Monday, December 25, 2006
When government makes a product it is, in most cases, inferior to the same product made by a private enterprise; case in point John Deer verses USSR tractors. The picture below tells the story. Can you guess if it was a private venture or government job?
Now do you REALLY want the organization responsible for this quality work messing with your health care more then they already are?
Thursday, December 07, 2006
So I was pleased when I saw the following at a British Police News release:
A number of home-made weapons have been surrendered during the national knife amnesty.
Nails soldered onto a metal bar, specifically cut, highly sharpened blades and knuckledusters were among the weapons handed in.
“These weapons were only made for the purpose of fear and intimidation with the potential of inflicting serious injury, even death - there would be no other reason for their use.” said Sgt Jim Mills at the force’s crime reduction unit.
“We are pleased that the owners’ have been responsible and handed them in. We would urge anyone who has home-made weapons to take the same route and surrender them at one of the designated police stations.”
Tackling knife culture is paramount to the safety of our communities. People who carry bladed weapons run the risk of that weapon being used on them, or inflicting serious injury on others. It also carries a jail sentence of up to four years.
Once the English Police accomplish this just crusade maybe this will be prevented.
I find it upsetting that there are indivuals that still insist in thinking they have a right to weapons. Those who say they have them for their own protection are obviously not thinking rationally. After all, that is what the police are for. One simple call to 911 and within an hour a police officer will show up at your door.(Almost as fast as a dominoes pizza)
We in America have a long way to go before we are as enlightened and civilized as the British. One can only hope that after we have completed the first stage of criminalizing guns, we can move on to the next stage of abolishing the Knife culture also.
I hear the British Police have issued an instruction on how to survive an attack until they arrive. "Lie down and assume the fetal position, so we know who to arrest."
Funny, I thought it be easier. The bloody corps or the man standing over it?
Saturday, December 02, 2006
What's the European response to its self-made economic malaise? They don't repeal the laws that make for a poor investment climate. Instead, through the Paris-based Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), they attack low-tax jurisdictions. Why? To support its welfare state, European nations must have high taxes, but if Europeans, as private citizens and businessmen, relocate, invest and save in other jurisdictions, it means less money is available to be taxed.
I think the reason we don't see a colunm like Dr Williams' in WNY is, We just don't like the picture these dots make when connected.
What reminded me of H.G. Wells book was Walter Williams' latest Minority View "WHY WE LOVE GOVERNMENT"
……..Thomas Paine observed, "We still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping at the spoil of the multitude. . . . It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without a tribute."……….
…………With sentiments like these, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison became presidents. Could a person with similar sentiments win the presidency today? My guess is no. Today's Americans hold such liberty-oriented values in contempt, and any presidential aspirant holding them would have a zero chance of winning office.
Today's Americans hold a different vision of government. It's one that says Congress has the right to do just about anything upon which it can secure a majority vote. Most of what Congress does fits the description of forcing one American to serve the purposes of another American. That description differs only in degree, but not in kind, from slavery.
How repulsed would the Founders be if they were to be transported to present day America? Unlike the "Traveler" would they just turn their backs and say "Your not worthy of our help again".
Friday, December 01, 2006
In order for men to advocate anything, they must in the first place be able to earn a living. This already raises a problem in a socialist society, since all jobs are under the direct control of political authorities. It would take an act of self-denial whose difficulty is underlined by experience in the United States after World War II with the problem of "security" among Federal employees, for a socialist government to permit its employees to advocate policies directly contrary to official doctrine.
The following is an excerpt from Economist.com on the Venezuela's election:
The opposition's biggest fear concerns the use of fingerprint machines in conjunction with electronic voting. Rightly or wrongly, many Venezuelans believe that because of the machines the vote will not be secret. The government has already made public a list of the several million people who signed the petition calling for the recall referendum, using it to deny jobs and government services to “counter-revolutionaries”. In these circumstances, any belief that the vote might not be secret seems likely to hurt Mr. Rosales.
This brings up several issues:
a. Socialist will crush, by any means, descent yet will demand their right to it.
b. Milton Friedman was right.
c. With our country slowly crawling to a Socialist State, do we really want computers tracking the vote?
d. Milton Friedman was right.
e. Though Ayn Rand's "We the Living" was fictional, she,herself, said if any book was about her life that would be it. The similarities between what she wrote about political descent in early Soviet Union mirrors Venezuela. Now ask yourself: Why is it that socialist leaning Americans are the ones who want the government to have all the guns, and to take them away from the
f. Milton Friedman was right.
Thursday, November 30, 2006
I asked if they were willing to loss their jobs, since if I owned a company and was told to spend millions in anti-pollution equipment, I would move to a third world country which was exempt from the standards. The response to this was "Evil, greedy corporations....bastards....." I asked if they thought the poor doing without heat, electricity or other necessities was a cheap price to pay, I got the same response.
So now that a BBC Report says that Europe will be in deep kimpshee with power rates, I guess the environmentalists can tell the poor to suck it up. Unless I'm wrong most energy in Europe is nationally owned or at least government controlled. Now that you can't blame the industrialist, who do you blame?
Friday, November 17, 2006
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Domain Name verizon.net ? (Network)
IP Address 71.252.64.# (FEMA)
ISP Verizon Internet Services
Location Continent : North America
Country : United States (Facts)
State : Virginia
City : Round Hill
Lat/Long : 39.135, -77.7718 (Map)
Distance : 282 miles
Language English (United States)
Operating System Microsoft Win2000
Browser Internet Explorer 6.0
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; InfoPath.1)
Monitor Resolution : 1024 x 768
Color Depth : 32 bits
Time of Visit Nov 7 2006 5:28:18 pm
Last Page View Nov 7 2006 5:35:44 pm
Visit Length 7 minutes 26 seconds
Page Views 2
Referring URL http://www.blogpulse...e22.x=19&image22.y=8
Search Engine blogpulse.com
Search Words fema
I googled FEMA and the location Round Hill,Va and got this site. So it could be FEMA monitoring Blogs. You can see all the blogs that mention FEMA here.
It’s so nice to know that government agencies are monitoring what Blogs are saying about them. It’s a hell of a customer satisfaction tool.
If I was an Anti-government type I probably wouldn’t be to keen on the idea, but hey, what reason is there not to trust our government with our lives, liberties, and property?
I love politics, yet the two major parties actually discourage me, so could this explain why those who don’t even like politics don’t vote? Sixty percent is considered a great turn out. So if 60% percent of registered voters vote and 51 percent vote for the winner, the winner received only (.60x.51=) 30.6 percent of registered voter’s votes. I wonder what percentage of 18 and older citizens are registered. Lets be generous and say 80%, the total percentage of the population the winner would have recieved in votes would have been 24.48%. So now we have less then 25% of the population deciding what’s best for the other 75% (plus minors). I wonder how many of that 24.48% REALLY wanted the winner instead of NOT wanting the other guy. Hmmm, minors lets see, if the average household has 2.1 kids, no lets make it 1.2, that would mean for every two adults there would be about one minor. So since the population is 300 million that would mean 100 million kids give or take, so 30% of the population isn’t even counted in the total. So,.70x.80x.60x.51 = .17136 or 17.14%, less then 18% of the total population is represented. So how can any politician say with a straight face, they have a mandate from the “people” when they only got 18% of the population to vote for them?
The similarities between the two parties bring into question if they really are two parties or just one with slight differences. They both feel government is the solution, that without “Them” we would be helpless. Both throw money at a problem and expect it to fix it. Have you heard either say the problems are the governments making? Look at recent failures, FEMA fails and is rewarded with a higher spot in the pecking order and increased funds. School Districts constantly under perform, and cry that they’re not getting enough funding, so their given more. Not year after year, but decade after decade, yet have you seen any REAL improvement? Could we rename them the left wing and right wing of the socialist party?
Then look at the largest third parties in the state, Independence, Working families, and Conservative. Are they really third parties when all they do is mostly indorse the major party candidates? Would you like your cheeseburger with or without mustard?
We could look at the ballot itself as part of the problem. When the winner gets the top spot and the pecking order is from the top down, new parties have little chance. I knew who I was voting for before I got there, yet I had to look for where they were. A guy with a bad back wouldn’t have been able to bend over that far to pull the levers. Ironic, that by not being able to bend over to vote you get bent over. With the Chinese fire drills that were seen in the past elections like butterfly ballots and hanging chads, one could doubt the intelligence and common sense of voters, with that in mind, why make it harder then it already is to find a “worthy” candidate on the ballot. Isn’t gerrymandering districts enough?
Maybe Jefferson wasn't as bright as I thought and as short sighted as the "Living Document" crowd say. After all he believed democracy was 51% enslaving the other 49%. Is 18% lording over 82% any less, or more for that matter, immoral and evil?
Thursday, November 02, 2006
It is funny though, usually it is the right that says one thing and the masses yell they meant something else. Ironic though, most from the left that I know say this isn't fair and that the Republicans are just using it. Gee, so you want to change the rules now?
Could it be that Kerry, deep down, feels this way about the troops? After all, most slips are from deeply suppressed beliefs, yadda yadda.....
Saturday, October 28, 2006
......yet this government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of the way. It does not keep the country free. It does not settle the West. It does not educate. The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if government had not sometimes got in its way.
Henry David Thoreau in Civil Disobedience
That is a far cry from the conventional wisdom of today. Paraphrase what David Thoreau said today and you'd be looked at like you are from another world. Then again, the "American People" that Thoreau knew might as well have been, they wouldn't recognize the country they built. I can see them looking around and asking, "What is this 18th century Europe?"
Then again, I have paraphrased about the same thing, the response is "That would never work." Funny, it already had.
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Except if it's a Health Inspector, Child Protection Service,oh hell, any government offical for that matter. If this doen't make your blood boil, what will?
We hear a lot of Democrats yelling about the lost civil rights due to the Patriot Act, and rightfully so. The again, we used to hear about States Rights from the Republicans. Yet neither side sticks up for individual property owners and their rights, and we can certainly include the Supreme Court in that group. The police work for the government, so who protects you from it?
Saturday, September 30, 2006
Diagnosing our Health Care Woes
September 25, 2006
No one disputes the diagnosis: American health care is in lousy shape. As a practicing physician for more than 30 years, I find the pervasiveness of managed care very troubling.
The problems with our health care system are not the result of too little government intervention, but rather too much. Contrary to the claims of many advocates of increased government regulation of health care, rising costs and red tape do not represent market failure. Rather, they represent the failure of government policies that have destroyed the health care market.
It’s time to rethink the whole system of HMOs and managed care. This entire unnecessary level of corporatism rakes off profits and worsens the quality of care. But HMOs did not arise in the free market; they are creatures of government interference in health care dating to the 1970s. These non-market institutions have gained control over medical care through collusion between organized medicine, politicians, and drug companies, in an effort to move America toward “free” universal health care.
One big problem arises from the 1974 ERISA law, which grants tax benefits to employers for providing health care, while not allowing similar incentives for individuals. This results in the illogical coupling between employment and health insurance. As such, government removed the market incentive for health insurance companies to cater to the actual health-care consumer. As a greater amount of government and corporate money has been used to pay medical bills, costs have risen artificially out of the range of most individuals.
Only true competition assures that the consumer gets the best deal at the best price possible by putting pressure on the providers. Patients are better served by having options and choices, not new federal bureaucracies and limitations on legal remedies. Such choices and options will arrive only when we unravel the HMO web rooted in old laws, and change the tax code to allow individual Americans to fully deduct all healthcare costs from their taxes, as employers can.
As government bureaucracy continues to give preferences and protections to HMOs and trial lawyers, it will be the patients who lose, despite the glowing rhetoric from the special interests in Washington. Patients will pay ever rising prices and receive declining care while doctors continue to leave the profession in droves.
I can attest to this. I looked into getting a Health Savings Account, and High Deductible Health Insurance; the laws that hamper an individual in obtaining it are ludicrous. Could it be they don't want you to be able to take care of yourself? For your own good of course.
Why can't we get more people like Congressmen Paul to run?
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Senator Clinton, on the 20th of July you stated the following:
“…..at the rate that technology is advancing…people will be implanting chips in our children to advertise directly into their brains and tell them what kind of products to buy.”
Senator, what people will be implanting chips into our children? Will it be by force? And lastly if I may, who has enough power to get away with forcing our children to have implants, besides the government?
I found more quotes on this speech at the New York Daily News.
Saying advertisers have found so many new ways to get at kids through video games and the Internet, Clinton warned that we're verging on a society out of a grim science fiction novel.
Like 1984, Brave New World, or even Fahrenheit 451? In most grim science fiction novels it was not corporations, but government that was the authoritarian.
"At the rate that technology is advancing, people will be implanting”
I figure she meant that advertisers would be putting implants in our children. My question though is how does she think they can do that? Advertisers have no power over our bodies? It is the parent that has control, to some extent, but an advertiser? This is just another example of the Anti-capitalist mindset of socialists. By fear mongering some imaginary enemy, she has consolidated more power over those lacking critical thinking. The above quote also has another point. Where have these kids gotten the video games and access to the inter-net? Once again it’s the evil corporations that have power over the helpless parents. Every year the bar of victim-hood is raised. Now the parents can blame the “media” for the video’s and inter-net access their children have. And instead of asserting any authority over their own children, they look to the government to do it for them.
The New York Democrat said the country was performing a "massive experiment" on kids who average more than six hours a day with media and advertising, soaking it up through TV, computers, games and iPods. She said the fastest growing advertising market is the 6- and under set, and that children's health is already being hurt by products like Camel's candy-flavored cigarettes and junk food sold with tips for video games - used to sell more junk food.
Senator, you stated, “the country was performing a ‘massive experiment’ on kids”, do you then admit that the government has been indoctrinating the children through government mandated schools? After all no one is forced to buy TVs or inter-net access, but with the tax burden put on parents, most are forced to send their children to government run schools.
So this is a health problem? Senator, can you name one thing within a citizen’s personal life that you guarantee will never become a health issue that the Federal Government can intervene in? There are numerous laws banning the sale of cigarettes to minors, are you saying Senator, that the federal government is incapable of enforcing the laws congress has enacted already, therefore more laws will help? You also mentioned junk food, are you implying that junk food is a stepping stone to violent video game playing? When will congress enact a law regulating how much junk food it’s subjects, I mean citizens can buy?
Senator recently Professor Robert Thompson at Syracuse University, said you and other politicians like to attack advertising because it's easier than trying to ban bad food products or fund broad education programs, and I quote:
"It's sort of a backdoor tack, but it's the safer one politically."
Senator are you trying to back door us?
Monday, September 25, 2006
H. R. 5295
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
September 20, 2006
Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
To protect students and teachers.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Student and Teacher Safety Act of 2006'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) The United States Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics reported in the 2005 Indicators of School Crime and Safety that in 2003 seventeen percent of students in grades 9-12 reported they carried a weapon. Six percent reported having carried a weapon on school grounds.
(2) The same survey reported that 29 percent of all students in grades 9-12 reported that someone offered, sold, or gave them an illegal drug on school property within the last 12 months.
(3) The United States Constitution's Fourth Amendment guarantees `the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures'.
(4) That while the Supreme Court affirmed the Fourth Amendment's application to students in public schools in New Jersey vs. TLO (1985), the Court held that searches of students by school officials do not require warrants issued by judges showing probable cause. The Court will ordinarily hold that such a search is permissible if--
(A) there are reasonable grounds for suspecting the search will reveal evidence that the student violated the law or school rules; and
(B) the measures used to conduct the search are reasonably related to the search's objectives, without being excessively intrusive in light of the student's age, sex, and nature of the offense.
(5) The Supreme Court held in Board of Education of Independent Sch. Dist. 92 of Pottawatomie County vs. Earls (2002) that random drug testing of students who were participating in extracurricular activities was reasonable and did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court stated that such search policies effectively serve the School Districts interest in protecting its students' health and safety.
SEC. 3. SEARCHES BASED ON REASONABLE SUSPICION.
(a) In General- Each local educational agency shall have in effect throughout the jurisdiction of the agency policies that ensure that a search described in subsection (b) is deemed reasonable and permissible.
(b) Searches Covered- A search referred to in subsection (a) is a search by a full-time teacher or school official, acting on any reasonable suspicion based on professional experience and judgment, of any minor student on the grounds of any public school, if the search is conducted to ensure that classrooms, school buildings, school property and students remain free from the threat of all weapons, dangerous materials, or illegal narcotics. The measures used to conduct any search must be reasonably related to the search's objectives, without being excessively intrusive in light of the student's age, sex, and the nature of the offense.
SEC. 4. ENCOURAGEMENT TO PROTECT STUDENTS AND TEACHERS.
(a) In General- A local educational agency that fails to comply with section 3 shall not, during the period of noncompliance, receive any Safe and Drug Free School funds after fiscal year 2008.
(b) Definition- In this section, the term `Safe and Drug Free School funds' includes any funds under Part A of Title IV of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
Passed the House of Representatives September 19, 2006.
Seems there isn’t an answer on how, or even where the E. coli bacteria on lettuce came from yet. They’ve narrowed it down to three farms in California. Growers are trying to figure how and why, along with packers.
Some such as Caroline Smith Dewaal, Safety Director for Center of Science in the Public Interest, are calling to implement strong mandatory procedures like there are in the beef industry. The problem is the beef industry figured out the causes first; the growers and packers of lettuce and spinach have not.
Tim Chelling, a spokesman for Western Growers, is quoted as saying “We’re not doing any kind of knee-jerk reaction to any proposals at this point”. I hope not, what if the action taken actually makes it worse?
Jerry Gillespie of Western Institute for Food Safety and Security at the University of California-Davis, “We want the industry to do things better. But when it comes time to tell them what’s “better” is, it’s very difficult, because we’re not quite sure what they’re doing wrong.”
The FDA weighed in on this in a letter last November, “Claims that ‘we cannot take action until we know the cause’ are unacceptable”. This same agent that signed the memo was later heard saying “Damn it Doctor, I don’t care if you don’t know what’s wrong with me, operate!".
In other news; “Publishers seek recourse after audit slams federal reading program” pg 5A:
Federal officials mismanaged the Reading First program, forcing schools to buy materials the administration favored, including a few to which federal advisers had financial ties.
The FDA agent who survived surgery was transferred to the Education Department, were he was overheard saying, “Damn it, I don’t care if the books are useless, buy them! ”
Sunday, September 24, 2006
Saturday, September 23, 2006
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude
greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us
in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down
and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon
you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
What better way to honor him then to read about him, try here and here.
I can’t understand how the Federal Government even has the authority to start social programs. From my understanding the 10th Amendment to the Constitution forbids it. Then again I've only read it, not the black housecoat wearing judge's rulings that changed it.
A while ago though I read an article about a man named Sheriff Richard Mack. Sheriff Mack was upset about a little intrusion into state’s rights, in the form of the Brady Bill. The main problem is that it “billed” the states, literally. The sheriff always wanting to uphold the law, and in this case the highest law, the one called the Constitution, challenged the bill.
In JAY PRINTZ, SHERIFF/CORONER, RAVALLI COUNTY, MONTANA, PETITIONER 95-1478 v. UNITED STATES RICHARD MACK, PETITIONER 95-1503 The Supreme court ruled that the Brady Bill violated the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, basically because it required the States to pay it (Unfunded Mandate).
June 27, 1997] Justice Thomas, concurring.
The Court today properly holds that the Brady Act violates the Tenth Amendment in that it compels state law enforcement officers to "administer or enforce a federal regulatory program." See ante, at 25. Although I join the Court's opinion in full, I write separately to emphasize that the Tenth Amendment affirms the undeniable notion that under our Constitution, the Federal Government is one of enumerated, hence limited, powers. See, e.g., McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 405 (1819) ("This government is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers"). "[T]hat those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written." Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 176 (1803). Accordingly, the Federal Government may act only where the Constitution authorizes it to do so. Cf. New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992).
Before any dismiss it because Thomas wrote it:
Justice O'Connor, concurring.
Our precedent and our Nation's historical practices support the Court's holding today. The Brady Act violates the Tenth Amendment to the extent it forces States and local law enforcement officers to perform background checks on prospective handgun owners and to accept Brady Forms from firearms dealers. See ante, at 23. Our holding, of course, does not spell the end of the objectives of the Brady Act. States and chief law enforcement officers may voluntarily continue to participate in the federal program. Moreover, the directives to the States are merely interim provisions scheduled to terminate November 30, 1998. Note following 18 U.S.C. § 922. Congress is also free to amend the interim program to provide for its continuance on a contractual basis with the States if it wishes, as it does with a number of other federal programs. See, e.g., 23 U.S.C. § 402 (conditioning States' receipt)
Now I've got a few questions for our so-called representatives in Albany. If a Sheriff had the courage to stand up to the Federal Government for his county why can't you? You whine about it being out of your control, yet its not, so says the Supreme Court. Or were you hoping no one would notice?
Is there anyone out there that understands the law will enough to explain why we don't use this decision to get the unfunded mandate of Medicaid off our backs? Better yet is there a lawyer out there that would take the case?
Richard Mack is now running for the U.S. Senate in Arizona, maybe he could get the other Senators to read the Constitution.
By the way I received a very nice three-page letter from Sen. McCain (sorry no pictures, I used it in the bird cage) in response to mine to him. Very nice form letter even had a stamped signature that REALLY looked like his. Though the letter didn’t address my concerns, though how could it, they were about his disregard for the Constitution. After all you have to know something exists before you can talk about it.
Friday, September 22, 2006
Ken Lay's death in July, it was assumed, meant the end of the criminal case against the former Enron chairman. But prosecutors want to change that. On Wednesday, they filed a a motion asking Judge Sim Lake to hold off on signing the paperwork vacating Lay's conviction on fraud and conspiracy charges until former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling is sentenced in late October. In the motion, prosecutors propose a new law that criminal cases not be abated when the defendant dies, as is current legal precedent. In an effort to also get a Congressional hearing on the proposal, copies were sent to the Speaker of the House and Vice President Dick Cheney………….
……………….The Enron task force wants the new law to be retroactive to July 1 — four days before Lay died. The proposal has sparked a hot legal debate among those involved in and observing the Enron case…………..
So we now have public prosecutors lobbying congress for laws. Passing new laws and making them retroactive?? Scary, I hope in a “need for more revenue” the New York Legislation doesn’t lower the speed limit to 10mph “retroactively”. I can see the resubmission of thousands for tickets. Think of all the votes they could buy then.
Skilling's defense attorney Daniel M. Petrocelli says.
"The proposed legislation is openly unconstitutional. And the motion to the court asks the court in the starkest terms to participate in a knowing violation of the Constitution. I trust the court will reject the invitation."
Umm, I wouldn’t bet on it. Mistake number one, trusting the court to uphold the Constitution.
While some attorneys, and victims of the Enron scandal, argue that letting Lay — even in death — off the hook is a miscarriage of justice, others say the proposal is mean-spirited. "It's a disguised attempt to punish Lay further — not to help crime victims," says attorney Joel Androphy, author of the legal text White Collar Crime. "It has no global purpose other than being vindictive." Even though the criminal case is over, Androphy points out, Enron victims will still be compensated, because Lay's estate will have to pay any civil judgments. He argues that the proposed law sends a message that the government could strip away other constitutional rights, from jury trials to Fifth Amendment protections. "Who knows what will be next," he says.
Hold it, “proposed law sends a message that the government could strip away other constitutional rights”. Three words New London, Conn. The message has gone out and the message reads; “It’s a Living Document,” and “Do to the people as you want”.
To better serve the people the state most force the people to serve it.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Today while jumping around the “web” from link, to link, to link, I found a site that has the transcripts of an interview with Dr Milton Friedman.
Paige: Let us deal first with the issue of legalization of drugs. How do you see America changing for the better under that system?
Friedman: I see America with half the number of prisons, half the number of prisoners, ten thousand fewer homicides a year, inner cities in which there's a chance for these poor people to live without being afraid for their lives, citizens who might be respectable who are now addicts not being subject to becoming criminals in order to get their drug, being able to get drugs for which they're sure of the quality. You know, the same thing happened under prohibition of alcohol as is happening now.
Under prohibition of alcohol, deaths from alcohol poisoning, from poisoning by things that were mixed in with the bootleg alcohol, went up sharply. Similarly, under drug prohibition, deaths from overdose, from adulterations, from adulterated substances have gone up.
What's really great is how Dr. Friedman explains how government prohibition of Marijuana is the REAL stepping stone to harder drugs, and not Marijuana itself.Transcript
One justification for the prohibition is the addicts, but Milton Friedman explains the flip side of the coin:
So, the evidence is very mixed. But I have to admit that the one negative feature of legalizing drugs is that there might be some additional drug habbits. However, I want to qualify that in still another way.
The Child who's shot in a slum in a pass-by-shooting, in a random shooting, is an innocent victim in every respect of the term. The person who decides to take drugs for himself is not an innocent victim. He has chosen himself to be a victim. And I must say I have very much less sympathy for him. I do not think it is moral to impose such heavy costs on other people to protect people from their own choices
In a prior post I had asked "How many lives are worth a socialist idea, now though, how many lives are worth an moralistic idea?
Sunday, September 17, 2006
Each year since 2004, on Sept. 17, we commemorate the 1787 signing of the U.S. Constitution by 39 American statesmen. The legislation creating Constitution Day was fathered by Sen. Robert Byrd and requires federal agencies and federally funded schools, including universities, to have some kind of educational program on the Constitution.
I cannot think of a piece of legislation that makes greater mockery of the Constitution, or a more constitutionally odious person to father it -- Sen. Byrd, a person who is known as, and proudly wears the label, "King of Pork." The only reason that Constitution Day hasn't become a laughingstock is because most Americans are totally ignorant of, or have contempt for, the letter and spirit of our Constitution.
Kind of ironic also.
President Grover Cleveland vetoed many congressional appropriations, often saying there was no constitutional authority for such an appropriation. Vetoing a bill for relief charity, President Cleveland said, "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit."
Free Buffalo has posted an article about President Cleveland, I really didn't know much about him, though now I'll start looking to read more about him. There's also talk about a Grover Cleveland Library, odd that a man that was Erie County Sheriff, Mayor of Buffalo, Governor, and President doesn't have a Library/Museum in his hometown.
But back to Constitution Day, Walter Williams ends with:
Here are my questions to you: Has our Constitution been amended to authorize federal spending on "objects of benevolence"? Or, is it plain and simple constitutional contempt by Congress, the president, the courts and, worst of all, the American people? Or, am I being overly pessimistic and it's simply a matter of constitutional ignorance?
the kinds of things that are tolerated on the college campuses today—it’s despicable. The shouting down of people that they disagree with. Or the recent running out of the President of Harvard, just because he speculated that the reason why women are not highly represented in the sciences may have something to do with genetics.
Take that incident. In terms of the actual evidence that we have, it turns out that women are never as dumb as men, but, on the other hand, they’re never as smart as men. That is, at the very high end of the IQ range, there are relatively few women. At the very low end of the IQ range, where you find imbeciles and idiots, there are relatively few women. And that might explain why women aren’t in jail as much as men. But he was not being a sexist for saying that; he only said, maybe that’s one of the reasons. Yet he was just lambasted at Harvard University and elsewhere. He also said something else: that maybe another reason is because married women just don’t have as much freedom to devote 80 hours a week to research as males do, because they have some obligations. Many times, married women have obligations of household and kids. But anyway, just for making some reasonable speculations, he was run out—he resigned.
What this shows in the university community and the academy is a growing intolerance for intellectual diversity. They’re for all kinds of diversity, whether it’s sex or race or et cetera, but they’re not for intellectual diversity.
John Stuart Mill wrote:
But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race, posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.
I remember all the “hub-bub” over the example Dr. Williams uses. Could it be that the self-proclaimed enlightened elite were upset that their beliefs were questioned?
Mill also wrote:
In the present age- which has been described as “destitute of faith, but terrified at skepticism,”-in which people feel sure, not so much that their opinions are true, as that they should not know what to do without them-the claims of an opinion to be protected from public attack are rested not so much on its truth, as on its importance to society.
It might be a stretch, but there seems to be similarities between Dr L Sumers and Harvard University and Galileo and the Roman Catholic Church.
Galileo questioned the church's scientific beleifs with observations; Dr Sumers questioned the elitist's political beliefs with observations.
There are, it is alleged, certain beliefs, so useful, not to say indispensable to well-being, that it is much the duty of governments to uphold those beliefs, as to protect and other of the interests of society.
Though it hasn’t come to the point of opinions being outlawed, a small group of intellectual elitist are doing their best to make it all but illegal. By trying to silence opinions or thoughts are the intellectuals concerned about truth, as Galileo was, or do they feel that although their beliefs might be lies, theirs are just "indispensable to well-being" like the Church? Intellectuals once brought the world out of the dark ages, now the self proclaimed ones might just take us back in.
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Has anyone noticed the increase in door-to-door salesmen lately? Could it be a direct result of the "Do not call list"? My elderly neighbor recently put a No soliciting sign in her door. I guess the elderly that were victims of telemarketers and phone scams, have no fear of strangers constantly at their doors. Speaking of what the do not call list law did for the elderly, what's harder, screening your phone calls, reaching for it or getting up and answering the door. How many people have been physically assaulted over the phone vs. answering their front door?
I'm sure that the number of assaults perpetrated by those posing as salesmen will go up, and then a cry of "there should be a law", after door-to-door salesmen are illegalized, we'll need a wheel barrel to empty our mailboxes. There should be a law.........
With the unintended consequence of salesmen, from a simple law like the no call list. What do you think the unintended consequences of socialized medicine would be?
You constantly hear the phrase, "How much is a human life worth?" by socialist, the next time you hear it, ask them, How many lives are worth a socialist idea? We can get the answer by looking at history, for Stalin it was 30,000,000 To Mao 40,000,000.
Senator Clinton on more then one occasion has said, "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good". Stalin and Mao only took it to the logical conclusion, your life for the State.
Sunday, September 10, 2006
Turning to government with good intensions creates unintended consequences that through history have proven to do more harm then good. The energy used to impose government mandates would be better spent helping charities that are better suited in helping the “most in need”. They are also better judges in differentiating between the needy and those that are just plain irresponsible.
Friday, June 16, 2006
Even the Flint NAACP President Frances Gilcreast isn't up in arms, but the PC Police are.
"That's a tough one," Gilcreast said. "I can understand both sides of that issue."
Hat tip North Coast Online
Seems two High School kids quoted Hitler in the Yearbook. Yes sounds frightening doesn't it? But the quotes where not racist or anti Semitic. One was "Strength lies not in defense, but in attack." Gee just before we invaded Iraq about 85% of Americans were screaming those words. The other was "The great masses of people ... will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one." This one was a surprise I didn't know Hitler had said that. I thought it was FDR or another president, or their press secretaries. But it rings true, just look at the copies of the "Star" and “Enquire” sold for proof of that. The ironic part is the last quote is used in a strategy Game called Civilization IV I play. A voice that sounds like Leonard Nemor quotes people each time you discover a new technology. I'm sure he didn't know it was Hitler, maybe we should recall the game?
Compton's father, Steven, said that his son meant no harm in picking the quote. "I guess he didn't seriously consider the source; he was more interested in the quote," he said. "He's a child."
"More interested in the quote." He's not alone. I'll take it that Compton was the one that used the great masses one. Well, look at the American public they sure prove it true. "He's a child", and out of the mouth of babes.
Now is the up roar over the author of the quotes or does it hit to close to home with truths that we'd rather ignore. Then again it could just be PC Gone Wild.
Thursday, June 15, 2006
We must ask ourselves why we are divided. With deep sole searching, at least within myself I see the major reason as ourselves, we are to blame, not the right nor the left but we as individuals. Not intentionally but, as they say, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions”. We have forced ideological minorities to obey our will. We have favored one group of peoples over others. We are called red states and blue states, with so much diversity within our country there will always be contrasting views and opinions. The problem arises from one view imposing their will on others, weather red, blue, green, or purple. It is time to stop doing so.
For to long now politicians have given taxpayer money away to buy votes. Those who benefit do not realize that their newfound fortune was taken from someone else, at times forcibly. Those in DC have voted to take away from one state to give to another. We have lined our pockets with stolen money. Oh we say it’s not stolen, but tax money. But yet how much choice do those who’s money is our pockets have? Some may say this is a democracy, and that the majority rules. Without limits what is the difference from democracy and a mob? To barrow a saying from a Libertarian "Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner."
This nation has made many promises to past and present generations, yet I can see no greater evil on our part then to burden our children with our transgressions. Therefore ways must be implemented so that our children do not bare a yoke we ourselves have place on their shoulders.
Many now or expect social security and Medicare to be there for them, and it is a promise the federal government most honor. Those who would rather be dependant upon themselves and family may opt out. Those that do so will be given the full amount that they paid into the system, but not the employers half. Upon deposit of the funds it is understood that the individual is nolonger eligible for any federal assistance that falls under Social Security. Those under the age of 18 will be given any funds paid into it back, the program will be fazed out. The sytem will take care of those it has promised to do so for. Many will ask how it is to be funded. A trust fund run by several investment groups will have complete control of the monies. The running of the Social Security Administration will be funded by the trust. No Congressman or government organization may use or touch in anyway the trust fund. The rules and regulations that apply to private business retirment funds such as 401Ks will also apply to Sociual Security. The lost money (those opting out) shall be replaced by a National Lottery. All funds from the lottery will be transferred into the trust. Again NO congressman may in anway touch or devert it. When the trust is nolonger needed any remaining balance will go directly into paying down the debt.
The Federal govermnent has become so intertwined in everyday life that a large minority of people consider it to now be “Big Brother”. We must reverse this trend. All social programs mandated by the Federal Government will stay in effect for the next year . During this time each state will take complete control of all of them but receive the federal funding that each has gotten in the past. After “x” amount of time the federal funding will stop and each state shall decide what programs are best for it’s citizens. At this date the Federal employees may be hired as state employees or seek transfers within the Federal Government.
What is good for the children of North Carolina is not necessarily good for those in New York. The same goes for Texas and Rhode Island and so on. The Federal Government will nolonger pry into the eduction in any state, so long as it does not violate the Constitution. Each State is responsible for the welfare of it’s citizens, how ever those citizens want to define welfare is up to them.
The Income Tax as we know it should be abolished, to many Americans spend countedless hours going over forms and regulations, it is a burden to families. A flat teired tax should be inacted not as a law or regulation but an Admendment to the Constitution, short and simple. Congress’s ability to modify the rates, will be curtailed by the dependance of each states ratification.
By giving control of policies to smaller groups (states) the wounds of division shall heal. Each state on social issues may plot it’s own course, not imposing as many people to one ideology but giving citizens a choice. It shall not be a winner take all mentality. Citizens with like minds may move to where they are happy. Yes deversity is important, but forced obeinance to a opposite or differing views is not diversity but mental enslavement. So long as the rights out lined in the Constitution for the individual or even the several states are not violated then the federal government has no right to interfere.
As Benjimen Franklin said "The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself."
Our Founding Fathers knew the dangers of a strong central Government, yet they knew to some extent it was necessary. In times of war and in today’s world, even in peace a strong federal government is needed to protect us from forgein invasion and aggression. Though in an idealistic world Thomas Jefferson’s words “Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto”, would be will to be followed. Yet the world is not so tame. This is the main responsibility of the Federal Government and with the everyday lives of the people in the hands of the states or the people themselves the federal government can focus on what it should be focusing on, the safety and protection of the states as a collective. That being said no longer will the President send troops to war unless Congress declares it. Congress shall never shirk its duties for political safety again.
Good night America, I've got to get up early tomorow and FINALLY read the Constitution.
When I was stationed at the Federal Building in Buffalo back in the late 80's a GSA employee had told me, that at one time GSA worked on it's own vehicle fleet. Then they were asked to do a cost analysis on contracting it out. They did it according to the criteria that DC sent them. They felt great, it showed they were cheaper. A couple of weeks later they were told to do another, but with different criteria, once again they were cheaper. Alas, several more weeks and another with, yes another set of criteria. This one got DC the results it wanted, and now work is contracted out.
Free Buffalo has put together a study for them for free with real solutions. It didn't cost the taxpayers a dime and if implented would save them more then a dime.
Now I'm sure her son would have approved of her honoring those who abandoned their Brothers in Arms. After all "we signed up for the college, not to serve". It's one thing to protest the war, but to honor those that desert?
When Desert Shield and to a greater extent Desert Strom started, there where several instances of servicemen protesting and refusing to go. My fellow Marines(myself included) had and still have complete contempt for these so called soldiers. They where not here to serve their country but to suck the benifits they could. But once the price was due they bailed. And now Sheehan and a group of others will hold a rally to support them?
It had mentioned her trip to Venezuela.
She defends her trip to Venezuela, expressing gratitude to Chavez for mobilizing Latin Americans against the war. She said she feels an obligation to "show the world that Americans don't support what our leaders are doing. World leaders should resist the empire of the United States that oppresses people."
Oppresses people? Did she look around Venezuela? Or was she given "government" sponsored tours? Maybe she should ask some citizens of Venezuela what happens when "they" protest (their own government). Did she ever think that (socialist) Chavez hates the US not for the war but because of our Capitalism? Our schools need to start teaching critical thinking skills. But that's another rant.
One of the many great things about the Freedom of Speech is that it exposes idiots. Unfortunately there’s no short supply of them, and they tend to attract each other.
"The pro-war side for a long time managed to effectively paint antiwar folks as being unpatriotic, and not concerned with the troops. Cindy managed to give the lie to all that."
Actually Cindy's was doing some of the painting herself.
Sheehan has also drawn criticism nationwide for her January appearance with Chavez, who stood next to her chanting: "Down with the U.S. empire!"
But I guess if you dislike Capitalism, and Free Enterprise the only thing you hear in that chant is Down with Empires. To bad the audience in Venezuela and the rest of Latin America herd "Down with America". Chavez must have loved it. After all for quasi dictators to stay in power they most rally the populace against a perceived enemy weather real or not is unimportant. Look at history for the proof, Lenin and Stalin (the rich and royalty), Hitler (Jews, and Western Europe) Mussolini (The rich), almost all governments in Africa.
"I can't be fazed by the attacks. Burying my son and surviving - that is the worst thing that can happen to a mother or a parent. Everything else gets put in perspective."
No you've become obsessed and narrow-minded. A fanatic who will stop at nothing to further a cause. With blinders on, happily ignoring any negative repercussions of your actions. If the repercussions only effected you it wouldn't matter, but unfortunately when you entered the international spotlight it effects the whole country, let those the general public have elected screw it up. They diffenantly don't need any help.
Sunday, June 11, 2006
Friday, June 09, 2006
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
Recently I’ve come across several Web sites about the Boarder Patrol, mainly “U.S. Border Patrol Local 2544”.
Welcome. Local 2544 officers are all Border Patrol agents. We represent other Border Patrol agents and non-supervisory employees in the Tucson Sector of the U.S. Border Patrol, covering most of the state of Arizona. We are the largest local in the Border Patrol.
Seems our federal government not only forgets about those in the Armed Forces who make sacrifices, but also in the Border Patrol, this is a sad example.
Why we don’t hear about the poor support the border patrol gets is dumbfounding. Where is the press? To busy following their masters around? Ah just like the good lap dogs they are. After all what’s more important, the agents getting shot at or a bunch of pompous politicians, at a $500.00 a plate fundraiser?
What’s really disturbing is at the Border Patrols site;
President Bush is doing back flips to assure the hypocritical El Presidente Fox that America will not "militarize" the border. We didn't realize that Fox was running things here. Is the Mexican government paying for any of this? Of course not. Further, Fox has already "militarized" the border. Mexico has plenty of troops on the border. We know this because we see them all the time and they shoot at us with rather large .50 caliber rifles. All we can do is hope their aim is bad, run from them, and then watch as the cowards from our government hide from the issue, and their government lies about them even being there. So........if Fox is so concerned with the "militarization" of the border perhaps he should start on his side of the border.
Hold on here did he say, “Fox has already "militarized" the border. Mexico has plenty of troops on the border. We know this because we see them all the time and they shoot at us with rather large .50 caliber rifles.”
From reading this, it sounds like a episode of “F Troupe”.
Credible reports indicate that the U.S. government is spying on border volunteers such as the Minutemen, and passing the intelligence on to the Mexican government.
Now what’s going on here? If the Fed’s are reporting the positions of minutemen, and the Border Patrol agents are saying the Mexican Army is firing on them. What happens when a minuteman gets shot? Let alone the implication that Mexico is firing 50 cal’s at our Border Patrol Officers.
Maybe those responsible for our national security and safety should concentrate on our borders rather then what Johnny’s reading in class, and let the states take care of that.
But then this border issue isn’t new to Congress
TESTIMONY OF DAVID J. STODDARD, SUBMITTED TO U.S. SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE, DRUG POLICY AND HUMAN RESOURCES, REPRESENTATIVE MARK SOUDER, CHAIRMAN.
February 22, 2002
My name is David J. Stoddard; I am a resident of Cochise County, Arizona. I served my country for 30 years, first as a soldier in the U.S. Army and then as U.S. Border Patrol Agent for 27 years.
I have no personal interest in illegal immigration or in U.S. drug policy except as a patriotic citizen of the United States. I am not being paid or influenced by any entity whatsoever for my testimony submitted to you this day.
There has been a great deal of debate recently over needed changes in U.S. Immigration Law. The United States has the most liberal immigration policies in the entire world. Our laws are designed to protect the American public from criminals, subversives, terrorists, disease, the insane and from those who are likely to become public charges. There are no U.S. laws designed specifically to exclude any deserving person from legally immigrating to the United States. Any person may legally immigrate unless he or she falls within an excludable class. This is for the public good. If existing laws were enforced as intended, there would be no need for new laws.
Currently the United States admits more people as immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers than all the other countries in the world combined. Right now one-fifth of the U.S. population is a foreign born or dependant child of foreign born residents. Since the 2000 Census, the population of the United States has increased by 3 million people according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
According to various Mexican media and official Mexican government sources, the country of Mexico has 18 million of its citizens residing illegally in the United States at this very minute. Mexico claims to have 30 million persons of Mexican descent in the United States. I have no reason not to believe these claims.
According to official U.S. I. & N.S. estimates, Mexicans comprise only 54% of the total number of illegal aliens within the United States. Again, I have no reason to dispute these figures. I hope this gives you some kind of perspective as to the great influence illegal immigration has upon our society.
Since I have lived and worked on the Mexican border all of my life, I am most familiar with the problems presented by illegal Mexican immigration and I would like to focus on that aspect.
- According to former Chief of Police, Ruben Ortega, 80% of the street level drug dealers in Salt Lake City, Utah are illegal Mexican Aliens. I believe we can extrapolate that percentage to any major city in the Southwest.
- According to the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 24% of those incarcerated in the United States are foreign born, most of them Mexicans.
- According to the California State authorities, that state must build the equivalent of one grammar school a day in order to accommodate the population growth of school aged children, again, largely due to illegal immigrants, most of whom are illegal Mexicans.
I submit to you that Mexico has instituted policies which encourage its citizens to sneak into the United States.
- Mexico has discontinued the government subsidies for propane, diesel, tortillas, beans, electricity, housing, bread and commodities for poor people.
- Mexico has opened additional consulates in practically every state in the union in order to assist its citizens obtain U.S. benefits, "rights" and to assure legal help in the instances of "discrimination" in employment, law enforcement and in any other legal matter.
- Lawyers retained at the behest of Mexican officials quickly take civil action against any U.S. citizen who chooses to protect himself or his property against illegal Mexicans. This is designed to deter any interference by U.S. residents in the free flow of aliens and drugs across our borders.
- Mexican school children, from the primary grades, are taught that the United States "stole" (from Mexico) the land now called California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Colorado and Utah. Furthermore, these children are taught that were it not for the United States "stealing" California and the gold therein, that Mexico would be a superpower today. I have heard that with my own ears. That is no exaggeration.
- The President of Mexico actively encourages its citizens to illegally emigrate to the U.S. and in fact frequently refers to those who do so as "heroes".
- I can give you the names of eight high-level Mexican politicians who have left office in the last decade with a minimum of $700 million each. These ill-gotten funds could have been used for the good of the Mexican people.
Based on the above facts, I see no reason for any change in U.S. immigration laws. But I see a great need for change in the way Mexico imposes upon the United States. The American people are expected to provide free medical care, housing, education, food and other basic needs to illegal Mexican aliens. These are all services that should be provided to our own elderly, handicapped and poor.
I do see a need to alter the way in which the United States administers its immigration laws however.
Currently the same administrator dictates enforcement and services. Under Doris Meissner, the INS became a service-oriented organization because Ms. Meissner considered all aliens, legal and illegal as her "clients". Enforcement under the U.S. Border Patrol became non-existent except for a narrow corridor along the border. This encouraged illegal aliens to keep trying until they were successful in traversing that corridor beyond which they could live and reside as long as they wish and do whatever they want, while the services branch of INS does everything it can to make their status legal. This status quo has not changed under INS Commissioner James Ziglar.
This is a schizophrenic approach, which does not, never has and never will work. The INS must be separated into two agencies, one to provide services and the other for enforcement purposes. The U.S. Border Patrol must be allowed to do its job in strict accordance to the law without regard to political correctness and without regard to state, city and local boundaries. This is the only way we can remain a sovereign nation. We cannot allow a foreign nation to dictate our immigration policy, which is the current standard. Either an alien has legally entered the United States or he has not. The legal alien is entitled to benefits and services. The others are not.
Every single person who has sneaked into this country made an informed decision to violate the laws of this country and has accepted the risk of detection and deportation. None of them should be allowed to reside in the U.S. without first exiting and making a legal application for entry in order to screen for criminals, the insane, subversives, terrorists and disease.
The U.S. Border Patrol simply cannot handle its mission under present restraints. Its job is to protect the American public and preserve the sanctity of our international borders. That cannot be accomplished while our borders are overrun by aliens of every nationality and while bureaucrats place unreasonable restrictions on how agents operate.
- I urge the immediate deployment of U.S. military troops and equipment on our borders to seal them against those who would cause us harm. This could be only a temporary measure to allow us to regain control to again become a sovereign nation.
- I urge the separation of the U.S. Border Patrol into a separate agency responsible for the detection, interdiction, arrest, prosecution and/or deportation of drug smugglers and illegal aliens. An experienced enforcement officer whose primary purpose is to protect America and American citizens must run this separate agency. That separate agency must have its own budget and control its own spending. This would assure that the law enforcement agency doesn't have to dance like a puppet at the whim of a non-law enforcement entity with an agenda of its own operating the purse strings. A professional law enforcement agency must be in total control of enforcement, (with Attorney General and Congressional oversight, of course), or political special interests will exercise undue influence as has been the case with the Border Patrol for the last 78 years.
I realize I cannot be more specific and detailed due to time restraints, so I respectfully submit this to you at this time.
David J. Stoddard
It’s just not important enough, after all there's not many votes involved.
And to add another aspect,this congressional testimony. (Hat Tip to; Newbeat1),
Border Patrol agents and deputy sheriffs are shot at from Mexico on a routine basis. In January, there was a sniper in Mexico shooting at agents that were working along the banks of the river in the area of the cities of Rio Bravo/El Cenizo, which are located south of Laredo. This continued, sporadically, for three days. Agents reported seeing several individuals wearing military style uniforms on a hill on the Mexican side one of them was using what was believed to be a high powered rifle with scope. This sniper was arrested last week and is now in United States custody.
On January 23, 2006, in Hudspeth County, Texas, state officers and deputy
sheriffs pursued three vehicles laden with marihuana. These vehicles fled back into
Mexico by driving across the Rio Grande River. One of them got stuck in the mud.
When officers reached the levee of the Rio Grande River, they encountered what officers described as a Mexican Humvee equipped with a machine gun and what officers believe to be Mexican soldiers, fully armed with automatic weapons, waiting for these vehicles to cross back into Mexico. These officers on the United States side possessed no automatic weapons.
But was the humvee waiting to arrest them?
We recently received information that the cartels immediately across our borderare planning on killing as many police officers as possible on the United States side. Thisis being planned for the purpose of attempting to “scare us” away from the border. Theyhave the money, equipment, and stamina to do it. They are determined to save their“load”. It is very possible, these cartels may form a nexus with members of Al Qaedaand other terrorist organizations. The Department of Homeland Security recently issued Officer Alerts warning their agents of the potential threats. We, the local officers,learned about it through the news media.
Local, state, and federal officers have found many items along the banks of the
Rio Grande River that indicate possible ties to terrorist organizations or members of
military units of Mexico. Currency and clothing are common finds. Recently, a jacket
with patches was found in Jim Hogg County, Texas, by agents of U. S. Border Patrol.
The patches on the jacket show an Arabic military badge with one depicting an airplaneflying over a building and heading towards a tower, and another showing an image of alion’s head with wings and a parachute emanating from the animal (lion). It is believedfrom an undisclosed document that Department of Homeland Security translatorsconcluded that the patches read “defense center”, “minister of defense”, or “defenseheadquarters”. The bottom of one patch read “martyr”, “way to eternal life” or “way toimmortality”. I have attached copies of these patches and have marked them as Attachment #4
Thursday, June 01, 2006
At one time in my life, I thought I had a handle on the meaning of the word "service", it's the act of doing things for other people. Then I heard these terms which reference the word SERVICE:
> Internal Revenue Service
> Postal Service
> Telephone Service
> Civil Service
> City & County Public Service
> Customer Service
> Service Stations
Then I became confused about the word "service." This is not what I thought "service" meant.
So today, I overheard two farmers talking, and one of them said he had hired a bull to "service" a few of his cows. BAM! It all came into perspective. Now I understand what all those "service" agencies are doing to us.
I hope you now are as enlightened as I am.
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
Being on this side of the world this time, I was sitting on my back deck thinking about what the service members were doing at that very moment. Most everyone in this area was more then likely asleep already. I was wondering if at that very second as I took another chug of Yuengling, if a service member was breathing their last breath. Granted that’s a pretty dark thought, but isn’t that partly what Memorial Day is for? As I’m sitting here typing is a young servicemen’s life ending. Could one be questioning the loyalty of his country to him? Wondering if he makes a mistake will he be used by a politician as a tool to further his career and power? It’s sad that the people that didn’t have the courage to uphold the Constitution in declaring war or not, will decide the fate of those with the courage to willingly sacrifice their lives for it.
I wonder if Congressmen’s William Jefferson, Ney, Tom DeLay, or any other member of congress had thoughts like that Monday.
Now to add some icing to that lovely cake, we have a Rand Study that has been exposed by two San Jose State University economics professors
who show the Rand preschool study "cherry-picked" data, based its claims on "unbelievable assumptions that bias the results," and omitted numerous costs and other factors that significantly lower the alleged benefits of universal preschool.
The rest of what they found out is in a News Release at the Reason Foundation.
The above mention study by the Rand foundation was paid for by The David and Lucile Packard Foundation. Who it seems has had their hands in trying to implement government sponsored preschool for some time. In an article in the Mercury News it says they've spent about 9 million a year to cram it down the average citizens throat.
Now, foundations are perfectly within their right to try and help those they feel need it. But, when they direct their efforts at getting the government to enforce what "they think is best" for the masses, they've stopped being a charitable organization and are well on their way in becoming a totalitarian overlord.
I wonder if the Rand Foundation got a nice bonus for such "good" results. The best results money can buy.
Monday, May 22, 2006
The house we bought is slowly looking better then it was when we bought it. Lately we've been thinking of an addition. The big question was, "Are we going to stay in this house long enough to make it worth it?" There are a lot of pro's to staying here, cheap mortgage, taxes aren't bad in comparison to suburbs, close to everything, and the biggies, nice neighborhood and we like our neighbors. But when we got to the cons guess which one stuck out. Sure there's the crime, roads, noise and poorly run government, but isn't all government? A rottwieller and cleaning several guns on the front porch keeps the crime away (it's good to be a redneck), the roads and noise you get use too. But school quality is the deal breaker.
Most of our friends have children and live in the suburbs or country. They all say the city is nice for the reasons I've mentioned, and compared to where they live the property taxes are low (but still to high). When the subject of living in the city comes up most of them would like to. The very next sentence though is, "But the schools are bad." It's not only our friends either, most of the people at work say the same thing. When parents look for a place to raise their children what's at the top of the list? This is why it's so hard for me to understand how those who represent the poor and others that live in cities continually vote no for vouchers or even tax credits.
This last attempt really gave us some hope, alas to no avail, again the politicians were bought off. I know someone that deals with a lot of teachers and officials within the public school system were she works. Most of them, she says hated the idea of a tax credit. With a smirk, she said they send their kids to private schools though.
I'm no rocket scientist, but it seems to me if parents had a choice on where they could send their kids to school, they'd be more willing to move into the city. All the bells and whistles will not entice parents to put their kids in bad schools. So they stay in the suburbs. You say they're not that bad, then why do the teachers that work in them send theirs elsewhere?
The most shocking is that the so-called leaders and speakers for the "poor" continue to force the poor into substandard schools. It would make a suspicious person ask what or who do they really work for? They continue to demand more money for a system that continually shows its inability to improve. Only in government is failure rewarded with more money.
City officials, who are serious about improving the quality of life within it, need to realign their priorities. All the government housing and programs for the poor will not help, only by attracting the middleclass will you see any REAL economic improvement. The number one concern of middleclass families is education for their children. You want to fix the city, give the middleclass a reason to come here. You get the middleclass to live here and they will bring a "market" with them. The bells and whistles you've been using for several decades aren't working. Try what Cleveland did or maybe one of the ideas mentioned at The Friedman Foundation . But then whom do you work for, the majority of residents or the School System and it's members? Let the parents weigh the pros and cons and decide about school chioce, but give "them" the choice.
My wife and I have a little more then two years to decide, give us a choice.
Saturday, May 20, 2006
With all the government easdroping, arrests (detainmnets) with no charges, "enemy combatants" and the list goes on, there is a good argument for 1984. Its blunt, in your face totalitarian rule was easy to see. It was forceful, and those who opposed where "shown the errors of their ways". However, in Brave New World it was not the axe but the carrot that kept everyone in line.
No matter what you did for a living you were taken care of. From housing, food, and even drugs, you had no real worries, almost like today's safety net, section 8, Welfare and Medicaid. Relationships were noncommittal, no kids to worry about, the State raised them. Not like real life, well, except for public day care, schools, and after school programs.
Even in the utopia of A Brave New World there were "classes". You had the administrators "Alphas", just like politicians, your Betas they where like the Bureaucrats, you had C, D, Union workers, Unskilled Labor. However, the most striking was those that refused to simulate, who did not allow the State to care for them were outcasts, barbarians, and even savages of a has been, "Pre-enlightened time". Much like the individualists of today, unless they work with the "State" and toot the progressive thinking". Anyone who even questions the "safety net" is labeled a heartless individual. Go with the flow and take your soma, man....
One ironic aspect is that by socialist standards, this world would get high marks. Yet, one of the issues you always hear is the "social classes" or unfairness of it all. In A Brave New World instead of your heritage, parents or even your own hard work setting your status, it is the random acts and functions of the State that set it.
It could be said to a certain point Republicans use 1984 as their "How to Book", but the same goes for Democrats with A Brave New World. You take aspects of these two books and you can pretty much see the mix we have.
What we need is a "How to Book" with a Laissez Faire theme. Unless someone knows of one?
Contrary to the concept of three independent and co-equal branches of government, government is now dominated by the executive branch at all levels simply because the executive controls the most jobs.
The first book I read after seeing that temptress Libertarianism, was "Road to Serfdom" by F.A. Hayek. After I read it I asked my father several questions about Germany during Hitler's rise to power and what he thought of the book. Not that I didn't believe the book but just to get an opinion from someone that was "there". He confirmed what Hayek had said about why/how Hitler came to power and the mindset of the general population.
The one point that sticks out is Germany's council was trying to control the economy. Hayek pointed out that to do so you needed to react quickly and that large groups of people with equal votes (democracy) couldn't, due to debate and compromise. In a business it is usually one powerful man (leader) who makes quick decisive decision (Along comes Hitler).
Is there a pattern that once the people look to government to solve their problems it seems a dictator or authoritarian government soon follows? During the 20s and 30s it would seem so, Germany, Italy, Russia, and later China. In each case it was the cry of "The Oppressed People" or "well intentioned intervention" of their governments that caused these men to gain power. We could add Cuba, and several African countries to the lot also.
History seems to show Hayek knew what he was talking about. Lets hope "Road to Serfdom" isn't a prophetic book about the Republic we live in. But with the "executive branch at all levels" becoming stronger by the year it's not looking good.
Some food for thought, the US Constitution says,
Section 7. All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.
Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.
Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill.
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
So if the budget and laws are Congress' responsibility, why is it called the "President's Budget", and he gives Congress Bills?
The statesman who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they outht to employ their capitals, would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted to no council and senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it.
Saturday, May 13, 2006
``I work in Washington and I know that money corrupts. And I and a lot of other people were trying to stop that corruption. Obviously, from what we've been seeing lately, we didn't complete the job. But I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, I'd rather have the clean government.''
Just about everyone I know agrees with you in that money and lobbyist are the major problem. What bothers me is what seems to be the sacrificing of the First Amendment to try and curb corruption in DC.
Granted I am an outsider who is ignorant of the “ins and outs” of DC. But has anyone asked, what is the root cause? Is it money and or the special interests? I believe that even with an infinite number of laws, no one but God himself will put a dent in the corruption. Both money and special interests are here to stay. Every group and individual has their own interests and each feels theirs special. And here lies the real problem. It is human nature to want the most for the least and Congress by passing laws facilitates it. No one has pointed out the combination of the ability of you and your colleagues to pass whatever laws are politically expedient and the exuberant amount of taxpayer’s money at Congress’ disposal.
Rather then encroaching on the First Amendment, why not limit the power to make laws and reduce the amount of the taxpayer’s money? Why do businesses spend millions and other special interest groups lobby? Could it be the return for their money is greater, weather in funds, grants, tax breaks, favorable regulations, or even enforcement of ideology in the form of laws?
It is alarming to hear you would dismiss the Constitution to acquire a political goal. This same type dismissal is what I feel, has caused the rampant corruption. The Tenth Amendment says;
“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.”
I know that over the past century this has been watered down to the point that it is meaningless. Yet, James Madison stated;
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”
With such strong evidence of what the Tenth Amendment is supposed to mean, is it any wonder some fear the First Amendment will be next victim of a “just cause”?
I agree that corruption is a problem in government, but the cause is the unbridled power of the government.
Thomas Jefferson once said,
"In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution”
If the Constitution can be so easily set aside what then, guarantees our “Unalienable Rights” and protects the individuals? Some say the three branches of government. But the Bill of Right in the Constitution was meant to protect us from those. As Justice William O. Douglas stated,
"Our Bill of Rights curbs all three branches of government. It subjects all departments of government to a rule of law and sets boundaries beyond which no official may go. It emphasizes that in this country man walks with dignity and without fear, that he need not grovel before an all powerful government.”
Sir, you stated “ If I had my choice, I'd rather have the clean government.'' How long would it be clean without the “Chains of the Constitution”? Rather then dismissing what little remains of the Bill of Rights to try and fix a problem, enforce the Bill of Rights as intended, to limit the corruption.