Liberty Nymph

Populist Constitutionalism and the Tea Party

2010-02-07T22:57:00.003-05:00

“Social conservatives, fiscal conservatives (who might be liberal on some social issues), libertarians, and moderates can agree to disagree about issues like abortion, legalized drugs, gay marriage, etc. The Constitution teaches all of them that the resolution to these problems should be conducted on the state or community level, as opposed to the national level.”

BAM !!!!!!!!!

Read the rest of the Article by Larrey Anderson at the American Thinker
(Click the Title)

Window to the Soul

2009-12-08T14:21:00.004-05:00

They say the eyes are the window to the soul.

Look deep, look very deep into the soul of Congressmen Boxer’s pitch black eyes….The evil intensions pose is just icing on the cake.

Hmmm, how to manipulate the public with fear…that is the path to true power.

What "Tax the Wealthy" Really Means

2009-11-12T00:30:00.006-05:00

I listened to an interview on YouTube where a wealthy individual said he represented a “substantially” large group of other wealthy people who endorse raising taxes on the “wealthy” to pay for government reform in health care (slow creeping move to nationalization). The exact YouTube video is irrelevant; it’s only a back drop to my pondering. In the same video another individual said that this man had inherited the money and found it odd that those who actually earned their riches do not feel the same. Of course the individual who endorses a government take over stated that “many” of the supporters where entrepreneurs.

With Congress’s disregard for the distaste many individuals have for more government interference with everyday life, aka Health Care, they passed a 2,000 page monstrosity that none of them read completely let alone understood; In keeping with the tyranny that comes with forcing “social reforms” over harmony within the democracy, Senator Reid is considering raising taxes on those who make over $250,000 a year.

Here’s the ponderings: That “wealthy” government worshiper and his like minded “wealthy” entrepreneurs already have their mansions, and federally subsidized insured beachfront homes; along with billions of post-taxed (taxed when earned at lower rates) in the bank, who can live nicely off a modest trust say of $249,999 a year. This goes for champions of government engineered society, such as Warren Buffet; who has an uncanny ability to pick who the government is going to make a winner in the business world.

My conclusion is when they say “tax the wealthy” they, from the government is my god guy to Senator Reid and the likes of Pelosi to Warren Buffet, its all bullshit. What they really mean is tax those with the potential to become wealthy, but don’t tax the wealth we’ve already inherited or earned prior to our support of big god like government.

Here's an idea, let’s tax the “net worth” of these priests of the centralized ruling class, and see how enthusiastic they are of taxing those still trying to achieve their dreams to finance their social engineering.

Maybe this is why, for the most part, the rich and the poor vote democrat and the middle class votes republican. The middle class needs a party that actually represents them though. Could it be the L word?

Natural Rights or are they Natures Right

2009-10-30T02:05:00.006-04:00

The process of birth gives us life. Birth is a natural occurrence, not dictated nor made by man. Although some may argue that man initiates or can terminate the process, neither gives man authority over it. In regards to the first, it is nature that drives the man’s natural desires to initiate, but only as a tool; man himself can not will the conception; it is nature that does so. For the later, termination of the process does not give man any authority or credit for it, how could it? He has destroyed it.

Some will insist that it is man’s actions that should be credited to life. However, man can not call to life his offspring; he must bow to nature, for it is nature that provides man his essence of life. The only power man has over life is, again, the destruction of it.

Since it is nature that is the giver of life and life coming from nature, life must be and is natural. Nature having given it and it being natural, nature then has authority over it. This being so, only nature has a right to take it, as it does through the passing of time, disease, and disaster. Man does take life through violence, such as war, either by man vs. man, as some men do, but not all as Hobbes claims; nation vs. nation, and even nation vs. man, a vile practice. Man taking life though is theft; he has no right to what belongs to nature, he has merely raped it.

In the absence of nature actively claiming it’s right to a man’s life, that same life is then the man’s to do as he sees fit with, until his master (nature) demands it. Until his master demands it, it is man who is in possession of it; therefore, it is his own life. In essence, nature has given man his life, which he, man, is then caretaker of; none except the master may dictate how that life is used except the caretaker given responsibility of it. Therefore, no man has authority to dictate to another how he is to live his life.

No man having authority, or “a right” over another’s life, then has authority or “a right” to what comes from that man’s life. Being that a man’s life is his own, all things that derive from that life are his also. All things that are his are then his property, and being no man has authority over another man’s life he then has no authority over his property. No man therefore, has a right to another’s property, whether it is his thought, labor, or possessions. Only man’s master has a right to its possessions and it will claim it either through time, disease, or disaster. If another, mainly man, takes it…..it is nothing more than rape.

Should Bribes be Counted in Total Health Care Refrom Costs?

2009-10-22T10:56:00.001-04:00

There seems to be a split among some Senate Democrats about the Health Insurance mandates. An AP article (Click on Title) talks about several “centrists” that may oppose it to maintain their seats past this election cycle.

The thing that struck me though was AP’s comment about some just holding out for “favors” and “pork” for their districts/states.

Now let’s add the cost of the taxpayer funded bribes the Obama administration might likely hand out to hold outs for votes to the total cost of Health Care Destruction. Is this the way it’s really done in Chicago?

Tariffs are Dangerous to Your Health

2009-10-18T18:35:00.001-04:00

While surfing the web I found an article about sugar tariffs. Now limiting the amount of any product that comes into the country always increases the price to the “general public” (of course it protects the few). http://cafehayek.com/2009/09/sourpuss-monopolists.html

The comment sections are almost as interesting as the post itself in most cases. One individual mentions that the tariff on sugar helps the farmers growing corn, since an alternative to sugar is high fructose corn syrup. Another asks if it is healthier or less so than sugar. A couple of comments later states that “Although it’s inconclusive” high fructose corn syrup is thought to contribute to type II diabetes.

This is just another example of the over reaching centrist government’s collusion with a small group of large corporations controlling what its citizens do. First by protecting a small but powerful lobby group, meanly the US sugar industry, it increases the cost to us. Secondly, it distorts the bastardized free market more so than they already have and leads us to use cheaper but less healthy alternatives. Thirdly, the results of the ruling classes meddling are that we see an increase in diabetes.

Finally, to add insult to injury (pun intended) the ruling class now says due, in part, to this diabetes epidemic they must take control of our daily lives more, by legislating more warning labels and indoctrinating the children through state run schools. Ultimately these self appointed guardians of our future will take complete control of the whole Health Care system, because we will not be able to afford it otherwise. Never mind it was their meddling in out lives, protecting the large corporations, starting government run health insurance for the poor and seniors, and regulating all other avenues of health care (to protect us from the large corporate insurance companies) that increased the costs in the first place. Oddly the regulations pushed any small company or non-profits out of the health insurance industry because of the mandated items that MUST be covered.

This all leads me to ask the question, “Are we free, is it a lie, or are we’re just tools they keep alive to maintain the ruling class’ life of luxury and power?

A Comparison to Government Health Care Reform

2009-10-11T12:32:00.002-04:00

At least the guy with the gun was a expert in the field.

Cheapened to Worthlessness

2009-10-09T14:35:00.001-04:00

“Crack Whore of the Week” or the Nobel Peace Prize, which requires the most accomplishments?

Shattered Chains (Soap Box Rant I)

2009-10-08T02:01:00.004-04:00

“…nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of the law…” Mr. Emiliano Gonzolez was never charged, let alone convicted, but he still looses his life savings. The State gets to keep the $124,700 they seized from the car he rented. Under congress’ Forfeiture Act a drug dog barking at a rental car, used by possibly hundreds of people, is enough evidence to convict his money of drug trafficking.

Continuously reinterpreting and expanding the meaning of the Constitution has weakened our liberties from freedom of speech, association, religion, the right to assemble, assumption of innocents, among others. It has given the police state new liberties, including no-knock-warrants, warrantless phone taps or searches and, as the above victim can verify, assumption of guilt. This is due to an idea that the Constitution is a “living document”, that it is some how outdated or, as others reason, for society to interpret the intent of it. The Constitution as a “living document” is dangerous and has contributed to the erosion of our liberties.

Changes in the meaning of the 5th Amendment have undermined the stability of property rights. At first the words “public use” meant just that, roads, post offices, and government buildings, a little later railroads and utilities where added. Then in 1954 the Supreme Court in Berman v. Parker, unannounced to Mr. Webster, proclaimed the word “use” to mean “purpose” for fighting blight. The loss of protection the 5th Amendment provided the lower classes was only the beginning. Land grabs by gluttonous, cash starved municipalities increased. With each grab the courts allowed additional leeway in the reasoning for it. Some like GM were given older middleclass neighborhoods to build plants, that would supposedly create jobs. Others like Lakewood, Ohio for condominiums or Susette Kelo and her neighbors whose properties are planned to go to the multi-million dollar company Pfizer. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said in the Kelo v New London principal dissent, “The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing a Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or an farm with a factory”

Speaking of farms, Roscoe Filburn was fined $1606.08, adjusted for inflation, for having the audacity to grow more wheat then the Secretary of Agriculture gave him permission to. In Wickard v. Filburn the Supreme Court said that Mr. Filburn’s wheat still fell within the interstate commerce clause; not because it went over a state line but since he didn’t have to buy wheat, he affected the supply throughout the US. In theory, this means that if the Secretary of Agriculture feels that the country has too many tomatoes he can ban your grandmothers garden.

Wickard v. Filburn allowed Washington’s tentacles to taint even medicine, reaping needless suffering and, unfortunately, death. Several states have passed medical marijuana laws. This gave glaucoma suffers the ability to see, cancer and other terminal illness victims relief from their pain, and the bodies of AIDs victims the ability to keep down their life saving medications. The Supreme Court in Gonzales v. Raich, once again using the “living document” mentality, declared that the state and its people had no right to decide what was best for them; not because the medicine was transported over state lines but merely because it could be. Peter McWilliams an AIDs and cancer victim, died on June 14, 2000. Unable to hold down the drugs without the marijuana treatment a doctor had prescribed to him but a federal judge had forbidden him to use, he drowned on his own vomit. That same so called pillar of justice had prohibited the defense, in his trial, from telling the jury that Mr. McWilliams needed the marijuana to keep down his medications, or even that it was prescribed by a doctor and legal in California.

The Declaration of Independence states we have “…certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness…” These rights were not given to us by politicians, judges or a document. They are natural, obtained by our existence, they are our birthright. The framers of the Constitution believed that it was government's duty to protect these rights for us against anyone that would take them away. They also mistrusted men of power, those who as the protectors, could become drunk with power, abuse their positions and become the very ones that they were to protect our rights from. For some time now politicians and judges have ruled over us by using the "living document", saying its meaning can be changed to fit the needs, wants, demands, and even ideology of large, powerful groups. If this is true our “unalienable Rights” are no longer rights protected by the Constitution, but privileges granted or denied us by the courts and the whims of politicians. Tomorrow grandma's garden could be outlawed or the State might decide to give her home to the Seneca Casino and take her pain killers away. Then again, the police might decide her walker can transport drugs and convict it.

Alexander Hamilton feared a democracy leading to politicians catering to the masses at the expense of the individual; Thomas Jefferson feared a strong central government catering to the rich and big business would do the same. To which Jefferson proclaimed, "In questions of power, then, let no more be said of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution." The “living document” mentality is shattering the chains that kept the State and politicians from acquiring unlimited power and the Supreme Court keeps hitting it with an ideoligical sledge hammer.

Half Baked Ideas Just Need More Time in the Oven

2009-10-08T01:45:00.004-04:00

Looking at the tea parties and ignoring (or taking with a grain of salt) the medias trivializing of, or stereotyping of them, one sees a lot of different ideologies out there. Could this be that the majority of people are dissatisfied with the “lesser of two evils”? With the blatant, sped up centralizing of power and that those not in the so called “left/right” confines of ideologies are starting to realize that neither party is what they truly want.

Being a radical about individual rights, I have a paranoid attitude towards government. It’s kind of funny, that after over a decade in the Marines I’d be leery of the centralized government, but maybe that’s partly why. After all, that’s one of the reasons I got out. We swore to defend, with our lives, the Constitution from “all enemies foreign and domestic.” I started to see the oath as a conflict. Having to defend the Constitution and obeying superiors (Executive and Legislative branches being the highest); but then this is a path of logic for another post; back to the path at hand.

With so many different ideologies opposed, or at least not happy, with the current direction of the country (a.k.a. centralization) what if they/we all banded together for the purpose of “decentralization?” Say a new party not based on economic or moral ideology but based on unpolluted individualism, family, and community, and to a lesser extent state’s rights. If this party were to gain elected seats to oppose the central government and to a lesser extent the state’s power grabs too, would it be able to slow or even reverse the consolidation of power and the strangling of liberty?

Hmmmm….

Unauthorized Babysitters

2009-09-30T00:08:00.002-04:00

Once again the heavy hand of faceless bureaucrats interferes with the daily lives of the working class. In Michigan a neighborhood mom babysits a couple of friends’ kids before school starts so they (the mothers) can go off and work. But the “State” in its all knowing and all seeing wisdom says that to do so the mother needs the “State’s” permission, in way of “daycare license.”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090930/ap_on_re_us/us_baby_sitter_backlash_mich

I’m sure this is to protect the children, as all intrusions by the “state” are reasoned to do. However, in what way can the “State” tell if the mother babysitting is not a danger to the children that the other mothers don’t posses by actually knowing her? These arrangements are between friends and a neighborhood. What’s next, the teenager that babysits a neighborhood kid has to get a state license to do so or they shut her down? But then they’ve done it to kids’ lemonade stands already.

Yes, welcome to America, land of opportunity, so long as you pay the state its extortion fees.

Comfortably Numb Stupor

2009-09-24T03:11:00.001-04:00

After several glasses of wine:

Still wondering what authority society and to a greater extent the “state” has over me by using their self-imposed “responsibility” to me?

Since I reject the assumption that either has a responsibility to me, except the “State’s” obligation to protect property rights, neither has authority over me unless to limit my action against another’s property.

Or……as Kant says, or more accurately said:

“The function of the State is to impose the minimum restrictions and safeguard the maximum liberties of the people, and it never regards the person as a thing.”

Now I’m wondering if a revenue generator is a “thing.”

I told you s_

2009-09-24T02:15:00.004-04:00

After not posting for more than two years I find it very satisfying that numerous people are now just as radical, unpatriotic, racist, angry, swastika wearing, mob mentality, pawns to the pharmaceuticals (and other big industrialist corporations) as I have been labeled for over almost two decades.

What’s even more comforting, than spooning the wife, is the fact that some that thought I was just being paranoid, about the ever encroaching, ever intrusive, ever expanding central government are now going “OMG!” Bet you’ll read the Constitution and Federalist papers now…..and while you’re at it read Huxley, Rand, and Hayek.

So, although I would much rather look the fool at the moment…I’ll repeat what I use to say then, “Come, Come to the dark side of decentralization, individualistic liberties and Lazzie Faire…that is Libertarianism”

Or just be a tool for what ever powers to be the sheep elect.

The Law Against Laws

2007-04-21T01:30:00.001-04:00

Everyday in papers around the world there are rumors of new laws, proposed or enacted. Some dictate when not to talk on a phone, where and what not to smoke, what not to cook with, and for the citizen’s own good, when to wear a helmet or seatbelt. Recently there was an article discussing what some call the criminalization of America. Professor Jonathan Turley of George Washington University, mentions the 12-year-old girl arrested for eating French fries in a Washington, D.C. metro station and the grandmother whose crime was letting her “shrubbery” grow to scandalous heights (21A). The Knights who say Ni better mind their hedges. Professor Turley also points to a State Senator in Louisiana who wants to criminalize wearing pants too low (21A). These laws probably came from some concerned, scandalize citizens saying, “There ought to be a law”.

Over 200 years ago a group of men, who had just rid themselves of over burdensome laws, decided there ought to be a law about “there ought to be a law”. Their solution was the U.S. Constitution and its Amendments, better know as the Bill of Rights. Most people have a misconception of what it is; a majority thinks it gives them their rights. In actuality those rights were already theirs. The Constitution, unlike all other laws does not prohibit, curtail, or manage a citizen’s acts, but rather it prohibits prohibiting, curtails curtailing, and manages managing that the lawmakers would otherwise do. The Constitution is in fact a law that is not a law.

In the Constitution’s First Amendment it says, “Congress shall make no laws” about five things, one of which is restricting the citizens’ right to peaceably assemble. The populace may come together to protest or applaud anything they feel is wrong or right with the country. According to the Constitution the government can not curtail this right, though at times it tries. This is the one instance where groups of citizens emulate the founders the most, by a mass act of civil disobedience, ignoring the authority's attempt to suppress them. As the saying goes, “If citizens ask for the government’s permission to protest, they deserve to be told no.”

In another area, the Constitution forbids authorities from entering or taking property without due process of the law. Specifically the Fourth Amendment which says a citizen can tell the authorities that he or she does not consent to having his or her property searched; along with Fifth Amendment which says the authorities can not hold a citizen without just cause or deprive him or her of his or her life, liberty or property without due process. These two corner stones curtail the abuse of search and seizure. Most laws dealing with property try to give the authorities the power over it, such as the search and seizure laws outlined in the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act. These laws give police the ability to take property, not only, when an actual crime has been committed, but also when there is only a suspicion of one. James Madison in “Property” said, that where “excess of power prevails” an individual’s property whether body, thought, or physical would not be secure (1). This is why the Founders tried to make it virtually impossible for government to enter a citizen’s home or other property and seize anything without proof. These two Constitutional Amendments limit the authority’s ability to take property away.

Then there are the laws forbidding the verbal or written expression of particular ideas. The reasoning in most cases is to protect the populace against hate, prejudices or lesser untruths. The Constitution, again the First Amendment, forbids the limiting of individuals’ expression of ideas, whether truth or not. Ironically, the laws aimed at protecting the truth actually weaken it, and allow untruths to go unchallenged; the very opposite of its intentions. A nineteenth century philosopher and economist, John Stuart Mill, suggested as much; when a perceived idea that is commonly considered true, is shown through reasoning to be false, all of mankind benefits from “exchanging error for truth”. On the other hand, when an individual’s belief is exposed as being false through the open exchange of that same reasoning, he gains truth (14). The restrictive law’s aim is to protect but fails to do that, yet the Constitution disregarding the perceived need, not only protects freedom of speech but strengthens that which the law failed too.

Another way the Constitution can be summed up is by what Professor William Warner, Chair of the University of California’s Santa Barbara English Department wrote, “this ‘right’ is not won through laws…but through a law against laws” (3). Although Professor Warner is speaking specifically about freedom of speech, the same can be said of the whole Bill of Rights. Each amendment is a “law against laws”. This concept is the complete opposite of the purpose of laws Rather than forbidding or dictating conduct it is inviting the free expression of it.

Though the U.S. Constitution is a law or more specifically, the supreme law of the land, it is the facilitator of freedom. Unlike other laws that are the oppressors of individual thought and expression it is their champion. The law says nobody can say that, nobody can do that, and nobody may see, taste, or touch that. Whereas the Constitution says, “Go ahead, it’s a free country.” Then again, Professor Turley might just be wondering when the last time anyone actually heard that phrase was.
...There just ought to be a law...

Works Cited
Madison, James. “Property” National Gazette 29 March 1792
Duke University. 2 Apr. 2007

Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, Inc. 2002
Originally published, London: J.W. Parker 1859

Turley, Jonathan. “Justice? What a Joke.” USA Today 27 Mar. 2007: 21A

Warner, William B. “Print on the Market and the Ideal of Public Culture” 9Aug99. University of
California Santa Barbara English Department. 28 Mar. 2007:

An Observation from Curious George

2007-02-01T17:19:00.000-05:00

Recently I had a class assignment to find a specific edition of a nameless business weekly. Unknown to me, it hadn’t hit the stand yet, needless to say after several stores, Tops, Wegmans, Walmart, Target, and a few others I gave up. At the last store though, frustration building and mumbling to myself, I noticed a pattern; there were only a few business and finance magazines on the shelf, compared to any other topic.

I started looking at the bulk of the magazines by topic. I didn’t do any real count but there were more fashion, and high end luxury magazines then any others, will accept maybe the numerous auto mags, though most of the cars on the covers were luxuries. There were women magazines with articles like, “How to make your man beg” or “Secrets your lover wants you to know”, ironic that these magazines started because of and during the women’s liberation movement. Most had one thing in common; the items were beyond the reach of the average joe, including the ways to “make your man beg”.

What came to me, not in a midsummer nights dream, was that the one topic that creates the possibility of acquiring these luxuries is business and wealth, yet those are the two types of magazines in the shortest supply on the racks. Now the stores only sell what the consumer wants, that in it’s self is telling, but I’m curious to the ratio in “rich” areas. I’d be willing to wager that there are almost as many business/wealth magazines as the other kinds.

I’m not saying there is any thing wrong with this, I just found it interesting, in a “curious” kind of way. Maybe it’s just a consequence of being named George.

You don't get what you paid for all the time

2006-12-25T12:25:00.000-05:00

I've heard and in the past said, "Government should be run like a business." Problem is business offers their product to individuals on a voluntary basis. If you don't want or don't think the product is worth the cost you can refuse to purchase it. With the government they force you to purchase it, through taxes, then if you don't like it to bad, "Don't use it", no refunds though.

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?

Gun Control, I see the Light Now!

2006-12-07T12:41:00.000-05:00

Gun Control: Now that I’ve abandoned my barbaric notions of individualism and have seen the greater good that collective authoritarian statism will usher in, I see no problem with it. Actually, I'm looking forward to all guns being banned. Even though I'll be much safer in my house, my family and I might still fall victim to a knife or sword. And once again we can look to the guiding wisdom of the State for protection.

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?

When We Dont Like the Picture Connecting the Dots Make

2006-12-02T12:31:00.000-05:00

I really think the Buffalo News could use a weekly opinion column like this:

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.

The Founders as "The Time Traveler"

2006-12-02T11:41:00.000-05:00

In the Time Machine when the "Time Traveler" saw the future he must have felt repulsed at what humanity had become. Allowing themselves to become ~~hosts for a group of parasites~~ a food supply. Worse yet they accepted it, not even putting up a fight. Could their acceptance have come from a reasoned thought that one's chances of surviving were greater if one or two "others" were taken then if they refused and fought? The ultimate "The wants of the many out weigh the needs of the few", or in modern American "Common Good".

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".

Milton Friedman; right AGIAN!!!!

2006-12-01T16:06:00.000-05:00

Excerpt from Capitalism and Freedom, By Milton Friedman:

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 ~~slaves~~ ~~serfs~~ ~~subjects~~ citizens? Why is it that throughout history it is the "welfare of the people" that enslaves those very people?

f. Milton Friedman was right.

Who can they blame?

2006-11-30T17:25:00.000-05:00

When Pres. Bush first refused to sign on to the KATO agreement the up roar at work was deafening. "See he's nothing but a tool to the rich" or "Big oil men are in charge, screw the poor!" Not being able to ignore the mindless sound bites, I asked them if they could think of any negative consequences if Bush had signed onto the accord. The standard sound bite was, "No cost is to high to save the plant for our children."

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?

St Friedman on Four Kinds of Money

2006-11-17T14:10:00.000-05:00

Four kinds of money spending

Government Agencies Monitoring Blogs for Customer Satisfaction. What Other Reason Could there Be?

2006-11-07T18:43:00.000-05:00

FEMA must be very serious about customer satisfaction. The proof is in the pudding. To pass time I look at the hits I’ve had, it takes about 10 seconds to view a weeks worth. One struck me as odd at the end of the IP address it had (FEMA)

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)
en-us
Operating System Microsoft Win2000
Browser Internet Explorer 6.0
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; InfoPath.1)
Javascript version 1.3
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?

Winning with 18% of the Population Voting for Them

2006-11-07T15:43:00.000-05:00

Looking at the sample ballot online, after most state wide positions, the third party candidates mirrored the two parties. It dawned on me, this is like going to McDonalds and finding out you have two choices, a cheeseburger with mustard or a cheeseburger without mustard and being deathly allergic to cheese. (No hamburger just cheeseburger)

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?

A Slip or Just a Suppressed Deep Seated Belief

2006-11-02T18:08:00.000-05:00

Eye guess ew kould take watt Jon Carry sed moar than one way. Beeing a Former Marine eye no witch way eye took it. Eye giv thees guyz too thumms op.

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.....

Where has the alacrity gone?

2006-10-28T18:54:00.000-04:00

......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.

The Unintended Consequence of The War on Drugs

2006-10-05T02:56:00.000-04:00

Then again, is it unintentional?

The IV Amendment; Repealed in all but Name

2006-10-05T02:53:00.000-04:00

Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

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?

The Government and its child's Dirty Little Secret

2006-09-30T21:52:00.000-04:00

From Congressmen Ron Paul's "Texas Striaght Talk"

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?

Senator, are You Trying to Back Door Us?

2006-09-28T18:35:00.000-04:00

While reading the October 2006 issue of Reason Magazine, I came across a quote from Sen. Hillary Clinton. Since I have yet to hear any reporter ask questions that I would like asked, so I’ll do it.

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?

Strip Searching School Kids for Their Own Damn Good

2006-09-25T22:08:00.000-04:00

If you think that this will not be abused check out Fast times at Goose Creek High. I can see it now police come into your child's High School, Guns at the ready, with latex gloves.

109th CONGRESS
2d Session
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
AN ACT
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.

Great Moments in Bureaucrat History (today)

2006-09-25T15:05:00.000-04:00

USA Today has a good article on the recent E coli outbreak “Safety advocates, growers debate produce rules” pg 4A. (Sorry couldn’t find article to link it)

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! ”

Fast Times at Goose Creek High

2006-09-24T00:47:00.000-04:00

It's old news worth showing, here's the article.

Happy Birthday Samuel Adams; 1722 - 1803

2006-09-23T21:50:00.000-04:00

On September 27, 1722, the man that uttered these words was born.

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.
—Samuel Adams

What better way to honor him then to read about him, try here and here.

Medicaid violates the 10th Amendment

2006-09-23T21:11:00.000-04:00

There’s a lot of talking about Medicaid being a large budget problem in Western New York. The local government is saying the State isn’t helping out enough and that its killing county budgets.

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.

It’s a Living Document, Do to the People as You Want

2006-09-22T20:07:00.000-04:00

A Time’s article looks at another page turned in the Enron case. This one though could have some disasterous effects on what little remains of the Bill of Rights.

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.

The War on Drugs, the Real Stepping Stone to Hard Drugs

2006-09-20T23:18:00.000-04:00

The Internet is a marvelous thing. Even an uneducated smock like myself can find intelligent people that we can quote, or point too to prove a point, or opinion.

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?

Constitution Day

2006-09-17T18:38:00.000-04:00

Now I see why the Buffalo News doesn't use Walter William's A MINORITY VIEW

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?

Or arrogance?

The New Intellectual bringing about a New Dark Age

2006-09-17T15:35:00.000-04:00

In an interview conducted by the Objectivist Center with Walter Williams, Dr. Williams said;

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.

Mill again:

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.

How Many Lives are Worth a Socialist Idea?

2006-09-14T16:51:00.000-04:00

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. It was probably first used after seeing the results of socialist ideas in action, and in New York there's tons of them. After answering my front door once to many times, only to find a salesmen on the other side, I've come to the opinion that it is way too kind to the incompetence and shortsightedness of those who constructed it (the road).

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.

Free Markets and Charities Work Better then Government Mandates/Rationing

2006-09-10T19:51:00.000-04:00

A letter in the Buffalo news “Buffalo should not deny water services to anyone”, stated water should not be grouped with commodities, but free for basic survival. This water isn’t falling from the sky or over the Falls. Even with a graduated scale, increasing the amount per gallon in excess of government quotas, the facility probably would operate in the red. Increasing the cost per gallon means those using an “excessive amount” will cut back. Then you go through another long drawn out process of government boards for new increases? Other questions that need to be asked, who decides the Formula for “basic needs”? Do infants get the same as a 200-pound man; or office workers to ironworker? Male/female, medical issues. This proposed policy creates layers of bureaucracy in an area that employees more government workers then any industry does with private.

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.

PC Gone Wild, Film at 11:15

2006-06-16T10:27:00.000-04:00

'Slave' label gets village re-enactor ousted

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

PC Gone Wild, Film at 11

2006-06-16T09:09:00.000-04:00

What's more important the message or the messenger? From whats happened to two students at a Northport, NY, H.S., we can deduce the messenger. The story.

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.

A Presidential Speech I'd Like to Hear

2006-06-15T21:56:00.000-04:00

For some time now this Great Republic has been divided. It is time to rectify this, and not the way others have proposed.

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.

Studies that Support the Status Quo v.s. Studies with Sollutions

2006-06-15T11:25:00.000-04:00

Since I've lived in Western York I've noticed that the cities and counties love spending tens and even hundreds of thousands of dollars on studies on how to become efficient (I'd say more efficient but that implies something that's simply not true). But it's not the study they paid thousands for, but the "results" that they wanted. Can you say Status quo?

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.

Supporting Deserters is not Supporting the Troops

2006-06-15T09:39:00.000-04:00

The Buffalo News has a piece on the piece Cindy Sheehan and the honoring/support of army deserters.

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.

Big Foot's Cousin Clubs Penguin!!!

2006-06-11T07:50:00.000-04:00

PETA should be protesting and petitioning the government to ban this soon.

What did the Democrat say to the Republican?

2006-06-09T13:50:00.000-04:00

What's going on at our Southern Boarder...Really?

2006-06-07T21:46:00.000-04:00

The primary role of the Federal Government is to protect us from foreign invasion and harm from others. It has become so involved in our daily lives that it is incapable of even doing a half @%% job of its primary responsibilities. Much like a child who is trying to do several things at once, it winds up running around in circles, with none of the tasks done right. To stay in office, politicians have promised to make everyone happy, and voters ignorantly believe it’s possible. Maybe this was the original reason the founders had only landowners vote.

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

Sirs:

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.

For example:

- 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.

Sincerely,
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

So That's Why it's Called "Service"

2006-06-01T17:32:00.000-04:00

You ever get one of those e-mails you wished you had thought of? I got one today that most Libertarians would enjoy.

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.

Those Worthy, Dark Thoughts, and Those Worthy of Nothing

2006-05-31T01:53:00.000-04:00

Being in a far away time zone can be odd at times. This past Memorial Day I remembered that, in a round about way. When I was overseas, I’d be on night maneuvers lying in mud, wondering what my family was doing at that moment.

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.

Vouchers Bad, Public Preschool Good and Damn the Facts, Part II

2006-05-31T01:07:00.000-04:00

In a prior rant about public preschool I pointed to a Reason Study stating that there is no "LASTING" benefit.

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.

Vouchers a Real Urban Renewal Tool

2006-05-22T17:57:00.000-04:00

My family and I moved up here from Pottsville, PA almost 7 years ago. We decided on the city of Niagara Falls partly because of the price of housing, along with while stationed at the Marine Corps Recruiting Station in Buffalo from February, 1986 till November, 1991 we became fond of the area (Where else can you get great pizza and wings?).

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.

1984 and A Brave New World, Together at Last

2006-05-20T21:44:00.000-04:00

It is amazing how some authors from the early 20th century captured the essence of authoritarian rule with fictitious novels. The one used most in comparing today's society is 1984 by George Orwell. Another less know and so, less referenced is A Brave new World by Aldous Huxley.

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?

F. A. Hayek Said this Would Happen

2006-05-20T17:14:00.000-04:00

I read a comment that turned my 40 watt bulb on at Free New York

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.

Adam Smith

Dear Senator McCain

2006-05-13T01:12:00.000-04:00

Recently I read a George Wills editorial, which quoted you as saying:

``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.

Thank You
Sincerely
George D

Frédéric Bastiat on Socialism

2006-05-13T00:57:00.000-04:00

Socialism Is Legal Plunder

Mr. de Montalembert has been accused of desiring to fight socialism by the use of brute force. He ought to be exonerated from this accusation, for he has plainly said: "The war that we must fight against socialism must be in harmony with law, honor, and justice."

But why does not Mr. de Montalembert see that he has placed himself in a vicious circle? You would use the law to oppose socialism? But it is upon the law that socialism itself relies. Socialists desire to practice legal plunder, not illegal plunder. Socialists, like all other monopolists, desire to make the law their own weapon. And when once the law is on the side of socialism, how can it be used against socialism? For when plunder is abetted by the law, it does not fear your courts, your gendarmes, and your prisons. Rather, it may call upon them for help.

To prevent this, you would exclude socialism from entering into the making of laws? You would prevent socialists from entering the Legislative Palace? You shall not succeed, I predict, so long as legal plunder continues to be the main business of the legislature. It is illogical — in fact, absurd — to assume otherwise.

Scary

Flabbergasted

2006-05-11T21:31:00.000-04:00

The State announced that an Ethanol Plant will be built in Orleans County. The press release from New York State Office of Science, Technology and Academic Research (NYSTAR) has a lot to say in it.

Governor George E. Pataki today announced nearly $6 million in State funding to assist Western New York Energy (WNYE) in the development of the first state-of-the-art dry mill ethanol plant in New York State.

I wanted to know where the other 81.7 Million Dollars was coming from so I looked up WNYE. I might be wrong but it seems that "WNYE" is another quasi government agency, at least that's what I gather here. So the rest of the money is taxpayer money in some shape or form right? It's kind of hard figuring out who's who and what's what. Layers upon layers of government, kind of like an onion, except it makes you cry even more.

The new facility is expected to produce 50 million gallons of ethanol a year and create 58 new jobs and represents another significant step in our goal of developing a strong biofuel industry in the State which will not only provide an economic boost to our farming community, but keep our energy dollars here in New York.

87.4 million divided by 58 is 1.51 million, don't use job creation as a plus with those numbers, ok? The States track record isn't that great when it comes to going into business. So what makes them think they'll do any better this time? "A economic boost to our farming community you mean the big corporate farms that can afford to do business with the State? Get your corn on the cob now because once this plant starts up.....

There are more than 180,000 flexible-fuel vehicles registered in New York State that can run on gasoline or ethanol. The New York State Thruway Authority will install or convert at least one pump at each of its 27 travel plazas to dispense renewable fuel.

There are more then 11,000,000 registered vehicles in the State, flex-fuel vehicles make up less then 2%. The numbers don't seem to warrant the money spent. How much will this fuel cost per gallon? At least the 2% will have an "express lane" at the plazas.

I wonder how far the 87.4 million dollars would have gone in our pockets rather then another quasi-government organization, which will charge us for something we paid to make. This is one of the problems when the government is turned to to solve a problem rather then the market. It's not the best technology or efficiency that wins, but what creates the best press.

According to an New York Time Article Brazil expects to be energy self-sufficient this year. But it took over 30 years.

Ethanol can be made through the fermentation of many natural substances, but sugar cane offers advantages over others, like corn. For each unit of energy expended to turn cane into ethanol, 8.3 times as much energy is created, compared with a maximum of 1.3 times for corn, according to scientists at the Center for Sugarcane Technology here and other Brazilian research institutes.

What sticks out here is the 1.3 and 8.3 pay back ratios. Seems sugar cane beats corn hands down granted we don't have many sugar cane fields in this area. But a big problem lies in our Federal governments "energy policy"

But Brazilian officials and business executives say the ethanol industry would develop even faster if the United States did not levy a tax of 54 cents a gallon on all imports of Brazilian cane-based ethanol.

The tariff isn't the only extra charge tacked on to the consumer's price. A Reuters Article stated.

The United States collects a 2.5 percent ad valorem tariff on imports of ethanol and an additional duty of 54 cents a gallon.

In other words we're going to spend 87 million on a plant to make ethanol, because the tariffs and other taxes we impose on imports makes it to expensive.

New York law also stand in the way, for example, I can't buy a diesel car, I could run it using vegetableble oil or even Hung Nahg Chinesee restaurant's used grease. After that deep fried turkey on Thanksgiving, empty the pot into the "Rabbit".

With so many other options out there it is pretty easy to question the wisdom in vesting so much money. Especially since the money being invested (gambled) isn't from those making the decisions.

Canola and soya to the rescue

Biodiesel and
Vegetable Oil Fuel

Tiny Reactor Boosts Biodiesel Production

Vouchers Bad, Public Preschool Good and Damn the Facts

2006-05-11T18:14:00.000-04:00

At the Reason Foundation a study seems to show that Preschool Programs do not show a lasting benefit.

The Reason study says one factor behind preschools' failure to boost educational outcomes is "fade out." A 2006 UC Santa Barbara study found preschoolers were more prepared for kindergarten than non-preschoolers, but that those advantages faded away by the third grade and thus preschool had "limited use as a long-term strategy for improving the achievement gap."

"Our education system is failing on so many levels that people have started to grasp for magic bullets," said Darcy Olsen, co-author of the Reason study and president of the Goldwater Institute. "Whether it's Oklahoma, Georgia, or Quebec, universal preschool has proven time and time again that it's no magic bullet. Instead of pouring billions of dollars into preschool, we should focus on fixing our K-12 system."

But several ways to help fix the education system are continually shot down. One of which are vouchers. Just recently the Unions and Public School Administrators successfully strong-armed the State to drop the $500 tax credit from the budget. Their reasoning, "it would cost to much". Yet they're all for what seems to be a bad idea "public preschool". Is it about the kids or about power?

The School Administrators and the Leadership of Teachers Unions will never allow the education system to slip through their fingers. Once it does they loss their power and guaranteed job security. Unfortunately it is the children of New York that will pay the price. The $500 tax credit would not pay for all of private schools tuition but it would be enough to make it attainable for the working poor.

Reason Foundation is a nonprofit think tank dedicated to advancing free minds and free markets. Please visit www.reason.org

9th District Court Draws a Line in the Sand

2006-05-05T22:41:00.000-04:00

It seems we're getting bombarded on all sides by the government encroachment into personal lives. What makes it worse is with each encroachment the once concrete line that we could define as off limits becomes hazy and easier to encroach on. It becomes commonplace and "acceptable" to most. Like the smoking bans, in and of themselves, most wouldn't have supported it, but once the "state" became responsible for paying health costs, it became a necessity, to keep down health cost. So rather then looking at the real problem (government involvement in health) we attacked a side effect of the disease.

Would anyone several years ago thought that a school would discipline a student for something done while NOT in school? But now it's common practice. Seems the nanny state has taken a giant leap forward, to the point that in now feels it has the authority and responsibility rather then the parent. Drug testing would be one, that they said would only be for athletes, and isn't really mandatory, because sports isn't mandatory. "Once they get their foot in the door"

The incident involved the First Admendment Rights of a student and the High School Principle. To no real suprise the Juneau School Board is appealing the 9th District Court's decision which basically said the school had no authority to suspend a student for actions off school grounds, The student Joseph Frederick, was observed off school grounds with a sign "Bong hits 4 Jesus" during the visit of the 2002 Winter Olympic Torch to Juneau.

It's telling by the comments by school officials what their mentality is:

"The 9th Circuit's decision has left the Board and school administrators with no guidance as to where and when we can enforce our policy against messages promoting illegal drug use," said Phyllis Carlson, president of the School Board.

How about on school grounds or school sponsored events? That would be where you and the school have authority?

"Federal law requires us to maintain a consistent message that use of drugs like marijuana is harmful and illegal."

This seems to cause all kinds of confusion in the craniums of government officials and those who worship them. The Federal law requires YOU to have a consistent message. NOT the students, their parents, or anyone else outside school. The federal law doesn't require ME to agree with or even to remain silent, nor our children.

"Yet, when we try to enforce our policies, our administrators are sued and exposed to damage awards."

This guy is on the Board? Amazing, how the school even functions, but then maybe that's why it takes over $10,000 per year to "educate" one child. Instead of having courses on how to persuade students to blindly follow "government policies" you have a course on what your authority is and where and what it extends to.

Extreme Measure of Enforcement

2006-05-03T22:27:00.000-04:00

What's bad about the Nanny State and it's over regulation? Most of the time, the regulation will be enforced to the extreme. Take flipping a coin. Yes, flipping a coin in school is now a crime you can be arrested for. At least in Greenville Middle Academy. Just what I'd want my daughters school to be known for.

What I'd like to know is how do they decide who receives the kick off at football games? I can see the headlines now, Ms. Wilson's first grade class was arrested today in what authorities say was a sting to crack down on Paper, Rock, and Scissors. Capt Jack Butt, said this would send a signal out that we're serious about children gambling. These games might seem harmless, but it's only a stepping-stone to more potent gambling.

Now granted the students were warned and told to stop before. But to call the police? Is the authority of the school that undermined that detention and suspension are ineffective? If a school can't even control "coin flipping" within house, what value is the school?

I'm not saying it is solely the schools fault/problem. I've know several caring public school teachers, some have quit because parents of several "problem" children refuse to accept that their child could do anything wrong. This gives the child a free pass, undermines the teachers authority, and worse (in my eyes) that parent has just called the teacher a liar.

Maybe these kids have parents like that, I don't know, but it would be the only way to explain such a heavy-handed response.

Thanks to bureaucrash and Libertarian Youth for showing us just another example of the efficacy our tax dollars buy.

Masochism in the voting booth

2006-05-01T21:24:00.000-04:00

While jumping around I found a post at "Libertarian Youth".

"I really have no sympathy for you liberals who voted Democrat and then complain about what the Bush Administration does.
You want out of Iraq, and you voted Democrat. Kerry wanted more troops in Iraq. The only party that would have immediately withdrawn was the Libertarian Party.You want the Patriot Act to go away, and you voted Democrat. Almost all Democrats voted for the Patriot Act in both its first and second incarnations. The only party that would have immediately eliminated the Patriot Act is the Libertarian Party."

And for the other side....

"And you conservatives who voted Republican, you're no better.
You want an end to ridiculous gun laws. And you voted Republican. The only party that would let you protect yourself without restrictions (no we don't advocate nukes for us all) is the Libertarian Party. You want to limit the size of government. And you voted Republican. The government has grown 33% under Bush. It grew under Reagan. The only party that has always reduced government when elected is the Libertarian Party."

The last place I worked I'd talk about the Republicans and Democrats (Always with deep respect). The odd thing was most of the time they couldn't stick up for their own party or it's policies, but pointed the finger at the other. The most common phrase was "Hey, we’re not as bad as the ____________". When I'd bring up the Libertarian Party and it's principles, I'd get the "Ya, but I don't want to waste my vote".

Okay, lets run with the logic. Since Kerry lost the election, every vote for him was wasted. In New York Kerry won the elector, so all New York voters that pulled the lever for Bush wasted their vote. So every New Yorker wasted their vote in the presidential election

This "I don't want to waste my vote" logic is one of the reasons we have so many problems at all levels of government. Add to that the people that vote to have the government loot for them or to impose their ideology on others. It's a wonder we're not worse off then we are. Each time one of the two parties gains complete or near to complete control there's scandal. So the "voters speak". But to trade back and forth between the two major parties? It's like having two girlfriends/boyfriends that cheat, so you go back and forth hoping one will be faithful. Not only could you catch something, it's bad for the city, county, state, and country also.

At least now there's serious talk about replacing incumbents from both parties at the same time New York Coalition is carrying that torch. Now if we can only get the public "voting public" to seriously look at third parties. In a nut shell what Libertarian Youth said was, the Libertarian Party seems to have what most Americans are really looking for.

But then maybe voters are just to kinky to kick the habit. Come on baby, make it hurt so good......

Frederic Bastiat

2006-04-30T23:01:00.000-04:00

Frederic Bastiat was French. What happened? But then, looking at ourselves we can see it happening.

"Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain - and since labor is pain in itself - it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. History shows this quite clearly. And under these conditions, neither religion nor morality can stop it."

Actually religion and morality are used to justify the plunder.

"The state is the great fiction by which everybody tries to live at the expense of everybody else."

Say it aint so joe, say it aint so.

I've heard the name Robin Hood used several times when talking about the "plunder". I guess they where trying to justify the "safety net" by comparing Robin Hood with the government's social programs. But didn't Robin Hood take the money from the Sheriff and Prince John (government)? Didn't the Sheriff and Prince John take (tax) that money from the workers (Midddle class)?

Open Boarders or Open Doors

2006-04-27T18:41:00.000-04:00

It never ceases to amaze me how young adults and the middle-aged dismiss the knowledge available through those who are "older". I wonder how much has been lost by throwing it away to an "old peoples home". The countless stories, wisdom, and history that some have, but no sponge in sight.

This past Easter, while visiting my parents in Delaware, my opinion on a subject shifted because of my father. We were looking at our birth certificates, family pictures and, what was, I think his most treasured document. It was the first and only one I'd ever seen. Thousands of people have died at sea, and countless more trying to flee their countries trying to get even the chance at one.

My father's Certificate of Naturalization is pretty impressive once you realize what was done back in the early 50s to get one. He had learned a trade while still in Germany, and had requested to come to America. The leg work/paperwork he had to do just for that would cause most natural born citizens to give up. Once he was approved and found a sponsor he came over. He joined the Army and served for 3 years and still he wasn't granted citizenship. He knew the five rights in the First Amendment, luckily they didn't ask him the characters on the Simpsons. He also was required to know this countries history (more I'll wager then most members of Congress do). On top of this, English was required to pass the citizenship test, not just haphazardly, but better then High School graduates of today. There were no bilingual schools, signs or instructions. It was English sink or swim.

I can still remember being younger and hearing his contempt for bilingual instructions, signs, and that ever irritating "press 2 for Spanish". At first I was a little taken aback, but after pondering it, if anyone has a right to complain about the PC bilingual craze, it would be a immigrant that was Required to learn English, sink or swim. Hell, I'd wager most would say he and others like him earned it. Funny, a man can swear to defend a country, yet he isn't given citizenship. It must really grate naturalized citizens to here amnesty for illegals. I wonder how many men and women died defending this country for the chance to become citizens. Yet Illegals DEMAND it?

Now before this I believed in, open boarders and amnesty, or at most token fines. But after hearing what my father had to go through not to mention millions of others. I believe I was wrong, my mind wasn't changed for some silly sound bite like "they're taking jobs away from Americans" but by history.

I think the term open boarders is wrong. A house has walls, windows and doors, I believe in an open door policy, don't come through the window. Yes there's a line at the door, but if you want it bad enough EARN it. Those in the future that try to come through the window a banned from ever coming through the door.

Those who have come through the window already, they're illegal, come forward and pay the fine, say, double what would have been paid through taxes at minimum wage for 5 years (monthly installments are fine). No, this does not make any eligible for Social Security benefits, it's a fine. After the fine is paid the illegal immigrant is able to apply legally (end of the line buddy). Those who feel they're already over here, so "why bother", if they're caught it's to jail, until the fine is paid. Then deported and banned from ever entering the country again.

Now some may say how can one in jail pay their fine off. Well I found this little tidbit in the Constitution, Amendment XII, Sec 1 "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted
shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their
jurisdiction"
.
Speaking of the Constitution. There's one reason that some come here and that's to give birth so that their children are citizens. This was brought up at Free NY awhile ago, and being a constructionist I'd have to say they are citizens, yet the parents are here illegally. An Amendment to the Constitution should be proposed stating that only children born to parents legally in the country or it's territories are to be citizens. Those who are born to parents illegally in the country after ratification, no make that the submission of the Amendment shall not be citizens.

Congressman Ron Paul's article says it better.

Show Boating the 30+ Year Show

2006-04-26T20:53:00.000-04:00

It's really ironic, today I was looking at boats in the area. I've wanted to get one for some time now about a 26 to 30 foot sailboat. After all it wouldn't cost that much to run with wind power.

I stopped window-shopping, picked up the Buffalo News and there it is, Senate Panel Demands Oil Co. Tax Records. Now, I know what everyone’s saying, "George, how is shopping for a boat and the Senate looking into oil profits ironic?"

Well, it's the show boating, how many times has the Senate looked at this and every time they come out sheepishly with their tails between their legs and whisper that they found nothing. Did the newspapers come up with the trick of yelling accusations and whispering retractions or did they learn it from congress? The chicken or the egg.

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, the committee's chairman, said the panel was concerned about high profits and executive compensation at oil companies.

Who is worth what they get paid for here, the Senators or CEO's of oil companies? How much money did the Senate make for its shareholders last year?

What the Senator should be concerned about is, the HIGH taxes imposed on us and the wasteful spending of it by himself and his "distinguished" partners (in crime).

I have a choice weather to purchase gas or at least cut my consumption significantly. I can ride my bike to work, car pool, get a small gas efficient car of better yet a GEM. I could always move CLOSE to work or find employment closer to where I live. But then why should I be inconvenienced. After all, that's what this country was built on right? Comfort?

Oh, the noise from the leftist socialist, whining about the evil corporations taking advantage of them.

"The oil companies are gouging us." (Um that's what you said the last twenty times).

"Why do they need to make such high profits?" (That's what they're in business for)

" We have to buy their oil, they can charge what they want."(no you don't, and no if they priced it to high people would find alternatives)

"We have no choice" (Unlike taxes, you do, find alternatives)

Not one of these points will be heard in the halls of the capital. Why? Because it wouldn’t get any votes. Americans have become dependant on the government to make them comfortable. We hate being inconvenienced. We’ve replaced the “pursuit of happiness” with the right to happiness and "Liberty" with the freedom "from". The principles this country was founded on have been bastardized.

This boat show is getting old, same old models for the last 30 plus years.

While trying to find out just how many times this boat show has come to town I found a good post and several comments at eidelblog, about, ironically the last time the Senate did this last year.

Taxes vs. Patriotism

2006-04-20T19:23:00.000-04:00

With tax day just passing and seeing the flocks of sheep filing (pun intended) through the post office, myself included (only due to the threat of jail not from any sence of duty). And a reminder at Free NY in the form of a post about Marc Stevens.

Well, how about: “What if tax day came and no one filed?” I like what Hopper said in A Bug’s Life:

“You let one ant stand up to us, then they all might stand up! Those puny little ants outnumber us a hundred to one and if they ever figure that out there goes our way of life! It’s not about food, it’s about keeping those ants in line. That’s why we’re going back!” (emphasis mine)

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life,Liberty, and the Pursuite of happiness- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their powers from Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it,......."

Now if we could get the ants to read the Declaration of Independence. But then I'm sure my "patriotism" is questioned by some, just by quoting the Declaration like I did.

Ironic isn't it?

Anaheim's Laissez-Faire Solution

2006-04-17T19:35:00.000-04:00

Yesterday at Free NY in a post about Pittsburg and the blighted areas, they referenced an article in PittsburgLive.com

Yes, Anaheim -- the home of Disneyland -- is a big city like Pittsburgh. Its population of 328,000, though richer and more diverse, is nearly identical. It's a major-league sports town -- with two arenas. And its original downtown was pretty much destroyed in the '70s by urban renewal and eminent-domain abuse.

Urban renewal? What corporation was that? Oh, that was a government program, a bunch of "we know what’s best" politicians and Bureaucrats. Eminent domain abuse? What corporation or business was responsible for upholding property rights? Oh that was the government’s job? Gee, sooooooo, they screwed the city up by doing something they had no business doing and not doing what they should have done. If that was a company they'd either fire the CEO or give him millions in stock options.

Mayor Pringle, a mid-40s Republican elected in 2002, is a certified madman when it comes to getting local government out of the way of progress.

Government out of the way? What's he think this is a Ayn Rand Novel? Who will protect the consumer from the evil entrepreneur? Who will ensure they sell the right things and open the right businesses? It is nice though to have an opinion in a previous rant somewhat verified as a good idea. Toot Toot!!

By decentralizing bureaucracies, relaxing regulations and zoning codes, waiving home improvement fees, declaring business tax holidays and emphasizing market solutions to things like a citywide Wi-Fi system, Pringle has created what he calls a "freedom-friendly" approach to fostering economic growth and redevelopment.

Dare we say it? Free Market or better yet laissez-faire .

Anaheim's massive urban redevelopment project is the 807-acre Platinum Triangle. Pringle's free-market enticements -- offering market incentives, cutting taxes, nurturing competition and protecting property rights -- have attracted billions in diverse investments, reports Orange County Register editorial writer Steven Greenhut.

Hold on here! You mean to tell me that billions have been invested (private investment) into an area AFTER; decentralizing bureaucracies, relaxing regulations and zoning codes, declaring business tax holidays, emphasizing market solutions?

Now picture a Buffalo Water Front "privately owned", with the same policies, or Downtown Niagara Falls. Think about all the blighted residential areas with; "waiving home improvement fees".

Somehow I doupt that any of our "leaders" will visit Anaheim or even look at, let alone consider that as a solution. After all the area tends to rely on socilalist ideas rather then real solutions.

Extremist Laws, for your own "Safety"

2006-04-14T19:08:00.000-04:00

In the 14 Apr06 Anchorage Daily News “Court sinks drug paraphernalia law”

One problem the court found with the paraphernalia laws was that they could apply to pharmacists as well as potheads.

Police spokesman Lt. Paul Honeman said the current law is clear and that police don't arbitrarily arrest people for owning household or medical items. "We use what we would consider the commonsense approach,"

Umm, really, okay. But what about these, these or, these?

This article and the law passed by the self-righteous and overzealous politicians caused a back flash from my days in the Marines.

While stationed at Quantico, as a young Lance Corporal one unit I was with was the Artillery Demonstration Unit (ADU) or whispered in certain circles "Alcohol and Drug Unit" (That first urinalysis nailed about 50% of the battery, so I was told). Due to this not so honorable title the officers where not to happy, and began to take corrective action. First those "busted" on the "Pee Pee" test where given an all inclusive vacation to the Drug & Alcohol Rehab Platoon, kind of like Boot Camp all over again. This came as a big surprise to those that would use the phrase "What are they going to do, shave our heads and send us back to boot camp?"

Back at ADU, every Friday we'd have room/uniform inspections. One Lance Corporal (LCpl) was a big fan of Alice in Wonderland (ya right). He had a poster of the caterpillar on the mushroom, smoking out of his water pipe. One Captain ordered it be taken down as "drug paraphernalia". Needless to say the LCpl argued that it wasn't about weed (ya right). No surprise he lost the poster.

Now the military is not the same as civilian life. I'm not suggesting the Captain over reacted; on the contrary it's the same thing I would have done several years later as a Platoon Sergeant. But when I raised my hand several times and swore to protect and defend the Constitution with my life, I knew I was giving up the very rights in the Constitution. Maybe this is why when the President, Congress and the Supreme Court trample on it, I see red. I didn't swear to protect it with my life to see the meaning changed by public opinion, the whims of some pompous, spoon fed aristocrat, or even because some lawyer in a black robe decided it was a "Living Document". I did it because that was what my father before me did, the love for Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and the knowledge that that Document guaranteed and protected our rights from an over bearing government.

Now, if the court hadn't ruled the way they did, could your daughters Alice in Wonderland poster have been next? Or why not the book itself? And ask yourself this. Would you feel confident she'd be allowed to take the poster to school for show and tell?.................................Even now?

Perception vs Reality

2006-04-09T20:52:00.000-04:00

Today's Buffalo News had a small article Ithaca high school bans Confederate flag insignia

"We have found that the display of the flag in such forms has caused and continues to cause feelings of ill will," Principal Joseph Wilson wrote. "Such feelings in turn have led to disruptions to our operations and educational process."

Okay so what your saying is there’s a lack of discipline in your school, and the only way you can control it is by banning the Confederate flag. Now do you have the same policy for ANY other item some student might find offensive? After all when I went to school we found Disco to be offensive.

She said the insignia, which appeared most often on belt buckles or T-shirts, has led to arguments and fights.

This might be going out on a limb but this seems like the perfect opportunity to TEACH history and instruct them in civil discussion. But then in a country where the "Right not to be offended" trumps Freedom of Speech.

The insignia from the Civil War-era flag is regarded by some as symbol of slavery and segregation, while others view it is a symbol of Southern heritage or rural pride.

That’s what you get with watered down history. Never mind that it was "Old Glory" that flew on the slave ships, owned by Northern Companies.

Maybe the faculty should draw up a lesson plan and teach a "history lesson" about the Bars and Stars. In it they could ask some of the following questions to their students;

1. Why did the Emancipation Proclamation exclude most of West Virginia and certain counties in Louisiana? Could it because they didn't secede?

2. How could General Grant, the Head of Union Forces keep his slaves until after the war was over?

3. Why did slaves and free black men fight for the south?

4. What is the 10th Amendment in the Constitution, and how could it apply to the above questions?

Walter Williams, an Economics Professor at George Mason University has written several articles about this and related issues.

The flap over the Confederate flag is not quite as simple as the nation's race experts make it. They want us to believe the flag is a symbol of racism. Yes, racists have used the Confederate flag, but racists have also used the Bible and the U.S. flag. Should we get rid of the Bible and lower the U.S. flag? Black civil rights activists and their white liberal supporters who're attacking the Confederate flag have committed a deep, despicable dishonor to our patriotic black ancestors who marched, fought and died to protect their homeland from what they saw as Northern aggression. More

And since I can't get enough of this guy (who with one CSPAN spot, turned me from complacent Republican to a stark raving Libertarian) here's some more of his writings.

The Real Lincoln
Secession or Nullification
Why The Civil War

Victims of the Winless War

2006-04-08T23:32:00.000-04:00

It's amazing how far our government will go to make it look like they're winning a war. No, not that one, this war has been going on much longer.

Now we have police departments along with those at the federal level who, are sworn to protect "Us from Ourselves", doing what looks like framing people. Story

“They only sent me to Indian stores…they wanted me to say things like ‘I need it to go cook’ or ‘Hurry up, I’ve got to get home and finish a cook’,” said an undercover informant in a sworn statement attached to the ACLU’s legal papers. “The officers told me that the Indians’ English wasn’t good, and they wouldn’t say a lot so it was important for me to make these kinds of statements.” The informant, listed as John Doe #2, must remain anonymous for fear of retaliation by law enforcement.

So, the officers knew their target (victim) probably had no clue what the informant was talking about. After all if a guy were buying aluminum foil, cooking fuel and matchbooks, I'd think he was having a barbeque. I could see the head lines now "SWAT Team Descends on Memorial Day Picnic at Disabled Vets Area. Dozens dead!!!" If you think that's a stretch the Free New York Blog posted some examples.

The ACLU broke it down as follows:

South-Asian-owned stores were nearly 100 times more likely to be targeted by Operation Meth Merchant than white-owned stores in the area.

By the time Operation Meth Merchant was completed, almost 20 percent of the South-Asian-owned stores in the area were indicted, compared to only 0.2 percent of stores owned by whites or other ethnic groups.

Operation Meth Merchant resulted in the arrest of 49 people, 44 of whom are South Asian, and 33 of whom have the last name Patel.

Operation Meth Merchant targeted 24 stores for investigation, 23 of which are owned by South Asians. This, despite the fact that approximately 80 percent of area stores are owned by whites or other ethnic groups, according to the ACLU’s investigation.

The officials directing Operation Meth Merchant had evidence that at least 16 white-owned stores in the area sold products used to manufacture methamphetamine, and yet failed to investigate any of them. These stores include Avaco, Bell's Smokeshop, Bi-Lo, Breezy Top, Citgo Quikmart, Dollar General, Family Dollar, Food Lion, Fred's, Home Depot, Jerrell's Food Mart, Lowe's, Sam's Club, and Wal-mart.

The officials directing Operation Meth Merchant have failed to disclose the existence of any evidence against the vast majority of the 23 South-Asian-owned stores prior to targeting them for investigation.

(more)

The hardest part about this is I don't care for the ACLU that much, kind selective in their defending the Constitution (Gee they could be Supreme Court Justices) but with the way things are going......

Are the officials involved with this just racist (doubt it), are they that focused they didn't see the big picture (doubt it), could it be Laziness (hmmmmm) or could it be that the War on Drugs has destroyed the Constitution to the point that if it's about drugs, law abiding citizens rights play second fiddle? Which brings up the question, where was the ACLU when private property was being confiscated during drug busts and not returned after charges being dropped?

The Real American Dream

2006-04-03T18:36:00.000-04:00

Yolanda and Rogelio Garcia Sr. illegally crossed the boarder about 25 years ago. They have never been on welfare or "used" the "system" and are now citizens. They made their living by collecting cans and have sent their three kids (American citizens) to college. (full story)

Would this mean that with hard work and determination you can succeed?

Or faced with a choice;

His mom gave him a street class that forced him to picture a future without an education.

"They told me, 'you have the option — what we are doing, or something else that you love to do,'" said Rogelio.

Illegal immigration is a problem, and we do need to watch our boarders. But the Garcia's are (with the BIG exception of being illegal) the type of immigrants that made this country. There are some that come here to "milk the system", but a great portion of those born here do the same. It's part of human nature to get as much as you can for the least, but self worth curtails that in most of us. You can't change human nature but we can change the "system".

Change it so those who want the Real American Dream, can pursue it.

A Long Winless War

2006-03-31T22:58:00.000-05:00

Over at Free New York “Five years of Prohibition have had, at least, this one benign effect: they have completely disposed of all the favorite arguments of the Prohibitionists. None of the great boons and usufructs that were to follow the passage of the Eighteenth Amendment has come to pass. There is not less drunkenness in the Republic, but more. (read more) .

One quick observation. When's the last time you heard someone call us a Republic? (out side of Libertarian circles)

Besides the points brought up in Endless War, several others can be made in ending this senseless war. One of which is the damage done to Central and South America, right now the governments of several countries are barely holding on due to the power of the cartels. These cartels are a direct result of our war on drugs, just as the Eighteenth Amendment (Prohibition) gave birth to the mob, gangsters and the Kennedy’s.

Another reason, brought up mostly by economist, is by illegalizing drugs you have created a black market. This in turn attracks less then honest businessmen, being you needn't have a desire to obey the law. Some say that this is one reason drug related crimes are high, there is no legal process you can go through if you feel a "deal" has gone bad. In other words dealers and customers have no recourse but take the law into their own hands.

Also, this war artificially inflates the price of the drug, being it is more risky to produce and deliver. Related to this, is the supply continuously being reduced by seizure. With these high prices the users must find ways of getting the money, alas, carjackings, home invasions, ECT. With this in mind when’s the last time you saw a Wine-O rob a store? Never or rarely, could it be because the price of his "DRUG" is low due to it being legal? Therefore all he has to do is pick up a bunch of cans for his daily fix.

Now I'm not saying all drugs should be legalized all at once. I have several friends who have been in the "drug culture", okay more the several. But some you could even say have been "On the Bus" more then off. And with some of the stories I've been told and witnessed I'd be hesitant to legalize all drugs at once. But then looking at Amsterdam and other countries with liberal drug policies, it makes one wonder if legalizing most would be best. Or, in true "States Rights" form allow each State to decide.

Paying the Price for Fiscal Restraint

2006-03-31T19:34:00.000-05:00

Today's Gazette had a front page article "Court Dates Loom in Library Fight" (Sorry no link to the article) about the library board of trustees taking the city to State Supreme Court over funding $93,891.

"We did not order books as we normally would have ordered books because we did not want to extend ourselves in this time of uncertainty." So said Trustee Hamilton. Wow fiscal restraint by a government entity, impressive!

and the ball goes over the net

"The basic thing was that the court said to continue paying their bills, and we paid all of their bills that occurred during the year" Assistant city corporate counsel O'Donnell said.

So you put the two together and you get something like this:

We paid the bills they made, it's not our fault they didn't spend like the rest of the city. They should know better then to be fiscally responsible with taxpayer money. After all who the hell do they think they are, it's not like it's their money.

Now several rants pop into this small angry brain of mine after reading the whole article. My last post "Or when you hit a pothole or hear how the library must cut back hours, remember what great prices are at the bocce courts."

A new government intity with the power to tax (or create a new one) Several former and current trustees have stated that the only way to stabalize the library's finances would be to create a special district library that would operate apart from the city and would be funded through a separate tax. Oh yes that's what we need! Though the trustees seem to be the responsible spenders in the city. Why not let them run the whole city.

Hamilton said the library's budget falls victim to other city services like police and fire when money is tight and "public safety funding is a fear that best plays with the people." Now why did he go and say that, what about all the wasteful spending in the city, the funded pipe dreams that fail and on and on, geez, why do they always blame the two most important things for the problems. Is the waste like the half brother chained in the basement nobody wants to talk about. So everyone talks about the A student?

Priorities........Needs vs. Wants

2006-03-31T01:43:00.000-05:00

The Niagara Falls Council repealed the user fees on the city pools and reduced them on the Golf Course and Bocce Courts. Story in Gazette

Councilmen Fruscione said “Kids that need the pool, they don’t have that kind of money”. What a buck? How many kids in this city can’t buy a pop at the store in the summer?

One of the problems with this area is people don’t understand the difference between the words need and want. I need food, I want prime rib. As a taxpayer I don’t need the pool, but I do need my hard earned money. A pool with high property taxes is not going to attracted people to move here.

What percentage of residents, use the bocce courts? If $25 is “too steep” for gravel bocce courts close them and use the gravel to fill some potholes on Pine Ave. Better yet, those seniors who have a hard time walking to get their mail, force them to off set the cost, through property taxes.

Nothing says you’ve arrived like going to the club for some golf. But the course is just way to expensive for the poor huddled masses. After all at least a majority of, what, 5 percent use it? At times forgoing food and medical attention, just so they can afford the most necessary part of life “golf”. So I’m sure every taxpayer in the city will agree that the golf course needs to be subsidized. Let us take $243,943 out of the budget, yes almost a quarter million dollars. Why? Because the golfers “deserve a deal”. Who needs well-paved roads? It’s not like tourist use them. Who needs a police force or fire department?

So the next time you hear that we’re cutting back on police overtime, cool off at the pool for free. Or when you hit a pothole or hear how the library must cut back hours, remember what great prices are at the bocce courts. When you get your city tax bill, right after coming home from getting your front end aligned, just do what Tiger would do.

Unspeakable Truth

2006-03-30T21:43:00.000-05:00

At America's North Coast, Craig Howard brings the point up that small tax cuts are fine for those that make small money. BUT, it's the big money makers that bring home the bacon and we need to keep at home(NY).

Though it's an invitation to have your head chopped off in NY to even suggest giving the rich back what they've earned, I'm glad he said it. It's refreshing to hear someone that believes they (the rich), are the shakers and movers and without them we'd be rubbing sticks together to heat our home. But not until an environmental impact study was conducted. Oh and make sure it's not a stick from a historically significant tree either.

So ya wanna be like Europe?

2006-03-29T22:55:00.000-05:00

The Free NY Blog posted Slippery Slop.

So why do you hear people screaming "we're the only industrial nation not to (fill in the blank) . Their Post just reinforces my thankfulness that we are the only Industrial nation not to (fill in the blank).

Someones Treacherous Journey

2006-03-26T23:27:00.000-05:00

Bill Fundis oF Niagara Falls wrote the following letter to the gazette that they printed on the 19th of March

The treacherous journey to ...

PennsylvaniaI left New York state for a while March 13, and I’m just glad I made it back alive. I was in a ruthless society, where people could smoke inside buildings, talk on their cell phones while driving, buy fireworks, stun guns and pepper spray, ride their motorcycles without helmets and even get away without having to pay sales tax on the clothes that they buy. There were probably other wanton acts being performed there that I didn’t see or realize, like letting a parking meter run out for 15 or 20 seconds, but I was just looking out for people doing the aforementioned things and steering clear of them.Of course, I’m talking about our neighbor to the south, Pennsylvania.

As I approached the Pennsylvania border, I didn’t know what to expect. I never felt so vulnerable and unsafe. New York state does such a good job of protecting me from myself that when I left that environment, I didn’t know how to act. I don’t smoke, use fireworks, pepper spray, stun guns or ride helmetless, but I wanted to, just for that day, to see if I would survive.

Going home, as I approached the border of New York state, I began to get nervous. I started to feel choked. Was I on the cell phone? Thank God I wasn’t! I made it to the border alive.

As I left those toll-free, well-maintained Pennsylvania highways, I started wondering if there was anything that I bought there that I could possibly claim on my New York state income tax form to help my state squeeze more tax dollars out of me. Unfortunately, there wasn’t. As I gladly paid my tolls at the Ogden and Grand Island toll barriers, leaving those toll-free road behind me, I knew I was back to safety. As my trailer bounced happily all over the “well-maintained” roads that I pay tolls and taxes for, I breathed a sigh of relief. I don’t have to think for myself anymore. New York state will do that for me.

Clap, Clap, Clap........

But what do I know?

2006-03-21T21:47:00.000-05:00

All the talk about the Moses Robert Parkway reminded me about a PBS show that actually talked about the guy and what he did. It showed how he was one of, if not thee mastermind of the bypass/thruway system around cities. It went into how this contributed to "urban sprawl and the decline of the cities, how the middle class moved out creating a severe drop in the money flowing within these half abandoned neighborhoods causing shops to closing. Which in turn hurt the working poor that had moved into these neighborhoods.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Moses

Though the Robert Moses isn't the major cause of Niagara Falls' woes it certainly is a contributor. Many businessmen in the city are quick to point out that it diverts traffic from the cities business district. Now why anyone would want to avoid our fine roads is beyond me, my broken transmission mount had nothing to do with that little pothole on Pine Ave. Ripping the whole thing up from the Grand Island Bridge into the city and from the city out to Niagara University would divert the traffic onto Hyde Park Blvd, Main, Buffalo, and Pine. I'd just feel guilty with the damage these roads will do to cars.

Erie County has raised their sales tax. Niagara Falls could look into lowering the sales tax within certain areas along with lowering the property taxes on shops and business'. These two acts could stimulate growth. Some problems are still there such as several individuals owning a large portion of the downtown area but only sitting on the properties (speculating). To raise "revenue" that has been lost to the previous cuts and to encourage the improvement of deteriorated properties impose a "blight" tax within these areas, say every month, $1,000 per sq foot of plywood on windows.

Seems the biggest hurtle within the city is the city itself, meaning the government. The only ones that seem to be able to get anything done are those that know someone. I'm a big fan of Ayn Rand, one character John Galt was asked by a government official what they could do to help him. His reply says it all "Get out of the way". I've had several friends approach the city about buying vacant city buildings and start their ideas for bussiness’ and every one of them heard the phrase "It's not what we have in mind". Plywood is? Here's an idea, the next city official to spew that phrase must bank roll what they do have in mind, not with tax money but with their own personal bank account. Allow the people willing to risk their own money on something to do so the way they see fit. With all the failed pipe dreams and big promise fix alls the city has thrown taxpayer money at, maybe it's time to let those who built the city to it's glory days, do so again. Who? The Individual, and get the hell out of the way.

POSTER CHILD FOR LOSER PAYS LAWSUITS

2006-03-16T20:29:00.000-05:00

Curtis Gorkey a city of Lodi, Ca. employee backed a city dump truck into his own car, so he decides to sue the city. The case gets thrown out so his wife tries to sue.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11847551/from/ET/

Job hunting online gets trickier

2006-03-15T21:32:00.000-05:00

New federal guidelines meant to standardize how employers track data on the diversity of their job-applicant pool are taking effect - similar rules will kick in later this year at U.S. companies with more than 50 employees. And resumes and search approaches that worked perfectly well before may no longer do the trick.

http://money.cnn.com/2006/02/06/news/economy/annie/annie_0206/index.htm?cnn=yes

Why the hell is the federal government regulating resumes?

Next week ....... Congress regulates minute rice cooking time.

Geez! 1, 2 ,3 , 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9........

Red States and Blue Cities

2006-03-15T21:04:00.000-05:00

Right after the last Presidential election all kinds of maps with red and blue on it surfaced. My favorite was the one by county rather then by State. I found the following article interesting.

The Real Engine of Blue America
Steven Malanga

Is it really true that America is politically divided between conservative “Red” states in the southern and middle sections of the country and liberal “Blue” states on both coasts? Not exactly: a close look at the district-by-district voting patterns of the coastal states in the 2004 elections brings into crystal-clear focus the real nature of our political divisions. There’s really no such thing as a Blue state—only Blue metropolitan regions. Indeed, the electoral maps of some states that went for John Kerry in 2004 consist mostly of Red suburban and rural counties surrounding deep Blue cities.

www.city-journal.org/html/15_1_blue_america.html

Even in NY which is assurd to go with the Democrat's Presedental canidate, we have a Senate controled by the Republicans.

Old Lesson - New Solution

2006-03-13T22:00:00.000-05:00

When I was a teenager I would on occasion come in later then my curfew would allow. My parents would promptly ground me, taking away my privilege to go out. They didn’t try to limit who I went out with, where, or limit the time allocated. They saw the root cause of my lateness as being able to go out and not responsible enough to regulate myself.

This came to mind with the recent “Jack Abramoff Scandal” and lobbying in general. Reading pundits and letters to the news, all kinds of ideas on how to “fix” this are proposed. But what is the root cause? Is it money? Is it the special interests? Both fore mentioned, are here to stay. We all have our own interests and each one feels theirs special. No one has pointed out the combination of the ability of Congress to pass whatever law they fancy and the exuberant amount of taxpayer’s money they have at their disposal. Limit their power to make laws and reduce their share of the taxpayers money and you’ll go a long way in discouraging lobbyists. 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, or even enforcement of ideology in the form of laws.

Some would say that the abuse comes from the need for campaign money. This is partially true, yet the problems public funding would cause greatly reduce the benefits. Some questions that would never be satisfactorily answered are; How much and who gets it? Third, fourth, fifth parties? What organization would control it? The two major parties in control now? Funding would become just as political as it is now if not worse. Examples can be seen in the controlled debates, which resemble infomercials or the redistricting process. It would be naive to think either party would relinquish their control and power.

If we as citizens would be content to allow individuals or small groups to decide what was best for them rather then one huge cookie cutter, we could go along way not only in reducing corruption in the capitol but also in healing the so called “divide” within our country. Time and time again you hear how we get along less as a whole nation, and some long for the “good ole days”. You hear a lot about blue and red states, liberal, conservative, and other conflicts. Could the cause be that it is a winner take all contest, that when we pressure the Federal government to impose our ideologies on others that disagree, we ourselves are creating the conflict. Weather left or right, liberal or conservative, blue or red none have the right to impose their beliefs on others. A small minority with little or no voice sees little difference between an all encompassing democracy and a forceful mob. The only difference is the right to defend ones self against a mob.

So that's why they say I'm a Closet Republican

2006-03-10T23:14:00.000-05:00

You Are Mr. Burns

Okay, so you're evil...

You have big plans to rule the world, and you'll destroy it in the process if necessary!

You will be remembered for: the exploitation of the masses

Life philosophy: "One dollar for eternal happiness? I'd be happier with the dollar."

The Simpsons Personality Test

Why are business' leaving NY

2006-03-07T21:54:00.000-05:00

The Tax foundation might be on to something.

(A nonpartisan educational organization, the Tax Foundation has earned a reputation for independence and credibility. However, it is not devoid of perspective. All Tax Foundation research is guided by the following principles of sound tax policy, which should serve as touchstones for good tax policy everywhere) www.taxfoundation.org/about/

Could Taxes have a direct efffect on a Company staying in NY?

The ten worst states in the SBTCI are as follows:

41. Arkansas
42. Iowa
43. Nebraska
44. Kentucky
45. Maine
46. Vermont
47. Ohio
48. Rhode Island
49. New Jersey
50. New York

www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/78.html

You gotta have a membership card to get inside

2006-03-01T21:57:00.000-05:00

After voting at the polls on the 28th of February, I asked how I would go about volunteering to help out. I was given the number to the Niagara County Board of Elections, which I called the next morning. After giving my name I was told since the records showed I was registered as “other” I would not be permitted to work, only Democrats and Republicans are allowed to. I asked (out of curiosity) who made these decision and was told the presidents of the Democrat and Republican parties in Niagara County.

Not only could one question the wisdom in the two major powers controlling the elections (Florida and Ohio), but also the constitutionality of excluding any opposing political parties. Not allowing independents and third party members who are not servants of the ruling parties, to even assist in polls, is not only an insult to them, but to all New Yorkers. When I was in 6th grade a teacher once said that the U.S.S.R. had elections and could be argued to be a democracy, controlled by one party. “The People” who wished to participate in the government where told to become loyal party members, those who refused found themselves completely shut off. This became true even in the private sector where relatives and the well connected where given the contracts, and miles of red tape tracks would be “greased”. But that was the Soviet Union. that couldn’t happen here?

Thomas Jefferson once said “If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all”. It is ironic that the Board of Elections would refuse Thomas Jefferson a seat at the poll.

Walmart vs FEMA

2006-02-17T23:44:00.000-05:00

Resent exposure of the failures in local, state, and federal governments in handling Katrina, and the noteworthy efficiency of American Corporations such as Walgreen and Wal-Mart in providing necessities to the victims. One could make the argument that Americans would be better served by disbanding FEMA and subcontracting the humanitarian needs to Red Cross and Corporations who have more experience then politically appointed bureaucrats. The competency in which they operated far exceeded that of inexperienced political appointees. Though the vast destruction of Katrina probably stretched even the Red Cross, the American people and companies not to mention other countries, picked up the slack without even being asked. State Governors have the authority and the responsibility of activating their respective National Guard to transport its citizens out of harms way before and after the fact, along with upholding the law. The Governor failed. The Citizens of disaster prone States should make a candidate’s planning and leadership abilities before and after a disaster a top priority rather then their political promises when in the voting booth. Though the idea of privatizing any function government runs is a Libertarian idea, that many find distasteful, the possibility of 1,000s dead seems more so.

Sheehan arrested

2006-02-17T23:40:00.000-05:00

Cindy Sheehan pleaded not guilty of demonstrating without a permit. The First Amendment to the Constitution says “ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or …of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” How can you brake a law that by the Constitution can no be made? What part of “no” do both Republicans and Democrats not understand? Do Americans hold the Constitution in so little regard that it can be ignored when it causes a conflict with ideology? Though I disagree with Ms. Sheehan, I served in the Marine Corps for 12 years so she could protest without asking for permission. The Libertarian Presidential Candidate said it best. Those who ask the Government for permission to protest, deserve to be told no.

Worthy of a Taskmaster

2006-02-17T23:38:00.000-05:00

Over the past week several letters have been published in the Buffalo News to protest federal cuts in social programs. On the 29th of December one asked “How did government, on all levels, get so involved in our lives?” The fore mentioned is one major reason. We as Americans constantly look to government for solutions to all problems and then for it to fix them. Rarely is a view expressed promoting individual or private ideas and action to solve problems, unless to force others unwillingly. We have become so dependant on “government”, that little is said as it slowly strips the rights in the Constitution away until blatantly thrown in our faces. Even then the outcry is minimal. Individualist are looked down on in scorn, a prehistoric three headed monster of greed, selfishness, and cold heartedness whose time has past. Individualism has been assassinated by socialism lite. Yet we certainly don’t scorn what they have given us, electricity, modern transportation, medical miracles, and vast luxuries we take as entitlements. Maybe it is fitting that the government that this counties first individualists founded is slowly turning into our taskmaster as we look down at the very traits that made them who they were.

EZ TAX FORM

2006-02-13T09:37:00.000-05:00

With tax season upon us, the headaches have started. Everyone hates taxes to some point. Though I despise them I grudgingly concede that SOME are necessary. But it seems every year more and more regulations are inserted into the tax code. More and more of our time is used preparing tax forms, which could be better used in getting under our significant others skin. How about making the tax codes for “income tax” a one-page regulation.

WAY EZ TAX FORM

INCOME EARNED ......TAX PERCENTAGE........TAX DUE

1st $30,000 earned ...............0%.................................. $0

$30,001 to $75,000..............20%...................max of 9,000

$75001 and up ......................35%......................$26,250
(lets say 150,000)

Total due................................................................$35,250

______________________________
Signature

No deductibles no credits.

No matter how much a person earns the 1st $30,000 is taxed at 0%. The next $45,000 is taxed at 20% and any thing over that at 35%.

Each person would file (end of joint filing).

Interest on Savings accounts would not be taxed. The Government and consumer groups whine the Americans don’t save enough. Well, stop penalizing those that do then.

Here’s the kicker.

Congress shall spend no more then what tax is collected in the prior year. Any expenditure over that collected shall come out of the elected officials own pocket.

Cyber Storm to Social Security

2006-02-11T10:40:00.000-05:00

WASHINGTON -- The government concluded its "Cyber Storm" wargame Friday, its biggest-ever exercise to test how it would respond to devastating attacks over the Internet from anti-globalization activists, underground hackers and bloggers.

Participants confirmed parts of the worldwide simulation challenged government officials and industry executives to respond to deliberate misinformation campaigns and activist calls by Internet bloggers, online diarists whose "Web logs" include political rantings and musings about current events.

Does this mean that the Government doesn't trust those who speak out against it?
Hmmmmmm, deliberate misinformation campaigns... What, doesn't the Government like competition?

SS Phamplet of 1931? (Used to sell the program to the Public)

WHAT THIS MEANS TO YOU

The checks will come to you as a right. You will get them regardless of the amount of property or income you may have. They are what the law calls "Old-Age Benefits" under the Social Security Act. If you prefer to keep on working after you are 65, the monthly checks from the Government will begin coming to you whenever you decide to retire.

Supreme Court:

The argument for the respondent is that the provisions of the two titles dovetail in such a way as to justify the conclusion that Congress would have been unwilling to pass one without the other. The argument for petitioners is that the tax moneys are not earmarked, and that Congress is at liberty to spend them as it will. The usual separability clause is embodied in the act. Section 1103 (42 U.S.C.A. 1303) .
http://www.agh-attorneys.com/4_helvering_v_davis.htm

hmmmmm??????

Phamplet AGAIN

YOUR PART OF THE TAX

The taxes called for in this law will be paid both by your employer and by you. For the next 3 years you will pay maybe 15 cents a week, maybe 25 cents a week, maybe 30 cents or more, according to what you earn. That is to say, during the next 3 years, beginning January 1, 1937, you will pay 1 cent for every dollar you earn, and at the same time your employer will pay 1 cent for every dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year. Twenty-six million other workers and their employers will be paying at the same time.
After the first 3 year--that is to say, beginning in 1940--you will pay, and your employer will pay, 1.5 cents for each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year. This will be the tax for 3 years, and then, beginning in 1943, you will pay 2 cents, and so will your employer, for every dollar you earn for the next 3 years. After that, you and your employer will each pay half a cent more for 3 years, and finally, beginning in 1949, twelve years from now, you and your employer will each pay 3 cents on each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year. That is the most you will ever pay. http://www.ssa.gov/history/ssn/ssb36.html

Look at your paycheck lately?
3% huh?

Now is that misinformation or just pure out right lies? Either way what's the governments response? Cover it up and distraction...........

Global Economy (Old School)

2006-02-10T09:33:00.000-05:00

Items that were priced "way" out of your income bracket
in the old days you could only dream of (unless you were traveling on a troop transport)
But now you don't have to join the service and see exotic places to get those deals.

Brass Bed $200.00, Mink Blanket and Satin Sheets $30.00. Stiffing the "Man" out of Import and Sales Tax. priceless!

Just a passing thought

2006-02-06T23:40:00.000-05:00

The Local newspaper up here in Niagara Falls prints the First Amendment in each addition (as far as I've noticed). It got me thinking about how narrow of a interpretation the Fed's use for the freedom of the press or even establishment of religion. Then I remembered, Cindy Sheehan was once again arrested. This time for a T-shirt, no verbal words, no nothing, but simply a T-shirt, with of course, a anti-war message. It wasn't even from T-shirthell.com, so how bad could it have been? Though I don't agree with her or her methods.....

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I mean, she even had a ticket and was invited by a congresswomen.

But hey, when was the last time the polititions, bureaucrats, or those lawyers in black housecoats REALLY read, let alone obeyed the Constitution.

Who's more evil, CEOs or Supreme Court Justices?

2006-02-06T21:19:00.000-05:00

Amazing!

Here's a Bank that sees our rights as more sacred then the Supreme Court!

January 25, 2006
BB&T announces eminent domain policy
WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. BB&T Corporation today said it will not lend to commercial developers that plan to build condominiums, shopping malls and other private projects on land taken from private citizens by government entities using eminent domain.

“The idea that a citizen’s property can be taken by the government solely for private use is extremely misguided, in fact it’s just plain wrong,” said BB&T Chairman and Chief Executive Officer John Allison.“One of the most basic rights of every citizen is to keep what they own. As an institution dedicated to helping our clients achieve economic success and financial security, we won’t help any entity or company that would undermine that mission and threaten the hard-earned American dream of property ownership.”

HEY SOUTER! Don't bother asking BB&T for a loan!

http://www.bbandt.com/about/media/newsreleasedetail.asp?date=1%2F25%2F06+9%3A48%3A52+AM

What Property Rights?

2006-02-04T23:17:00.000-05:00

A Jan 17 letter in the Buffalo News stated that eminent domain “Is explicitly permitted so long as “just compensation “ is paid.” and “under 100 years of court decisions it is the states that have the power to decide what projects are “for public use.” this is misleading.

Amendment V, states “ nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.” Eminent domain is authorized, but for “public use” the states do not have the power to dictate what “public use” is, that power belongs ultimately to the Supreme Court. Unfortunately each time a state has encroached on property rights the courts redefine the meaning of “public use” (What happened to Rule of Law?). Once it was unthinkable that a poor mans land would be taken away from him, by force if necessary, and given to a rich man, it’s called fighting blight now, in colonial days they were called “Lords”. The latest trick, revenue crazed municipalities use is condemning middleclass neighborhoods, confiscating them, then giving it to politically connected developers who promise more revenue.

Justice Stevens, cited cases in which the court has interpreted "public use" to include not only such traditional projects as bridges or highways but also slum clearance and land redistribution. He concluded that a "public purpose" (notice he changed USE to PURPOSE) such as creating jobs in a depressed city can also satisfy the Fifth Amendment. Using Stevens’ own words we see how he justifies theft. Justice O’Connor in the descent stated, "specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."

The majority went on to say the government could pass laws protecting private property. Or the fox can guard the hen house? A far cry from Thomas Jefferson’s “Let no more be heard of the confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution.” The Supreme Court is slowly destroying the links in the chain.

The Evil of the "Living Document" doctrine

2006-02-04T23:01:00.000-05:00

Being the son of an immigrant, I was taught at a early age that the founding fathers desired a country that was founded on the principles of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
I’ve come to realize that these unalienable Rights were not given to us by politicians nor by even the Declaration, but are natural, obtained by our existence, by our very birth and being. The fathers of this country believed that it was the government's duty to protect these rights for us against anyone or group that wished to take them away. They also mistrusted men of power, those, who charged with the projection of our rights, could become drunk with power, abuse their positions, and become the very people that they were to project our rights from. It’s one reason why they met and forged the U S Constitution. As Thomas Jefferson stated "Bind him down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution."
For sometime now certain groups and even members of the three branches of government have said this document is a "living document", who's meaning can be changed to fit the needs, wants, demands, and even ideology of society at large. If this is true then what protects the principles that our Founding Fathers were willing to be hung for? They are no longer rights secured and protected by the Constitution, but privileges granted to us by the courts and the whims of the populace, which they have the power to take away.
Those who feel that it is a living document argue and point to the preamble and section 8 of the Constitution and say "Look, General Welfare", to justify a myriad of laws, regulations, and even unfunded mandates. What about the Bill of Rights, the Tenth Amendment, "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." , and what it's main author, James Madison, a Federalist, said about it in Federalist paper #45. "The powers delegated by the Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Government are numerous and indefinite...The former will exercise principally on external objects, as war...The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects...lives, liberties and properties...."
The convenience of the "Living Document" gives us gifts like the Patriot Act. It allows Congress to abandon their power to declare war and then lay it before the feet of a President. The most frightening, the branch that is supposedly to hold the legislatives leash, the Supreme Court, has decided, that cancer victim's using marijuana, grown in their own home, fall under inter-state commerce, not because it was transported across state lines but because it "could be". Could Grandma's garden be next, or will the State decide to give her land to Wal-Mart or some politically connected developer, like what happened to homeowners in New London. The Supreme Court has ruled that your liberties and property rights are out weighed by the desire to generate more tax revenue.
Alexander Hamilton feared a democracy leading to politicians catering to the masses at the expense of the individual, Thomas Jefferson feared a strong central government catering to the wealthy and business would do the same, both fears are now reality.