the Tenth Amendment. But the Court used the theory in a 1936 (U.S. v. Curtiss-Wright) to justify federal foreign affairs powers. And a majority of the court seems to have endorsed it in a 2004 case (U.S. v. Lara) explaining federal power over the Indian tribes.
But as a matter of history and constitutional text, there is no real doubt that the Tenth Amendment rendered the theory of “implied sovereign authority” completely illegitimate.
If this is the case, and the argument of "implied sovereign authority" is moot, then the President of the United States and the members of Congress have no authority to dictate banking and housing bailouts, mandatory healthcare, cash for clunkers, or any other "program" that excessively burdens my explicit right of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness... and therefore the actions of the Federal Government are in violation of the contract between the Federal Government and the People, commonly known as being Un-Constitutional.
Of course, the US Government operates under the premise of "Sovereign Immunity" which means that unless they explicitly waive their immunity, explicitly allowing a suit to be taken, then a citizen cannot take suit against the Government.
The federal government has become an authoritarian dictatorial body, with no means for checks and balances accountable to the people. Elections are hardly tools for change, rather merely opinions of the consumers. No real element of change comes, especially in the way of returning the Federal Government to its Constitutional bounds.
So I pose a question, what power is left to the citizen, aside from petitioning the state for redress of grievances?
Thursday, August 6, 2009
The dumbing down of America
This video outlines the cause of the dumbing down of America. Satirical as it may be, there is truth in it... try to find yourself not nodding along in agreement!
Idiocracy - Opening Sequence - The most amazing bloopers are here
Idiocracy - Opening Sequence - The most amazing bloopers are here
American Regional Secession – WSJ says “yes” – I ask about Security
Before we get started, I would like to thank Ol’ Snaggle-Tooth Jones for his consistent coverage of the increased call for state’s secession in local and national media. Watchdogs like Jones keep the discussion happening.
Jones wrote an interesting article which pointed to the Wall Street Journal’s US News Story (not an Editorial, mind you) suggesting that the United States would be stronger should the Union unravel under the increased bloating of the Federal Government. It is an interesting read, and I can openly agree that in the long run, a more free state makes a stronger union… as such, a loose confederation of states, I believe, is in the best interest of personal freedom… but what about “national security”?
Let there be no doubt in anyone’s mind that the United States of America has rubbed a lot of people the wrong way, either through war, trade, or brute. There is little doubt that a split in the union of the states could potentially spark a subtle invasion of influence… similar to what the US did to Russia after the collapse of their union. Is there doubt in anyone’s mind that Russia, China, or other states of varying levels of influence would undoubtedly begin jockeying for position for favor of the individual states? I also ask, what about the internal conflicts already in existence in the US, and how will that affect certain portions of the newly free regions? Will the secession of the many states result in utter chaos and lawlessness in certain regions of the Americas?
Let’s look at California, as is done in the WSJ article. California can be easily subdivided into 3 regions – North/Central/South, hypothetically.
Northern California would include the greater region of Southern Oregon, which was the earlier proposed State of Jefferson (abandoned after the attack on Pearl Harbor). The state never materialized, but the collective disdain for Sacramento and Salem has never diminished. This mountainous region is rich in raw material, lumber, ore, and water. Taking with it a sizable portion of the northern Sacramento Valley for agricultural needs, Northern California would have the potential to become an economic powerhouse, completely self sufficient, and defendable from foreign invasion – three things which are necessary to the existence of a strong state.
Central California – the desert turned into an agricultural oasis. Central California would likely continue to operate much like the California of today, though with a more balanced budget, I am sure. Central California would range from the northern Sacramento valley to the hills separating the valley from Los Angeles. This region would be culturally diverse, but would be required to band together for the survival of the port cities. It would be a region rife with hardships regarding longevity, as the smell of liberty may leave those working the fields asking the question “to what end?” Would Central California exist as an oasis of sexual freedom, a bohemian paradise? Or would there be such a conflict with the central valley that Bay Area culture eventually isolates it from the rest of its micro-nation? There would be little in the way of violence, but definitely a nation full of debate about the future of their way of life. Perhaps such differences in lifestyles would lead to an extreme libertarian government? Rather more likely is that the San Francisco political think would attempt to ensure absolute control via taxation for the purpose of wealth redistribution. Thus, Central California would most likely become a socialist style “Utopia”… with a revolution laying in wait! Again, Central California would have defensible borders, economic strength due to the abundant resources and agriculture, and would be able to be self sufficient.
Southern California, our last region to explore, would be where violence and turmoil ran rampant. The region would run from the hills of northern L.A. east to the mountains (not beyond because a country in turmoil lacks ability to defend desert interests), and extend south through the International border with Mexico into northern Baja. The rapid secession of Southern California would equate to instant lawlessness, mass casualty from gang style violence, and mass genocide of one race over the other – namely Latinos supporting the “La Raza” mentality would feel the need to cleanse the land of blacks, whites, Asians, etc. It is a region where the Federal Government has much interest and large military installations, and may fight any succession movement with military force and martial law. Southern California would be a Kosovo style war zone, tearing itself apart from the inside, unable to sustain, defend, or produce. There would be no stabilization except that of a radical ideologue style government, bent on racial cleansing of Aztlan.
However likely or unlikely the above scenarios may be, one has to wonder and ask what the state of personal security would look like under a “devolved” United States. Would the regions of racial tensions explode into violent, war torn lands of genocide? Or is it possible for a nation to peacefully dissolve into a multitude of free lands under a loose security pact, mirroring the original make-up of this nation under the Articles of Confederation?
Personal security is an individual responsibility. Regional stability is also a personal responsibility. However real the future secession of the people from the Union may be, it is imperative that thought be put into liberty… and anyone living in a land of true devolution, where mass genocide is the certain outcome, is better off leaving, preparing for war, or dissuading secession altogether.
Jones wrote an interesting article which pointed to the Wall Street Journal’s US News Story (not an Editorial, mind you) suggesting that the United States would be stronger should the Union unravel under the increased bloating of the Federal Government. It is an interesting read, and I can openly agree that in the long run, a more free state makes a stronger union… as such, a loose confederation of states, I believe, is in the best interest of personal freedom… but what about “national security”?
Let there be no doubt in anyone’s mind that the United States of America has rubbed a lot of people the wrong way, either through war, trade, or brute. There is little doubt that a split in the union of the states could potentially spark a subtle invasion of influence… similar to what the US did to Russia after the collapse of their union. Is there doubt in anyone’s mind that Russia, China, or other states of varying levels of influence would undoubtedly begin jockeying for position for favor of the individual states? I also ask, what about the internal conflicts already in existence in the US, and how will that affect certain portions of the newly free regions? Will the secession of the many states result in utter chaos and lawlessness in certain regions of the Americas?
Let’s look at California, as is done in the WSJ article. California can be easily subdivided into 3 regions – North/Central/South, hypothetically.
Northern California would include the greater region of Southern Oregon, which was the earlier proposed State of Jefferson (abandoned after the attack on Pearl Harbor). The state never materialized, but the collective disdain for Sacramento and Salem has never diminished. This mountainous region is rich in raw material, lumber, ore, and water. Taking with it a sizable portion of the northern Sacramento Valley for agricultural needs, Northern California would have the potential to become an economic powerhouse, completely self sufficient, and defendable from foreign invasion – three things which are necessary to the existence of a strong state.
Central California – the desert turned into an agricultural oasis. Central California would likely continue to operate much like the California of today, though with a more balanced budget, I am sure. Central California would range from the northern Sacramento valley to the hills separating the valley from Los Angeles. This region would be culturally diverse, but would be required to band together for the survival of the port cities. It would be a region rife with hardships regarding longevity, as the smell of liberty may leave those working the fields asking the question “to what end?” Would Central California exist as an oasis of sexual freedom, a bohemian paradise? Or would there be such a conflict with the central valley that Bay Area culture eventually isolates it from the rest of its micro-nation? There would be little in the way of violence, but definitely a nation full of debate about the future of their way of life. Perhaps such differences in lifestyles would lead to an extreme libertarian government? Rather more likely is that the San Francisco political think would attempt to ensure absolute control via taxation for the purpose of wealth redistribution. Thus, Central California would most likely become a socialist style “Utopia”… with a revolution laying in wait! Again, Central California would have defensible borders, economic strength due to the abundant resources and agriculture, and would be able to be self sufficient.
Southern California, our last region to explore, would be where violence and turmoil ran rampant. The region would run from the hills of northern L.A. east to the mountains (not beyond because a country in turmoil lacks ability to defend desert interests), and extend south through the International border with Mexico into northern Baja. The rapid secession of Southern California would equate to instant lawlessness, mass casualty from gang style violence, and mass genocide of one race over the other – namely Latinos supporting the “La Raza” mentality would feel the need to cleanse the land of blacks, whites, Asians, etc. It is a region where the Federal Government has much interest and large military installations, and may fight any succession movement with military force and martial law. Southern California would be a Kosovo style war zone, tearing itself apart from the inside, unable to sustain, defend, or produce. There would be no stabilization except that of a radical ideologue style government, bent on racial cleansing of Aztlan.
However likely or unlikely the above scenarios may be, one has to wonder and ask what the state of personal security would look like under a “devolved” United States. Would the regions of racial tensions explode into violent, war torn lands of genocide? Or is it possible for a nation to peacefully dissolve into a multitude of free lands under a loose security pact, mirroring the original make-up of this nation under the Articles of Confederation?
Personal security is an individual responsibility. Regional stability is also a personal responsibility. However real the future secession of the people from the Union may be, it is imperative that thought be put into liberty… and anyone living in a land of true devolution, where mass genocide is the certain outcome, is better off leaving, preparing for war, or dissuading secession altogether.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)