A Hypothetical Convention of States

I read an article where 19 states expressed interest in holding a convention of states, which is something in the Constitution where all the states send representatives to a massive convention and change the US Constitution, usually by adding amendments to it and bypassing Congress to do so.

I know that such a thing will probably never happen since many state officials are perfectly happy with the status quo and are looking to gain Federal office so they won’t rock that boat.  Unless it’s Epstein’s boat.

But, in the interest of dreaming, I have the following suggestions for amendments to the Constitution that may give us all some semblance of sanity back to the Federal government.  In general, I don’t believe we really need to expand the existing rights as outlined in the Constitution, just reinforce them with some more clearly outlined repercussions for violating those rights.

• The Balanced Budget Amendment.  It’s an old relic from the 1990s, but it’s something that needs to be passed.  Add a provision that requires Congress to pass a budget each year and if they do not, then the Federal government is not funded and every contractor and federal employee is out of a job.  That includes all “necessary” functions like Congressional staffers and the military.
• Create term limits for Congress.  Limit it to 12 years total for both the House and the Senate.  Therefore, a single person cannot serve in Congress for more than 12 years.
• Repeal the 17th Amendment and place the elections of Senators back into the hands of the State Legislatures.
• Change representation in the House to represent only eligible voters.  And require that there be one representative per 30,000 eligible voters.  That proportion may be a bit high, so I’d be fine with it going to in 10,000, so let’s make 30,000 the max.
• Require that all laws passed by Congress have at least a 3/5 majority in both houses and eliminate the Presidential veto.  Checks and balances was a stupid concept.
• Require that all laws passed by Congress expire in two years.  Congress can vote to renew said laws, but this makes it so that should a new party take control, it is much easier to eliminate bad laws passed by previous conventions.
• Require that all treaties ratified by the Senate expire in 6 years and must be reconsidered.  Treaties in general have been a huge loophole around the Constitution and very little has been done to stop this.  Also, this eliminates the possibility of getting caught up in entangling alliances.
• Limit Presidential authority to only what is explicitly granted to him by Congress and the Constitution.  Explicitly state that States can ignore presidential orders if they violate this standard without consequence.
• Give term limits to Federal Judges.  They can only serve a maximum of 15 years on any Federal bench.
• Limit the scope of judicial authority to only settling disputes between states and between states and the Federal government.
• Strengthen the 10th Amendment by explicitly stating that the State government can arrest, detain, and imprison any Federal official acting outside the explicit powers granted to the Federal government by the US Constitution.
• Give the States the ability to impeach and remove any elected Federal official by having a plurality of Governors call for impeachment hearings outside of Congress.  There needs to be additional methods for removing bad politicians.
• Require that the States purge their voter rolls each year and have their citizens re-register.  Right now, the Federal government prevents this because of racism.
• Limit voters to any natural-born US citizen over the age of 18.  Legalized citizens cannot vote, but any children they have who are natural-born citizens can vote.
• Require that all lending done to US citizens be completely forgiven once the debtor dies.  The lender cannot collect what is owed from the left over assets of the debtor.  Those assets belong to their children, not the lender.
• Limit all loans to US citizens to last no more than 10 years.  Once 10 years are up, the debt is forgiven and the debtor can no longer collect the debt or any interest.  Congress cannot tax the debt difference as income either.
• Interest rates for all loans are determined solely by a plurality in the House of Representatives.  They are not established by the free market lest the free market fall into a greed spiral that we see today.
• Copyrights should be owned by individual citizens, not institutions or corporations.  Once said citizen dies, the copyright falls into public domain.  Patents should be held in the same regard.  Trademarks can be owned by companies and corporations.
• Repeal the 16th Amendment and require that the Federal government acquires tax revenue from either sales tax or International tariffs.

That’s about all the autism I can muster for this article.  I very much doubt any of these ideas will enter the public consciousness, let alone be seriously considered for the US Constitution.  I am not, after all, a prominent scholar or expert in these matters.

But maybe some random person will see it and when this country falls apart because our Satanic overlords decide to go to war with the entire world, they can rebuild what’s left with these ideas in mind.

Healthcare.gov: Not Good Enough For Government Work

As a professional software developer and having spent over nine years in the field, I am mildly amused that Healthcare.gov is having so much trouble with their “services.”  Having lived on the rim of insanity most of my life and seeing so many people work for the Federal government either directly or indirectly through contracting, it comes as no surprise that a government-created website would fail.

I do not work for a government agency or contractor.  I never have worked for a Federal government contractor nor agency.  I sometimes wonder what it would be like to earn six figures and have less knowledge and experience than I do now.  But I remember that the Federal government basically runs a series of Ponzi schemes and engages in massive wealth redistribution and it’s better that I not infect others with my awesomeness through the USGov machine.

On why it has failed, I can think of a few reasons, given my own experience:

• There was no testing done with the website.  At least no adequate testing.  What is more than likely to have happened is that the developers simply cobbled together a website and ran it on their local machines.  No performance testing was done.  No extensive quality control.  I’d be surprised if they had set up automated unit tests to ensure that their business rules weren’t broken when they made changes.  What probably happened is that the developers ran the website and just made sure it was functional.
• The business requirements of the website were more than likely extreme and absurd.  This is to be expected when it comes to government requirement.  My guess is that Baby-killer friend Kathleen Sibelius herself was involved in many of the user requirements when it was designed.  In any case, the business logic of the website appears to be complicated and overdone.  The thing about websites and software development is, the simpler it is, the less likely it can go wrong.
• There was probably very little design that went into development.  More than likely, the developers got the user requirements and just started throwing together a website.  While I don’t think they should have spent a whole lot of time on the design, they definitely didn’t do much of one.
• Lack of third-party tools is another big fail.  In a system that registers users, a CRM base would have been easily used.  More than likely, however, is that the entire system was built from scratch.  This is not a good way to go about developing, especially when you’re going to have a larger pool of money than a private business.  I suspect, however, that there are certain requirements when it comes to developing software for government though and that my have prevented key third-party tools from being used.
• More than likely, the Department of Health and Human Services dragged its feet on getting this website development going.  This meant that the developers had a limited timetable to get the website done.  Although I can’t imagine it taking more than a few months to complete.
• More than likely, the developers were not experienced in developing websites for clients who had high traffic volumes.  If the website was solidly built, then fixing the high-volume traffic would be a simple matter of moving the site to a server system that can support it.  If that were the case, the site would be working.
• The developers themselves were incompetent.  I’ve seen this happen before.  Basically, the developers were hired because of their credentials and because they are here on a work visa.  This is not to knock foreigners when it comes software development expertise, but when you have a solid professional working for less than the median average because you could deport him or her at any time, you are not going to get quality work.  I’m betting the development company that was contracted out had a slew of these kind of workers and looked at software development as akin to working an assembly line.  It is not.
• EEOC restrictions probably hampered good development as well.  The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission once visited a company I worked for when they were trying to get a contract with the Post Office (fell through).  After looking over our department, they told my boss that he needed to hire more women.  Never mind that at the time we had only two white men (myself included), a handicapped Ethiopian, a Korean, two Nepalese people (my boss included), and a handicapped Indian.  No, our diversity required women.  My guess is that rather than hiring capable people, this software company probably hired based on race and gender first and foremost.

I’ve talked with seasoned developers during my career.  I can say that government work, be it direct or indirect, is not exactly a rewarding career path.  Sure you’ll probably make well above the median income for what you do, but at the same time you won’t do much.  And when you are doing something, it will either be stripped down or fail.

Good enough for government work, right?

The Will of the Majority vs. The Constitution

No, they should not

This video illustrates an important point to remember when discussing politics: is the government allowed to do it?

In the mainstream media and in every major campaign outlet, it is assumed that the government can do anything it pleases, provided that the majority of people have voted on it, either directly or indirectly via representation.  This is prevalent among both parties, just that both have different ways of saying it.

For Republicans, as an example, they believe that the Federal government has unlimited authority when it comes to war-making powers.  More specifically, they believe that the President is allowed to make all the wars he wants, so long as Congress approves it within 90 days.  Of course, they argue that this is perfectly constitutional, never-mind that they probably could not cite the article or section in the Constitution that grants these powers.

The Democrats, as an example, tend to argue that the government can do whatever it pleases with regards to economic matters.  They might cite constitutional precedent, but they have, by and large, not done much of this as of late (Republicans have not either).  The fact is, they feel that the government is allowed to set wages, force us to buy products we might otherwise not buy, and generally control commerce.  Never mind that the whole lot of them (and by them I mean Republicans too in this case) are nothing but a bunch of failures in their own lives.

It is astounding that nobody in the mainstream media even bothers to say that the Federal government has specific limits and that no majority of vote can overturn it.  Instead of regarding the Constitution as a document that sets boundaries for the government, we are instead told that I merely defines the structure of our government and that’s about it.

It is sad that the majority of voters believe in the latter while neglecting the former implication of this basic concept.  And then they hoot and holler when a freedom is taken away by the very same people they voted into office.

Of course, the Constitution is only as good as the people sworn to uphold it.  I’m not impressed with my options.

Reason #2 that the Federal Government is Illegitimate

Quite simply, they lack the moral authority to lead:

Allen W. Dulles, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) wrote in “The Craft of Intelligence,” “sex and hard-headed intelligence operations rarely mix well.” Perhaps the boys at the Pentagon need a refresher course.

This past week, the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency warned its staff not to view porn on U.S. government computers. The Pentagon also released a report on April’s Secret Service Colombian scandal. The two are connected.

In April, I said the Colombian scandal exposed a national security problem, the epidemic of U.S. government employees viewing porn — child porn — on government networks. I suggested readers type “Transportation Security Administration,” “U.S. State Department,” “Pentagon,” “Immigration and Customs Enforcement” and “child porn” into Google’s search field to understand the scope. I neglected to include “Missile Defense Agency.”

Bloomberg quotes a cybersecurity expert saying the Missile Defense Agency’s use of porn is concerning because “many pornographic websites are infected and criminals and foreign intelligence services such as Russia’s use them to gain access and harvest data.”

The only possible response is: Duh.

In 2006, the deputy press secretary for the Department of Homeland Security was arrested for trying to seduce online someone he thought was a teenage girl. Four years later, the Securities and Exchange Commission found that 17 of 31 employees caught accessing porn at work since 2008 — one for up to eight hours a day — were senior staff.

In 2010, the Boston Globe reported that senior Pentagon staff were downloading child porn. Instead of generating a media storm, the story died. Senior staff were watching the sexual torture of small children on Pentagon computers, and Americans were not outraged?

The latest revelation of missile-defense staff using porn should have America extremely alarmed. It is not yet confirmed if child porn was involved.

In other words, all the top staffers are looking at pornography all day long.  And not just any porn.  Child-porn.

That’s right.  Our nation’s Federal government is run by pedophiles.  And I’ll be damned if I’m going to stand here and be lectured to by a pervert:

Yes, I couldn’t resist this clip.

Don’t Go to College: You’ll Just End Up on Food Stamps

This wonderful news came down the wire:

The number of PhD recipients on food stamps and other forms of welfare more than tripled between 2007 and 2010 to 33,655, according to an Urban Institute analysis cited by the Chronicle of Higher Education. The number of master's degree holders on food stamps and other forms of welfare nearly tripled during that same time period to 293,029, according to the same analysis.

The boost in PhD recipients receiving food stamps is just the latest indication of how Americans are struggling in a down economy. Overall, the number of Americans on food stamps rose 43 percent over the past three years to 46.3 million Americans as of February 2012, according to the Department of Agriculture.

In addition, even graduate degrees that many used to consider a guarantee to a life of wealth and success are going down in value. The sluggish economy has pushed graduates with law degrees to look for jobs outside of the legal profession, according to U.S. News and World Report.

This is why I encourage everyone who is not above the 75 percentile in the nation to not pursue higher education after high school.  A simple test to determine if you are not in that range is to wonder what a percentile is.  If you don’t know what it is, then you shouldn’t be going to college.

What is happening with college degrees of all kinds is exactly what happens when you flood the market with any product.  The supplies are higher than the demand and thus, the value of college degrees is going down in the marketplace.  This is basic economics and if you had bother to read a book about it (I recommend Thomas Sowell’s Basic Economics any edition), then you would have realized this simple fact.

The fact of the matter is, most colleges are, to paraphrase Matt Groaning, no better than adult daycare centers for most students.  Everyone who goes to college generally does not do so in order to learn a career skill but to basically have a four year party before they end up working.  Given that most graduates are leaving college with tens of thousands of dollars of Federal Student Loan debt (which cannot be bankrupted), I wonder if the expensive party is worth it?

Now we have a confirmation that it was not worth it for most graduates as many are going on government welfare.  This is how the government operates.  One way or the other you will be on their dole and in their pocket.  I had an uncle who used to be a dairy farmer.  As such, he was subject to the USDA rules and regulations.  Because he was a small businessman as well (as most family farms are), he wanted to produce as much milk as he could.  But the government didn’t like the fact that he was producing more milk (thus driving the price down) than they mandated and so they made him pay more for it.  His family had to go to food stamps for a time as a result.

This is what they do.  They tax you on one end, foster debt on you, and then force you to go to them when you can’t meet the basic needs of your family.  It is all about control and we are seeing this play out in the modern education system, especially with college.  When President Obama pushed for more student loans for more college goers, he did not do this out of a sense of charity but of malice.  He is a Statist through and through and he wanted more people in debt to the government.  And he was all too happy to provide the loans through a private bankster company who enjoys the idea of issuing loans that are not only guaranteed by the State, but the State will also provide enforcement at the point of gun, sometimes literally.

And now more and more college graduates are finding that their degrees are worthless, even the ones that took nearly a decade to “earn.”

The college system is a scam.  If you are not in or above the 75th percentile in the nation when you graduate from high school, then you have no business in college.  If you go to college with your major as Undecided, General Studies, a business major, or a joke major like African studies or women studies, then you have no business being there.   If your IQ is not above average (with average being between 90 and 115), then you have no business being there.

Most people are better off without college.  Even the knowledge I received while pursuing a degree Computer Science has proved to be mostly worthless in the real world.  I was fortunate though in that I was taught programming in C++ while I’ve heard some graduates who learned to program using Fortran, which is language deader than Latin.  Still though, I do not retain much of my studies now from my college days.  I am, however, one of the roughly 20 percent of people who are in a career field that is related to the degree I received.

But if 80% of the people who receive college degrees are not in a career field related to said degree than that means that 80% of the people who go to college wasted their time, money, and squandered their futures to a degree.  I suppose the 75th percentile rule is a little too generous.

Obamacare Will Not Be Overturned

I have heard that from many courtroom observers that the Supreme Court will overturn Obamacare, given the rhetoric and questioning that they gave the government’s lawyers sent there to defend that monstrous bill.  I have my doubts though and this is largely due to the inherent nature of the Supreme Court as a whole and its tendency to uphold or increase government power grabs such those.

First of all, have you ever heard of a significant bill that was ever overturned by the Supreme Court, even when it was blatantly unconstitutional?  I have heard mutterings of some bills here or there, but nothing significant like Obamacare.  In most cases, the Supreme Court upholds the Federal government’s power grabs and writes their own wordy, sophomoric justifications for their decisions.  Most of the time, these justifications are written in legalese which only a few law professors can understand.  That in and of itself is a problem as the Constitution is a very simple, easy to understand document.  There is no complexity about it and the words used more or less have the same meaning that they do today.  So why do they dig into it and assume there is some hidden meaning?

It happens all the time regardless of whether there is a “conservative” justice or a “liberal” one.  Usually, there is some justification for land grabs, torture, search and seizure without a warrant, Federal anti-drug laws, and various other injustices.  I think the worst decision ever handed down was the Wickard v. Filborn in which they all decided that the Federal government has the right to regulate all economic activity, essentially rubber stamping Socialist legislation.

But then we hear about all the good cases that the court has decided on.  The most prominent being Brown v. Board of Education.  This case, however, never would have happened had it not been for the decision made in Plessy v. Ferguson, which was a decision handed down by a previous court.  And few know that following the Brown decision, the Warren court imposed integration on various school districts which ran counter to what was previously decided upon with Brown.

Another argument might be that there are conservatives in the court would overturn the bad law.  Unfortunately, this did not happen with the McCain-Feingold bill, where Congress essentially ensured that incumbents would have an even greater chance of getting re-elected by limiting the finances of their opponents and limiting the speech of private organizations who might oppose them.  I kept hearing from many conservatives about how it would be overturned in the Supreme Court and when the decision was handed down, no one said a word.  On a side note, these are the same jokers who keep telling me that Romney will be different than Obama, but was Obama really that different from Bush?

The reason that the Supreme Court will not overturn this bad law is because the Supreme Court is full of sociopathic morons who display a hubris that makes Congress and Bilderberg insiders blush.  They presume to know everything about everything and operate like gods within their temple (seriously their courthouse resembles a modern day Greek temple).  Meanwhile, they do not realize how foolish they really are.  For example, former Justice Thurgood Marshall spent much of his time watching soap operas and said that you can learn a lot about human nature from them.  He also soiled himself while giving his farewell speech when he finally resigned as a Justice.

Not pick on Justice Marshall, as there are many others who were probably stuck with severe mental handicaps brought on by old age as well, but still managed to function in a manner that resembled coherence.  Former Chief Justice Rehnquist, for example, was probably crapping himself on a regular basis as he died of old age while still serving on the court.  I question his mental capacity as well.

No, I do not put my trust in the court system of the United States to do what is right because they are, by and large, Statists who believe in their moral superiority whole-heartedly.  They think themselves to be gods among men and they are dangerous individuals to boot.  They hold fast to their traditions and precedents like they are golden laws handed down by their immortal ancestors.

On the bright side, I believe that regardless what the court says, the states still have the right to nullify Obamacare.  If President Obama himself can ignore Congress and the court system, then why can’t the states as well?

Offensive Military Action and the Constitution

The Constitution of the United States indicates that only Congress can declare wars and issue letters of Marque and Reprisal.  In effect, this means that the power to initiate offensive campaigns must be approved by Congress in a formal vote.  This is why I believe that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional because it grants the President the ability to initiate offensive campaigns and then go to Congress to ask for additional funding.  In effect, it absolves Congress of the crucial responsibility of sending soldiers into conflict, where many could die, and instead places it on the President.  It also grants the President way too much power to commit military forces to areas that we may not otherwise wish to go.

The problem is, most conservatives these days deny that interpretation of the Constitution and, in effect, deny the writings and intentions of the Founding Fathers who they so revere as saints.  It sickens me when I hear about conservative pundits wishing to start another war with Iran all because they might develop a nuclear weapon.  In other words, they want to send our troops into an even more hostile land than Iraq or Afghanistan all because Iran may launch a nuclear weapon on Israel.  They forget that Israel could easily launch its own series of nuclear weapons and completely wipe out all their enemies in the Middle East.

Today I heard a new argument for going to war with Iran, a war that we cannot afford and probably will not have a stated objective to finish like in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen.  The argument was that because we have signed a treaty with Israel saying we will defend them from foreign aggression, then we must go to war with Iran.

Those of you who are intelligent know that this argument is utter garbage, but for those of you who are conservative or just a pro-war Statist (which right now includes all the Democrat(ick) leaders and their myrmidons), I will explain why.  The reason is simple: the Constitution requires Congress to declare war.  Even if we had a defensive treaty with another nation, we could not initiate offensive military actions against another nation who was threatening our ally without a Congressional declaration of war.

Let us keep in mind that allowing one man the authority to initiate war against foreign nations without Congressional approval is more dangerous than most conservatives realize.  To say that it is perfectly OK for the President to do such a thing means you support Obama’s actions in Libya and the countless innocent people he has killed by his massive bombing campaign there.  Not only that, but he snubbed Congress by ignoring their vote that required him to leave.  Of course, Congress also voted to continue the funding of the bombing campaign but the fact remains is that if the President could do that without any consequence to his office or his policies from within our government, it means he is a virtual dictator.

And that dictatorship he holds is in place largely because of the pro-war conservatives who have dominated the right-wing in the Republican party over the past several decades.  Thanks a lot assholes.

The Balanced Budget Amendment Explained

One of the few redeeming qualities of the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act is that it demands that the Balanced Budget Amendment be passed should the debt ceiling be raised.  Not a good one, considering that there is no provision which states that the Balanced Budget Amendment has to be enacted in order for the debt ceiling to be raised.  They could just raise the debt ceiling and forget about the amendment itself.

In any case, there seems to be a lot of ignorance with regards to this proposed amendment where people are wondering about times of war and whether there is a loophole in it and other things of that nature.  Let me lay it out here and highlight the implications of this amendment, should it be passed and should Congress and the President adhere to it:

`Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a rollcall vote.

`Section 2. The limit on the debt of the United States held by the public shall not be increased, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House shall provide by law for such an increase by a rollcall vote.

`Section 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United States Government for that fiscal year in which total outlays do not exceed total receipts.

`Section 4. No bill to increase revenue shall become law unless approved by a majority of the whole number of each House by a rollcall vote.

`Section 5. The Congress may waive the provisions of this article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is in effect. The provisions of this article may be waived for any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in military conflict which causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security and is so declared by a joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number of each House, which becomes law.

`Section 6. The Congress shall enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays and receipts.

`Section 7. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States Government except those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States Government except for those for repayment of debt principal.

`Section 8. This article shall take effect beginning with the later of the second fiscal year beginning after its ratification or the first fiscal year beginning after December 31, 2016.'.

This a lengthy amendment to the United States Constitution, probably the longest one to be introduced.  The amendment addresses Congress specifically and lays out some ground rules for the Federal budget process, which is required to be done each by the procedure laid out in the Constitution.  On a side note, I wonder if we could declare all Federal government actions for the fiscal year as null and illegal given that they do not have a budget to do any of it.

Anyway, the amendment first and foremost requires that all spending matches all taxation (I refuse to use the term ‘revenue’ because government does not make money; it steals it).  There is an exception in the first section where three-fifths of both Houses can vote to go over projected taxation income.  In other words, there is already a loophole for increasing spending and one that is perfectly doable.  While it would probably require a large amount of compromise, given the current state of politics here in the United States, I firmly believe that this loophole would be used on a regular basis.

The second section address the debt ceiling and states that it cannot be raised without three-fifths majority of both Houses.  I like this aspect of the amendment as well, since it requires an extra majority (not a simple one nor is it a super one) to raise the debt ceiling.  Again, it would require no small amount of compromise.

The next two sections deal with common sense in the budgetary process.  The President is now required to present a balanced budget instead of one that borrows money.  Congress can then choose to borrow money, given its requirements.   The fourth section requires a simple majority of all members of Congress to raise taxes.

The fifth section is one I find interesting.  It basically says that as long as there is a declaration of war, then Congress can ignore the extra-majority constraints placed on them and have an unbalanced budget.  The implications are great because it now places Congress on the hot seat for managing the budgetary requirements of war and demands that they actually declare war instead of allowing the President to simple bomb whoever he damn well pleases.  Remember that we have not had a constitutional war since World War II since Congress has not been in the business of declaring war for the last six and a half decades.  Unfortunately, I think that Congress would ignore this important piece, even if the amendment was passed.

The next two are just some formal sections that need to exist.  The first authorizes Congress to set up rules in order implement the amendment and the second one just states that borrowed money is not considered income in order to ensure that no sleazy Congressperson, of which there are many, can get around this amendment by saying that borrowed money is revenue.

The final section bothers me.  It is clear that if this amendment were passed, it would not take effect until any possibility of Barack Obama being President has passed as well.  This means that we are going to have to deal with the spending extravagancies of the man-child President anyway.  Change this part to make it active on the next fiscal year after it is ratified by the States and I think that will make all the difference.

Granted, this amendment does not matter even if ratified should Congress and the President conspire, as they normally do, to ignore the restraints in the United States Constitution.  However, at least it will be codified into law and it will give ample intellectual fuel for people who wish to take a serious stand against government tyranny and extravagance.

Obama: The Prez Who Failed the USA

So it looks like Economic Armageddon is right around the corner.  At least this is how things are portrayed in the mainstream media, by various online bloggers, and talk radio pundits.  This blogger tends to think otherwise, but hey who knows, maybe this façade of wealth will come crumbling down and all we will be left with are the gum wrappers and used cotton swabs to rebuild with.

Whatever is going to happen, the fault is largely due to Prez Barack Obama’s own incompetence and childish manners, for the most part.  I will acknowledge that there are lot of factors which got us to where we are now, but most of the recent events in the past two years have largely been centered around the Prez.

For a long time now, the Federal government under both Republican(‘t) and Democrat(ick) administrations with both Democrat(ick) and Republican(‘t) controlled Congresses have been spending way beyond their own means.  This did not start with Bush, Jr., in fact you could probably trace deficit spending back to the Great Society project courtesy of micromanaging LBJ, our first modern warmongering President.  Save for a few years here and there of a balanced budget or a budget surplus, the Federal government has consistently spent more than it has taken in from tax confiscations.  If any private organization or individual operated as the Federal government has, they would have been stabbed to death by the loan sharks years ago.  Sometimes I believe that if it were not for the massive military power we have, we would have been invaded by all our creditors years ago.

So when Prez O. came into office in 2009, he had inherited a long and glorious history of gluttonous spending and a bureaucratic machine that was designed specifically to not do their job exactly the way they were supposed to while still getting paid over twice the national average salary.  And what does our cracker-ass honkey of a Prez do in this situation?  He goes and racks up $5 trillion in debt in two and a half short years, beating out Juniors record of $5 trillion in eight years.  Granted, he probably just went along with the Democrat(ick)-controlled Congress’s ideas and paid little attention to what was going on.  But that does not make him any less culpable.

Then last year, the Democrat(ick) Congress did not pass a budget for this year before the close of business.  In other words, Congress failed to do their constitutional duty, which comes as no surprise considering they have yet to declare war on any nation we are currently at war with.  So when the Republican(‘t)s took over this past January, they inherited a government without any budget and were forced to vote on a series of resolutions to fund the government for the next couple of weeks.  Without any real sense of leadership, Speaker of the House Boehner did not bother to drastically cut spending.  Instead the crybaby just moaned about how his predecessors did not write up a budget for this year.  What a pathetic waste of man he is.

Meanwhile, the debt ceiling, which is a self-imposed limitation placed on the government dictating how much debt they are allowed to go into, is about to be reached.  The Repubilcan(‘t)s wish to cut a deal that cuts, caps, and balances spending if they are to raise the debt ceiling.  Meanwhile, the Democrat(ick) strategy, lead by Prez Soetoro, seems to be one of demagoguery and lacks any coherent plan at all.  Raising taxes on the rich will not come close to ending the deficit spending.  You see, if you lived in the real world, where mathematics is a hard law, there is no possible way that raising any taxes at this point will close any significant amount of the deficit.  A real world example might be like trying to pay off a car loan with a wheat penny.

But the real frustrating part in all of this is that neither side seems the least bit interested in stopping the massive build-up of government debt.  We are already $14 trillion in the hole, making the Federal government the biggest failure in the history of the world.  You think the Soviet Union failed miserably?  You have yet to see how the United States Empire is about to fail big time.  And the Prez Obama will probably be the one to oversee it.  Perhaps the beginning of the end started long before he got into power, but he has slammed his foot on the accelerator whilst heading towards the edge of oblivion.

The fact is this: neither side is really interested in cutting spending to the point where we can start rolling significant amounts of money toward paying off the national debt.  Instead, the Republican(‘t)s want to maintain their warmongering spending and the Democrat(ick)s seem only interested in maintaining their entitlements.  And in the middle are the hard-working producer class wishing to make just do what they do best but looking at this madness and getting angrier and angrier.

If the Republican(‘t)s wish to make a significant difference and put this nation back on track, they will not accept any deal nor offer any deal that involves raising the debt ceiling.  The only glimmer of hope in all this is that the Prez seems to stubbornly want the Federal government to shut down by not dealing with the Republican(‘t)s.  As long as neither side caves, I can see only a win for the American people.

I prefer a total collapse of the Federal government over raising the debt ceiling.  Anyone who thinks differently is a fool of the highest caliber and needs to have his or her head examined.  We do not need the Federal government as much as everyone seems to think we do.  Let it all burn.  Maybe we can make something better in the aftermath without all these fucking assholes running things inside the rim of insanity.

Again I Say 30% of Americans are Stupid

Looks like my assertion that 30% of Americans are stupid has been proven yet again by Rasmussen:

Voters don’t care much for government regulation of the economy and think it has a bigger negative impact on small business.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 70% of Likely U.S. Voters believe government regulations hurt small businesses more than big businesses. Just 13% think big businesses are hurt more. Sixteen percent (16%) are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here).

Sixty-three percent (63%) think big businesses take advantage of the political process to hurt smaller competitors. Only 15% disagree, although 22% more are not sure.

When I was in college, my roommate pointed out to me how other nations, especially the Western European ones, had even more strict laws and regulations regarding intellectual property than the United States despite the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.  This led me to conclude that the more Socialist a nation is, the more likely a big corporation is to take control of that country.

The dirty secret of this supposed capitalist society we live in is that big corporations love big government regulations.  They do not mind spending literally millions of dollars on lobbyists and bribes (see campaign contributions) in order to gain an edge in the market.  Unlike most voters and politicians, they remember their origins as a company because most large corporations were created in a single generation by a brilliant business person.  Usually, that business started out as a small shop somewhere in some no-name location and expanded from there.

But they also recognize that there are constant threats to their reign in the markets by small business.  The invention of the automobile spelled the doom of passenger trains in the transportation market.  The placement of McDonald’s restaurants on highways pushed other places like White Castle into obscurity, despite the latter actually coming out of the Great Depression stronger.  The Wal-Mart chain was started small and expanded, beating existing department stores by its revolutionary system of distribution which allowed for lower prices.

Speaking of Wal-Mart, back in 2007, shortly after the Democrats took Congress back, the Wal-Mart CEO came out in support of raising the minimum wage.  Now why would Wal-Mart, popularly alleged to have not paid its employees anything above minimum wage, support such a regulation?  Out of the goodness of his heart?  Don’t make me laugh.  Seeing as how the stereotypical corporate CEO is a greedy, selfish profiteer, how come no progressive on the Left viewed this statement as the least bit suspicious?

The reason that he said that was because Wal-Mart can pay for the increase in labor expenses while smaller businesses cannot.  Minimum wage laws serve only to raise unemployment (if you think that is a bad thing, I could go either way on that indicator) and stifle the growth of small businesses.  In effect, the Wal-Mart CEO was looking to prevent some new hotshot with even better ideas from killing his own golden goose.

Now it appears that 70% of Americans now also believe that business regulations have a bigger negative impact on small businesses.  I would add to that assertion that big businesses actually benefit from government regulations rather than are restricted by them.  Even when there are restrictions placed by government leaders and bureaucrats, they still can get away with them by paying off the inspectors, as was the case with BP (OK, I do not know that for certain, but BP did violate more safety regulations than any other oil company and somehow this was not picked up by the regulators).

Given that 30% still believe that big government hurts big business, or are unsure on that matter, it continues to prove my assertion that at least 30% of Americans are generally ignorant of the practical nature of how things are when it comes to government and its relation to the economy.  And while I am  certain that the other 70% probably a variety of ideas on how to fix this, one thing is certain: this does not bode well for the bureaucrats who believed that there was job security in working for the government.

Latest Rasmussen Poll: 30% of Americans Are Stupid

All right, that is not what he said.  Instead, he said that 70% of Americans think that banks should only loan to people who can pay them back:

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 73% of Adults feel that Americans borrowing too much money is a bigger problem for the economy that that a lack of available credit. Just 17% now see a lack of available credit as the bigger economic problem. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Sixty-six percent (66%) see people getting loans they can’t afford to pay back as a bigger problem than some people not being able to get the loans and credit they need. Only 22% think people not getting loans and credit they need is a bigger problem. These views haven’t changed in over two years.

Given the other findings, it’s no surprise that just 19% of Americans believe banks should be encouraged in the current economic environment to lend money more freely. Seventy percent (70%) say banks should be encouraged instead to lend money only to those best able to repay the loans. Again, these views remain essentially unchanged since April two years ago.

Most Americans think their fellow countrymen need to cut back on their credit card usage and other borrowing but don’t feel they personally have a borrowing problem.

Overall confidence in housing values has plummeted, with the number who say their home is worth more than what they owe on their mortgage lower than ever.

The current figures have not changed significantly since April 2009.

Essentially, what we have here is a a finding that most Americans have more common sense about money matters than at least half of Congress.  This is far and above out of proportion with the general make-up of Congress which leads me to wonder if they actually do represent the people who voted for them or just the special interests lobbies who bribe them.  I think we know this answer.

The fact is, there are very strict controls on the banking industry and have been in place for nearly a century.  Once the era of free banking ended with the rise of the Federal Reserve, there has been nothing but regulations and false guarantees from the government that all came to a head back in 2008.

How stupid do you have to be to not understand that if you are unlikely to pay a bank back after getting a loan from them, then the bank should be under no obligation to pay you?  If you were to loan money to a friend who could not hold a job to save his life, would you expect to be paid back?

A bank’s loan officer has to assess the risk of the person he is loaning money to.  This is because every loan made by a bank is really an investment on the potential future income of the potential debtor.  This is also why bad risks suffer from higher interest, since riskier debtors may not pay the loan in its entirety.

This does not excuse the banks in anyway mind you.  They were the ones who made the bad loans and then attempted to salvage the potential loss by lying to other investors.  Nor does this excuse the Federal government as they had all the tools needed to monitor and remedy the problem before it became a supposed economic crushing problem.

While I still tend to not trust polling data, I look at these with a little hope for the future of this nation.  Even if Rasmussen is off by 15% in relation to the general population, that means that there still is a clear majority of individuals outside of the oligarchy who understand the dire situation and how to fix.  This country is made great by the sensible people living in it, not the government leaders who presume to rule over them.  It is the work of like-minded individuals who will curb and resolve the current depression we are in.  It looks like the days of easy credit are drawing to a close.  If you were to look at the statistics on the nation’s debt, you would find that household debts are decreasing at a rapid rate.

So while the government leaders at every level continue to borrow and spend at increasing rates with no reason to stop and no end in sight, the American people are positioning themselves to avoid the inevitable credit collapse of the nation.  Besides, the best thing one can do to acquire wealth is to get out of debt and stay out of debt in all its malicious forms.

Supreme Court: Determining Your Freedoms Since 1803

Today the Supreme Court ruled that a California law which banned children from buying mature video games was unconstitutional.  While most people do not really care about this, because most parents are actually quite good at ensuring that their children do not buy mature video games, it really demonstrates to me just how far gone our country really is.

The Supreme Court and the Inferior Courts were established to settle disputes between sovereign States or between the States and the Federal government, although the United States Constitution never explicitly stated that they get the final say on these matters.  In fact, many Founding Fathers like Thomas Jefferson never considered that the court system at the Federal level was a good option for handling the tyranny of the Federal government itself.  They believed that the States had a right to nullify unconstitutional law and, if necessary, succeed from the United States.  In other words, the original design of our government was really just a contract between the sovereign States that established a Federalist system where checks and balances were maintained on the three branches as well as at the different levels of government.

I personally disagreed with this law that was passed in California.  In my opinion, it violated free-market principles and it outsourced parenting to the State.  At best, the law was nothing more than the moral grandstanding of some glory-seeking politician hoping to get a seat in the United States Congress.  At worst, it represents the State’s need to take control over every little detail of our lives.

However, I do not believe that the Supreme Court should have taken up this case at all.  In fact, the State of California’s own higher court had overturned the law two years ago.  So really, the bad law was gone and since this law did not even affect interstate commerce, since there were no tariffs placed on video games imported from other States, there was no need to take up the case.  Instead, the arrogant, self-serving Supreme Court Justices decided that they had to determine, yet again, what freedoms you and I can enjoy.

It infuriates me that we the people have to go to the government court system in order to beg and plead for freedoms we are suppose to have under natural law.  We should be allowed to engage in voluntary exchanges of goods and services without government interference, except maybe in the case of fraud.  Even then, the government need not interfere because a true free-market does have self-correcting methods of dealing with perpetrators of fraud (reputation is everything in the free-market).

Now we are held in bondage having to go to our masters who presume to know more than we do about matters of liberty in order to ask for more freedom.  We are told that the government knows best and that among those who know best, there is none better than the Supreme Justices.  Everyone who has any say in anything that happens within government in this country almost never questions that premise and instead simply accepts it.

And no, this was not a First Amendment issue.  There is no political message in buying a video game, so there was expression against the government, and therefore there nothing here that falls anywhere close to freedom of speech.  Besides, when a child buys a violent video game, what message is he or she sending to the government?

The fact is, this is just one more example of the Supreme Court assuming that it has the authority to grant freedom to the individual, despite no authority given to them by anyone but themselves.  When Justice Sonya Sotomayor said that they determine the laws of the nation, she was not lying, even though she may have had an over-inflated sense of what her job is.

The only way we are going to rid ourselves of such overlords is to start ignoring them and going our own way.  If California passed a law that banned children from buying violent video games, what they are saying is that if you sell children violent video games, they will kill you.  This is because if you sold them one, you would be fined.  When you refused to pay the fine, your property would be seized.  If you protected your property from the government goons hired to take it from you, you would be killed.  Such is the nature of the laws that are passed.  The path of absolute resistance will lead to your death.

But that only works out that way if someone reports you.  If everyone ignored the vast majority of laws, of which there are more than God Himself ever handed down, then the power of the various government entities like the Supreme Court would be rendered moot.

It is high time that we tell the Supreme Court that we are tired of being told what we are allowed to do by them.  It is high time we stated that as long as live an honest and peaceful life, we should be free from government in all its forms.  I know what is good for me.  Some stuffy bureaucrat, lying politician, or self-serving judge does not.

Spider Web State

More and more, I’m finding evidence that the Federal government operates as a police state would, rather than as it was outlined by the Founding Fathers.  Case in point, here is this little gem:

A father was dragged from his home and handcuffed in front of his children by a SWAT team looking for his estranged wife - to collect her unpaid student loans.

A stunned Kenneth Wright had his front door kicked in by the raiding party at 6 am yesterday before being dragged onto his front porch, handcuffed and led to a police car with his three children.

He says he was then detained for six hours while officers looked for his wife - who no longer lives at the house.

Apparently the Department of Education is able to issue search warrants.  I guess this explains where all those lost tax dollars went.

Doesn’t anyone see the absurdity in this?  I mean we have a whole department of government set up for the purposes of creating a better educational system in this country sicking local SWAT dogs on deadbeats.

This is what inevitably happens when the State is allowed to grow.  Eventually, every agency gets their own set of military-standard police to browbeat the Brutals who have violated the rules of the Eternals.  Think about it: why does the Air Force need a land-based special forces unit?  How come the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency is able to shut down web servers for copyright violations?

The whole Federal government is nothing but a spider web of agencies that all overlap in form and function.  Sure they have different goals in mind, but they all seem to employ the same tactics against the populace in order to achieve their own ends.  More often than not, they also clash with other agencies when those goals overlap because the government is nothing more than a collection of selfish individuals with authority to use legal force.

In this particular case, the estranged wife probably escaped the system because generally the Dept. of Education will simply garnish your wages if you are delinquent on your student loans.  Without a court order, I might add.  Also, she’s black, so I’m sure there was a racial component to this, given that our President is now Irish and not Kenyan (because I do like to use liberal illogic every now).

Can anyone contemplate the scope and fathom of the problem?  The United States Federal government has become the world’s biggest corporation with the least competent people running it at the top and a bunch of maladjusted assholes filling the ranks of the bureaucracy wholly indifferent to the crimes they are committing each and everyday.

The United States has long ceased to be the land of the free.  A nation that embraces freedom doesn’t send SWAT dogs in a no-knock raid because of unpaid government loans.

The whole system is corrupt from top to bottom.  It is time to tear it down and utterly destroy it.  If the next President doesn’t starting firing people left and right within the Federal government (and all indications are the he or she won’t), then our nation will be splitting up into individual states or groups of states.

Yes, the latter option is the same as the former to a degree, however, the latter option will more violent than the “Civil” War.

Do We Need a Permanent Legislature?

Why is Congress in session right now?  I mean, I know that they are taking care of important matters, especially with their out of control budget, but I mean in the general sense.  Why do the meet every year to pass new laws, new regulations, and plan new budgets?

The last part I can understand.  Having served in leadership capacities in the past, though not in an official governmental position, I completely understand the need to properly plan a budget.  It’s probably one of the most important things that you would have to deal with.

However, most of what Congress discusses isn’t really related to budget matters exactly.  Most of the time, they are talking about policies and programs that are in place or will be in place given a majority vote.

The basic function of Congress, of any legislative branch, is to pass laws.  But honestly, how many laws does any sovereign entity really need?  If we take the libertarian stance, for example, and say that only laws should be passed are ones where a person takes another person’s life, liberty, or property through force or fraud.  This limits the laws passed to a select few.  Sure there are plenty of variations, but it would not be very large.

For example, there are two kinds of murder: murder as a deliberate act and murder through negligence or accident, which is also known as manslaughter.  In both cases, you’ve just covered the ‘life’ part of the equation there.  So you really only need two laws and two punishments when it comes to murder and manslaughter.  Kidnapping violates the ‘liberty’ part.  Vandalism and theft deal with the ‘property’ part.  In all cases, you can see how there would be little need for more than maybe 20 laws passed to deal with the various injustices dealt against other people.

Accordingly, only the same number of punishments need to be prescribed in all cases.  And those punishments should fit the crime, where restitution is made for the losses inflicted.  In manslaughter, for example, instead of sending someone to jail, perhaps they are forced to compensate the victim’s families for the financial loss causes by the untimely death.  For theft, the victim is compensated for the amount stolen plus extra.  Unfortunately, the court can only deal in financial matters since other measurements, such as emotional stress, are subjective.

In any case, this hardly makes the case for a permanent legislature to be established.  They would only need to meet to work out the budget and just let the machinations of the system work.

In the state I live in, Virginia, the state assembly only meets for a few months out of the year, as far as I can tell.  They debate, they pass bills, and then they leave and go on their merry way.  While there is always bound to be some form of tyranny or another being passed, it probably happens a lot less since they don’t have as much time.  If we were to follow the Constitution, the Tenth Amendment states that the State governments have many powers, while the Federal government is limited by what the Constitution says.  And yet, my state legislatures don’t see a need to meet for longer than a few months.

Currently, we have over 10,000 Federal laws on the books with many more onerous regulations being created every day by unaccountable bureaucrats.  These bureaucrats have been given a blank check to basically create rules out of thin air by the language of existing laws.  If the United States Congress were to meet only on one month out of the year, I doubt that so many laws would have been passed that made all of us criminals.  And yet, here we are with laws and rules that nobody can completely know.  The human brain has its limits after all.

I once heard that Thomas Jefferson said at some point that as long as Congress is in session, our life, liberty, and property are in jeopardy.  And while it may not be true (I’m not sure if it was Jefferson actually), it certainly holds some value.  As long as we keep on allowing those tyrants to operate in the Capitol without time constraints, save the elections, we will continue to see tyranny and oppression being passed by highly motivated moral busybodies, regardless of party affiliation.

More Stupid Conflicts: Defense of Marriage Act

This week, President Obama decided to deflect attention away from his mounting failures by declaring that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional and that the Justice Department will no longer contend it in the court system.  Naturally, all those on the Christian conservative Right went bat-shit crazy and completely and utterly forgot about the more important issues facing our nation, such our misplaced priorities in foreign policy and our growing fiscal insanity.  Obviously, the ploy worked.

While I consider the whole matter a minor issue, there are some fundamental observations I’d like to make about this whole non-issue because even in the mundane there are kernels of wisdom:

• Firstly, I’d like to point out that within the scope of the Western world, homosexuals make up maybe two percent at most.  I know the lie that we’ve all been told that its about ten percent, but that comes from the lying sexual deviant known as Alfred Kinsey.  Kinsey was a man whose sexual activities went far beyond basic sodomy and was more obsessed with bugs than people by trade.  This is significant because a person’s personal beliefs and biases will always permeate their research.  In any case, given that this is the truth, that gays and lesbians make up no more than 2% of the population, why is there so much fuss over them?
• Why the Left-wing Statists continue to impose their circular morality upon the general populace is beyond me.  When I say “circular morality” what I mean is that we have a special interest that wants to change the moral code, which is defined by the State in their view.  However, the leaders of the State are elected by those very people.  And round and round it goes.  Seriously, why do you need the State to justify your actions?
• While I was opposed to gay marriage for a while, I never really understood what marriage really was.  Now that I do, I oppose marriage as defined by the State entirely.  The fact is, marriage licenses were originally issued to prevent Mormons from engaging in polygamy.  This was around the mid-1800s, though I couldn’t give you a specific date and my estimation could be off along with my reasoning.  I admit this is more educated guessing than actual historical research because I really don’t care all that much about the history.  My general point is to contend that the State has no business in the personal relationships of individuals any more than it has any business in the health of individuals.
• From my perspective, having the State act as an arbitrator in marriages only serves to cheapen what I view as a sacred union between two people.  Marriage is largely a religious covenant in the Western world, and throughout much of the known world in spite of modern movements and ideologies.  It is not something that individuals should enter into lightly, as so many have done, and it is not something you should simply give up when you’re unhappy.  You want something that isn’t so confining then simply don’t get married.  Heck, if anything, gays have more freedom in not getting married because they won’t lose half their stuff when one of them decides to move on to greener pastures, which is at least just as likely as straight marriages.  This of course assumes that gay relationships are the same as straight relationships, as we keep on being told.
• Finally, the Defense of Marriage Act was constitutional, President Obama and Attorney General Holder’s opinion notwithstanding.  What the act does is say that states do not have to recognize marriage licenses from other states or other countries if they choose not to.  It asserts that the several states maintain their own sovereignty, which is supported by the 10th amendment.  The legislation itself is supported in Article IV Section 1 of the United States Constitution.  Regardless, it doesn’t matter because a State can simply state that the Federal government has no standing on this matter and not be forced to recognize contracts they don’t want to.  In other words, the several states are allowed to nullify unconstitutional acts of the Federal government in the spirit of Thomas Jefferson.

Truth be told, whatever the outcome of this mess, it won’t matter all that much.  I do not believe that this civilization was built on monogamous, heterosexual marriage, as so many Christian conservatives claim because that claim never has sat well with me.  Of course, that’s another blog post for another time.

I Want My Money Back: US Agencies That Should Be Abolished

Like all standards that mankind sets for itself, the Constitution has been stretched, bended, and (these days) downright ignored when it comes to Federal Government power.  Usually, agencies and departments are set up either as an emergency measure or to address a particular ‘crisis’ that is critical to the nation.  Most of the time, these things never really go away, but tend to stick around like the stench of a bad finger bang (sorry, that was a bit graphic).

Going forward, there’s a long list that most liberty-minded individuals could agree that should be eliminated:

• The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) – This organization serves no purpose than to harass individuals engaged in perfectly lawful activities.  Firearms, alcohol, and tobacco are all legal products.  Any regulations imposed on them are largely left to state and local governments so this agency is nothing more than a redundant law enforcement agency.
• The Drug Enforcement Agency – I am for full drug legalization, not because I take a lot of recreational drugs, but because I believe that a free society allows people to screw up their lives.  With the liberty crushing measures that are taken each and every day to stop stupid people from frying their brains, I wonder why more people haven’t jumped on board.  The truth is, the drug enforcement policies have created the monster of illegal immigration we face now, since Mexico has become a crap-hole thanks to the cartels (drug monopolies) and the amount of drugs consumed by Americans has not diminished in the slightest.  I want a return on my investments, so I think it’s high time that agency was dismantled and drugs were left to state and local governments.
• The Department of Agriculture – This entire department has become nothing more than a government wing of the Monsanto corporation, regardless of their intentions for food production.  More than that, this department is now dedicated to regulating food prices and supplies domestically when the entire farming industry accounts for only 4% of the US population last I heard.  Why should the government pay some people to not raise pigs when it doesn’t pay me to not raise pigs myself?
• The Department of Education – When this department was started, it was suppose to make education better for all the children in America.  And my generation is mostly a bunch of pop-culture morons with barely any ability to think critically or understand even basic concepts.  Last century’s prosperity was built by people with no higher education than eighth grade.  The current crop of “well-educated” young people are much more stupid than the previous, lacking basic skills to get by in life.  If you’re a parent of one of these idiots, why do you think they haven’t moved out yet?  The Department of Education is nothing more than a big slush fund for special interests and government unions who have no interest in making intelligent, well-balanced kids.
• The Department of Health and Human Services – This whole department is another big waste of tax money.  Their best efforts to combat the flu was to tell every to cough into their arm.  The first major epidemic that truly hits our country will not be stopped by these idiots.  By the way, they have the power to take our liberties at any time if they believe we pose a public health risk.  Watch this department closely because it will be the vehicle for squashing political dissent.
• The Department of Energy – This department was started to develop energy independence.  Hasn’t worked since its inception, so let’s all just get rid of them and let the market sort that out.  Also, they did a piss poor job with the BP oil spill and I’m pretty sure they let BP get away with many regulatory infractions, probably due to either laziness or bribery.
• The Securities and Exchange Commission – This commission spends most of its days sitting at their desks masturbating to Internet porn and collecting six figure salaries.  Nobody’s been fired yet either and it took them years to figure out Bernie Madoff’s scheme.  They are a bunch of failures and they deserve to all be fired.
• The Federal Communications Commission – This power grabbing bunch needs to be shut down.  Let private individuals own the airwaves and the flow of information.  Instead, the government owns the airwaves and has proven it time and time again.  Maybe its time we all allowed our entertainment to not be filtered through government censors.
• The Federal Bureau of Investigation – The FBI has committed numerous infractions of our liberties over the decades it has existed and it has yet to justify its existence.  Under the Tenth Amendment, this agency should not exist as all crimes are state and local matters that are not the responsibility of the Federal government.
• The Central Intelligence Agency – This agency has failed to properly protect us, shrouded much of its actions in secret, and probably caused more harm than good in the world.  Their accomplishments are few and probably still not classified.  The fact is, the 9/11 attack should not have happened if they were doing their damn job.
• The Environmental Protection Agency – They don’t protect the environment, they just like making our lives miserable in the light of fallacious ‘science’.  This Nixon-established agency needs to be disbanded and let’s leave pollution control up to state and local governments.  There’s much less chance for corruption there.

There are probably more agencies that I could add to the list and because of the web of complexity that exists within the United States Bureaucracy, I’m sure there is a lot of overlap.  The fact is, freedom does not exist in the United States as we are not the land of the free.  This is a logical conclusion based on the mere fact that there are tons of governmental agencies out there doing God only knows to ‘protect’ us.  The bigger the government, the less free we all truly are.  There is no getting around this simple fact.

Liars, Idiots, or Just Plain Crazy

Sometimes I wonder about the people who the run government.  I wonder if they are liars, insane, or just plain stupid.  Case in point:

As the Senate and House hash out the details of the Bush tax cuts and the extension of unemployment benefits the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) J. Russell George released a statement today stating that 13.4 million may owe unexpected taxes.  According to an audit report first filed in November 2009, here: TIGTA Audit President Obama’s “Making Work Pay” tax credit was supposed to allow individuals and couples greater take home pay by reducing the amount of taxes withheld from their pay checks.  There was a $400.00 cap for individuals and an $800.00 cap for married couples which filed jointly.  The audit completed by the TIGTA states that 13.4 million people failed to have enough taxes taken out of their paychecks, making them vulnerable to owing more in taxes.  The “Making Work Pay” tax credit expires on January 1, 2011.

J. Russell George released a statement through the TIGTA site.  He said, “The Making Work Pay Credit is a key tax credit designed to increase spending and stimulate the economy, however, many taxpayers who are accustomed to receiving refunds when they file their tax returns may have owed taxes and incurred penalties in 2009 and may yet again in 2010 because they were advanced more of the credit than they were entitled to claim.”

Some of the Making Work Pay tax credit withholding errors include examples such as individuals who filed as single taxpayers and held multiple jobs, or couples who file under “Married Filing Jointly” who also held multiple jobs each.  Other issues involved those on a pension and recipients of Social Security.

So let me get this straight: a bunch of people had their withholding adjusted starting in 2009 (I did notice this) and the State tells us that it’s a “tax credit”.  Except for the fact that some people will end up owing money come tax time in 2011 because they didn’t have the taxman withhold enough.

I’m not an accountant or a tax attorney, but calling this feature a “tax credit” seems to be a bit of a lie.  When you file your tax returns, a tax credit is usually a reduction in the overall amount of tax you pay by a set amount.  There is no paying them back any amount, despite it being called a tax credit.  Technically, it probably should be called a tax debit.  This is really an adjustment in the withholding amounts, not a tax credit.

In any event, it’s probably better for you to end up owing the State money come tax day rather than having them give you a rebate.  What that means is that the government took more money than they should have and ended up spending it and now they’ll borrow money to pay you back what it owed to you.  At least they pay you back.  I’d rather keep more money and end up just paying them off when I end up owing money.  It also prevents a lot of tax audit flags from firing as well.

Ultimately, this is just one more example of the Statists distorting reality in order to get their way with us.  And just as there are women who enjoy being raped, there are no shortage of idiots out there who enjoy being screwed by the taxman and subsequently lied to about it.

The bottom line here is that the State is full of people who are either liars, idiots, or just plain crazy.  And sadly, that isn’t an exclusive OR condition.

Wikileaks Is Inevitable

So Wikileaks has released tons of documents which are so embarrassing to the United States government that Rep. Peter King has asked that it be labeled a terrorist organization.  While we’re at it, we could throw in PETA, Greenpeace, and ACORN because they’ve been national embarrassments as well.  In any case, this whole incident has demonstrated that there are tyrants in government, on both sides, and they are pretty much running things.  This means that we are all living under what essentially amounts to a totalitarian state.  Sure there aren’t any major genocide camps yet, but give it some time.  The Nazis were in power for almost a decade before they started exterminating the Jews, after all.

More to the point, I am just amused that that the Federal government seems shocked at what Wikileaks managed to release.  In all honesty, if it wasn’t Wikileaks, it would have been some other organization leaking these documents, or documents like it, because the very structure and organization of our Federal government necessitates it.

In a republic or a democracy, you need to limit the amount of secrets you have in order to successfully serve the people.  The reason is because the people you rule over (or “serve” as our masters like to say) have to informed of your activities.  A republic or democracy with secrets is one that will devolve into a totalitarian state, if it hasn’t already.  So really, Wikileaks was doing the US citizens a favor.

I’ve heard that in World War II, there was a saying: “Loose lips sink ships.”  It’s catchy, but at the same time this phrase doesn’t apply to what Wikileaks released.  A government that classifies every innocuous e-mail or memo that one mid-level bureaucrat sends to another.  I haven’t looked over every single document from Wikileaks, but I suspect that a good portion are casual e-mails that have nothing to do with anything.  I know this because I’ve been in document processing in the past and many of the e-mail archives were usually just that.  Every once and a while, though, we’d have to crack a password protected Excel file and find a pornographic picture of some kind in it.

Anyway, consider this: the Federal government has 2 million employees.  Add to that the numerous contracting companies that work for the Federal government.  Now consider that 1.2 million people have Secret level clearance and roughly 800,000 have Top Secret level clearance.  We are talking about hundreds of thousands of people with the clearance level to dump billions of “sensitive” documents on to the Internet.  It’s shocking that there haven’t more document dumps so far.  Perhaps Wikileaks could start offering cash rewards for more.

The only way for the Federal government to stop organizations like Wikileaks is to have less secrets, not police retaliation.  Even if the organization is disbanded or sent to Gitmo, there will be another that rises up.  This is because as long as the Federal government continues to insist that it needs to be secretive about every little thing it does, there will always be some disgruntled office worker (or army private) who will release it.  Heck, the IT guys in the Federal government probably have the real juicy stuff or access to it.

A more open government is one that doesn’t require the janitors to have top secret clearance.  It is one that has a few, well guarded secrets that have an expiration date.  It keeps them honest, ensures that the workers are doing their jobs and not watching porno for eight hours a day, and it gives the people a better sense of confidence.

On a side note, I’ve heard that Sweden has issued an arrest warrant against Julian Assange for rape.  Maybe he can become Roman Polanski’s roommate.

Systematically, Normal People Aren’t Represented

Are you a normal person?

I ask not because I’m writing a blog questioning what is normal, but because I’m wondering why normal people put up with this insanity we call representative democracy.

Yes, I did refer to our system as insane and if you break it down, it isn’t too hard to see how crazy it really is.  We have people we send to some distant building that represents a better version of the Parthenon (complete with a big statue of Athena) in order to direct the money that the machine confiscates from us every paycheck (or every quarter).

The problem is, representation does not cover only the people who are robbed by the IRS.  If it did, I doubt there would be much in the way of robbery (OK, I know they call it taxation, but that sounds too politically correct for me).  No, the House of Representatives currently represent roughly 700,000 people each.  For Senators, that ratio is much worse, though it depends on the state they represent.

So basically, in less than two weeks, American voters are going to select someone who represents their interests.  But 700,000 people can’t possibly be adequately represented since that’s 700,000 different opinions on thousands of varying issues.  Statistically, the House of Representatives is about as bad a sample as a polling data.

My point is that with such a high ratio of representation, do you honestly believe that your selection will really fall in line with your personal convictions and ideals?

I don’t believe that for a second.  Choosing the best candidate in a selection of dog turds will ultimately leave you smelling dog turd everywhere.  This is not to say that there are some people who are worth voting, especially since there is always the chance that someone will completely agree with you.

Another aspect of this is that single person cannot adequately represent so many people, no matter how intelligent he or she is.  This is why there are lobby groups who constantly send ‘donations’ to their representatives in order to get them to represent them.  In most cases, lobby groups are just a vehicle to promote one agenda or another in opposition to the will of the constituents.  If they weren’t, why would they be lobbying in the first place?

When the Articles of Confederation were overturned, the new system seemed sound.  After all, it gave everyone representation.  But people had representation in their local and state governments.  The Articles of Confederation merely allowed each state to send representatives of their own in order to resolve interstate issues.  Think of it as the modern UN, only with a much sharper focus and not so much focus on communism and anti-Semitism.

Still, that’s all well and gone now.  I think that being an anti-Statist, I can safely say that every regular person would benefit from much less government because they would be able to better manage their own lives.  And really, that’s how we were originally intended to live in the first place.

The Perpetual Welfare State

The theme of this year’s election seems to be focused mostly on economic issues.  I actually welcome the shift in focus for a change because I’ve come to believe that social issues really are a waste of time.  The Obama administration has made several attempts to ‘fix’ the broken economy he inherited from George W. Bush and Henry ‘Hack’ Paulson, both of whom decided to set the precedent of abandoning capitalism in order to save it.  President Obama seems to have taken the Max Power way in fixing things based upon that principle.

This, naturally, has many voters outraged.  They are watching as their savings dwindle, the dollar becoming more and more worthless, and nobody on Wall St. being punished for the fraud perpetrated on Main St.  They are well-informed enough to know that Obama and his cronies are in bed with the cronies on Wall St. and they are upset that the Democrats focused on uprooting and over-hauling the health care industry rather than focus on deregulation.  The stimulus money went to a lot of Obama’s friends as well, like ACORN, which didn’t really help the situation.

And while these are wonderful things to focus on, it appears that many pundits are forgetting one of the major factors that cripples the Federal government in what it can and can’t do: the perpetual welfare state that seeks to plunder the productive in favor of the lazy.  Both parties have shown no interest in reforming, revamping, or completely abandoning this destructive welfare system that has been established in our nation.

Would you like to know what my definition of a middle class citizen is?  It is a citizen who does not qualify for any kind of welfare benefit, including Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, yet is not wealthy enough to stop working altogether.  In other words, someone who is working hard, but at a point of financial retirement.

These days, the middle class is dwindling rapidly.  Already there are record numbers of people on food stamps, and I would venture to guess that many of these people can afford the food they need if they gave up other luxury items they have like cell phones, cable television service, etc.  But the government only checks their income levels and even then they may glance over it.  There is probably no upkeep.

Government inefficiency aside, if we are to believe that such a number is the absolute truth, then we must assume that the middle class is quickly disappearing, both in government terms and in my own terms described above.  And while the rich do pay a lot of the taxes, they are rich because there are plenty of middle class workers who make them money.  In other words, the tax revenues are going to drop and many tax programs are going to be defunded as a result.

And while Federal welfare accounts for at least 1/3 of the overall Federal budget, both parties have refused to a damn thing about it.  Neither side wants to change the status quo when it comes to welfare, no talk radio show host wants to discuss it, so I guess everyone is perfectly happy with the leeches who are slowly, but surely bankrupting our country.

You can throw out all the emotionalism you want.  You can tell me that the downtrodden need our help, that private charity isn’t enough, or that they paid into the ‘system’ all their lives and are simply getting back what they had no choice in giving in the first place.  But the truth is that until we make the conscience effort to cut welfare spending by at least 3/4 over the next decade, we will be bankrupt as a nation.  And while I have no problem with the Federal government declaring bankruptcy, I have a sneaking suspicion that every who receives some form of payout or another from the Federal government will be upset that the checks aren’t coming anymore.

Remember: some money is better than none at all.  You can choose to take the cuts, to change your lifestyle to fit your new income, or you can keep on demanding the status quo and get nothing down the road.  Be warned, however, that if you choose the latter, you will not find a sympathetic member of the middle class to help you as you are starving in a ditch.