Coincidence

"When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion - when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing - when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors - when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you - when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice - you may know that your society is doomed." - Ayn Rand

Point 1:

Tax Tyranny

"The United States has the most progressive (i.e., unequal) tax system in the world. The bottom 50 percent of income earners, on average, receives more in tax benefits than they pay in taxes — while the highest earners pay a wildly disproportionate amount of their income in taxes — despite the myth that Warren Buffett has a lower tax rate than his secretary. A progressive income tax only meets the test of “consent of the governed” when a majority of each class of taxpayers consents to its tax rate. Otherwise, it is tax tyranny of a low-tax-rate majority against a vote-poor, high-tax-rate minority. The apologists for the progressive income tax claim it is only “fair,” ignoring the fact there is nothing at all “fair” about taxing at a higher tax rate those who work longer and harder and/or spend more time acquiring an education and work skills. It is destructive and tyrannical for a society to tax the most productive, innovative and job-creating people at a higher rate than others."

Point 2:

Forcing Trade

"The Obama administration is quietly diverting roughly $500 million to the IRS to help implement the president’s healthcare law.

The money is only part of the IRS’s total implementation spending, and it is being provided outside the normal appropriations process. The tax agency is responsible for several key provisions of the new law, including the unpopular individual mandate."

Point 3:

Control the Message

"Dept. of Labor Forcing Media To Use Government Computers"

"Unrest is simmering in some quarters of the Washington news universe regarding changes in the way the Department of Labor (DOL) manages its pre-release media “lockups” on sensitive data like weekly jobless benefits and unemployment...The system insures that major news organizations get the data as soon as possible and allows journalists covering the release get a jump on providing analyses and opinion about the data.

But Carl Fillichio, Labor Secretary Hilda Solis’ top communications advisor, circulated a memo earlier this week to interested media informing them that everybody is being required to re-submit their credentials requests.

Fillichio reminded participants that there are only 20-30 seats available for the lockups and that priority will be given by DOL in selecting participants to those that “are primarily journalistic enterprises.”

He also offered a one-sentence assurance that 'the department will not consider editorial or political viewpoints in making credentialing decisions.'

Whatever grumbling might be occasioned by being forced to go through the credentialing process again, the element of the Fillichio memo that has journalists worried is this paragraph:

'Second, as a measure toward enhancing security in its main lockup facility (the DOL news room), the department will supply and maintain standardized equipment with a standard configuration for all participants. This change means that privately owned computer and telephone equipment, including hardware, software, cabling, wiring and Internet and telephone lines will be replaced with equipment owned by the department.'

In other words, journalists will no longer be allowed to bring their laptops or other equipment to the lockups, they will have to use government-supplied equipment, described by Fillichio as including 'a virtualized desktop running a Windows operation system, a web browser, word-processing software, an Adobe Reader application and secure file transfer capability. Equipment provided will not have wireless networking capability. Provisions will be in place for news organizations to transmit their stories over the Internet.' "

Point 4:

The Bottomless Pocket

"The government spent at least $205,075 in 2010 to 'translocate' a single bush in San Francisco that stood in the path of a $1.045-billion highway-renovation project that was partially funded by the economic stimulus legislation President Barack Obama signed in 2009...the bush—a Franciscan manzanita—was a specimen of a commercially cultivated species of shrub that can be purchased from nurseries for as little as $15.98 per plant. The particular plant in question, however, was discovered in the midst of the City of San Francisco, in the median strip of a highway, and was deemed to be the last example of the species in the 'wild.' "


Ah, I'm sure I'm just using pieces of news stories to try and make some pithy argument.  Apparently, libertarians like myself are extreme (and would spit in the face of Dr. King, hate the people, hate the brown folk, the gays, the lesbians, the people with piercings and tattoos).  Extreme in the idea that each of us should enjoy the least possible restraints on our behavior and lives, only restraining ourselves when that behavior interferes with the freedom of others.  Government has a place...in enforcing personal property and law.  It should not be our big brother who we run to whenever there is a problem.

But, oh, I'm probably being extreme.  Yeah, that's probably accurate.  I mean, what's the point of looking at the big picture?  What has that ever solved?

Walking Backwards

The President's recently submitted budget is slated to kill the D.C. school voucher program called the Opportunity Scholarship Program.

School vouchers have proved a huge success, giving parents choice in how their tax dollars go to providing an education to their children.  Opponents of the voucher program attempt to find every possible failure of individual students, and use those failures to draw a bleak picture of the program.

Yet the overall facts don't support detractor's theories.

But, when you support increased government control over people's lives (as the administration does...and it's not just Democrats, you know) and when you must appease a union powerhouse (aka the teacher's unions)...

...you kill individual choice.

"The D.C. OSP (Opportunity Scholarship Program--aka, School Voucher program) has been highly successful. According to federally-mandated evaluations of the program, student achievement has increased, and graduation rates of voucher students have increased significantly. While graduation rates in D.C. Public Schools hover around 55 percent, students who used a voucher to attend private school had a 91 percent graduation rate.

And at $8,000, the vouchers are a bargain compared to the estimated $18,000 spent per child by D.C. Public Schools.

The Department of Education’s budget will increase 3.5 percent if the proposal is enacted, continuing a failed trend of spending more taxpayer dollars through Washington on a myriad of programs with a poor track record.

By contrast, the D.C. OSP has a stellar track record of increasing academic success, student safety, and parental satisfaction. And because of the nature of the District of Columbia (education in D.C. is under the jurisdiction of Congress), it is entirely appropriate for the federal government to fund the D.C. OSP."

Less money for people to make the best choices for themselves and more money for central planners.

Yup, walking backwards on the road to recovery and moving forward on the Road to Serfdom.

The Commie Conspiracy and Precious Bodily Fluids

Well, you know, sometimes I've got nothin'...

So, I live in California.  Let me tell you, there is no shortage of craziness I can blog on from day to day.  It's not a challenge, really, so I end up not blogging at all.  I don't feel it's fair to pick on those who do not think for themselves and allow emotion and illogical reactions to guide their lives.

As I was looking through the local headlines, I noticed a city nearby that has fought the fluoridation of their water.  You heard me right...they don't want fluoride in their water.

The libertarian in me applauds their "we don't want government to tell me what's good and what's bad" attitude. But, in this case, the government is right.  Fluoridation has saved millions of teeth and prevented millions of cases of dental disease and decay.  If you don't believe me, try watching some British...or even American...movies from the 50's and 60's.  Heck, Mike Myers made a small fortune playing off the reality of bad British teeth.

So, as I read....

WATSONVILLE, Calif. -- A decade-long battle between state health officials who wanted fluoride in Watsonville's drinking water to improve oral health, and Watsonville city leaders who opposed it, ended Thursday.  The California Dental Association Foundation pushed for and introduced fluoride into several California cities' tap water. The CDAF argued that low-income families that cannot afford visits to the dentist's office greatly benefited.  Water fluoridation was cited by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as one of the top-10 greatest public health achievements of the 20th Century.  But the controversial idea of pumping fluoride into Watsonville, where many elementary school students already have decaying teeth, is dead in the water.  Resistance from city leaders and local groups, coupled with pricey contracts for the project, combined to cause the CDAF to throw its hands in the air and give up Thursday, CDAF officials said.

...I wondered, "why?".  Why would the city fight this tooth and nail?  Has fluoridation caused ill health? Have their been outbreaks of fluoride disease?  Has their been a huge conspiracy cover-up in the fluoridation of water?

No.  Not at all.  As a matter of fact, it's one thing that government got right.

Why would the city fight this?  You know, I really don't know.  I have no clue.  But what I do know is this...

...the below clip is the most perfect clip I have ever matched with a blog post.

Are You Free?

It's sorta a rhetorical question until, well....you actually start thinking about the true answer.

I'm not a proponent that the "government" is out to get us.  I truly believe that the "government" is filled with a high percentage of people trying to do a really good job.  I've met and worked with a lot of folks who work for the government and are true patriots.  That is, they want the best for the country and their fellow Americans.

Yet, good intentions pave the road to hell.

Our Founding Fathers knew this to be true.  They knew that absolute power, even in the hands of the best of people, eventually leads to tyranny.  This is why we have checks and balances.  It's why there is a divided government.  It's why it SHOULD be hard to pass legislation.

Take a look at the below clip.  While I understand the intentions of the Patriot Act, I also understand Judge Napolitano's concern over it.

And why the Affordable Health Care Act is unconstitutional.

Buy This Man A Beer

I don't know Chris Kyle, but the first couple beers are on me if I ever meet him.

I watched Jesse Ventura's show "Conspiracy Theory" during the holidays.  That's 30 minutes of my life I'll never get back.  Jesse Ventura has definitely bought a ticket on the insane train, and the below story from Chris doesn't surprise me.  What surprises me is that the people of Minnesota decided to elect such a crackpot as their 38th governor.  By the way, his real name is James George Janos, and he changed his name to Jesse Ventura during his WWF wrestling "career".  His motto during his time as "The Body" was "Win if you can, lose if you must, but always cheat."

Ventura, for some reason, decided to visit the wake of Medal of Honor recipient Michael Monsoor in 2006.  He started spouting off about how Americans were over in Iraq "killing women and children" and that the SEAL Teams "deserved to lose a few"...

...and Chris Kyle decided he would have none of this.

Hooyah, Chris.

From Hot Air.  Content Warning.

When Seconds Matter...

...the police are minutes away.

Sarah McKinley of Blanchard, Oklahoma, found herself in a very scary position on New Year's Eve.

Two armed men tried breaking into her house that night, and she was alone with her 3 month old baby.  She called 911, and asked...if she could utilize her 2nd Amendment right.

Amendment II: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

And no, not those kind of arms....

These kind of arms...

Recently widowed, Sarah picked up her shotgun and asked the 911 dispatcher if it was OK to shoot the men if they entered her home.  The dispatcher responded, "Well, you have to do whatever you can to protect yourself...I can't tell you that you can do that, but you do what you have to do to protect your baby."

Damn straight.  When Justin Martin, one of the intruders, broke into her home, Sarah sent Mr. Martin a welcome invitation.  Sarah fired her 12-gauge shotgun and killed him.

First Assistant District Attorney James Walters said that Sarah will not be charged.  He stated, "A person has the right to protect themselves, their family, and their property."  How refreshing!

For all those people who don't believe individuals have the right to bear arms, then I wonder how well Sarah could have protected herself and her baby.  Frying pans are heavy, but lack "effectiveness".

And I wonder how different the story would have read.  Let me make a guess on what the story would have been if Sarah did not have home protection in the form of a shotgun:

"A single mother and her child were killed on New Year's Eve as a result of a home break-in.  Police were unable to respond quickly enough to her 911 call, and arrived after the crime had been committed.  Police have no leads for suspects.  Police request anyone with any information to call the Blanchard Tip Hotline.  The victim's family says the funerals will be held next Tuesday."

The Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment...

...of the U.S. Constitution.

"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 pace to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature an cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense."

In the Senate's National Defense Authorization Act (voted approved on Tuesday) , a provision allowed the military to detain terrorism suspects on U.S. soil and hold them indefinitely without trial.

It applies to citizens and non-citizens.

In other words, a terrorism suspect would get just one hearing where the military could assert that the person is a suspected terrorist.  That "suspect" could then be locked up for life, without ever formally being charged.  It allows the military to hold suspected terrorists indefinitely without a trial or due process.  These "terrorists" (I use quotations because, really, who actually defines what a terrorist is?  Is it Al Qaida?  Is it someone attempting to blow up a building?  Is is someone protesting a bank?  How about someone who argues against a public figure? Who makes this call?  And what political party are they affiliated with?) The only waiver is from the Secretary of Defense.


Oh, good.  I thought the Bill of Rights were endowed unto us by our Creator.  I guess the Secretary of Defense has a direct line to the Almighty.


This bill passed the U.S. Senate by a vote of 93 to 7.  Yup, just 7 Senators objected to a direct violation to the U.S. Constitution.

Does the Senate actually read the Constitution?  Or do they just pass laws to get reelected, knowing that the Supreme Court will correct their stupidity mistake?

But what if the Supreme Court doesn't correct such an affront to our basic Constitutional rights?

Oh, I know.

The Sheep Are Nervous

Well, the U.S. Senate seems unable to figure out our current economic dilemma.  They also seem unable to figure out a better tax code, a replacement space vehicle, appointing judges...well, let's just say they can't seem to agree on much of anything.

Except sex with animals.

Yes, the Senate Armed Services Committee unamimously approved S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act, which includes a provision to repeal sodomy and sex with animals in the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

My guess is that sodomy was repealed so that the repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" will actually work, of course.  But as collateral damage, they've also agreed that human sex with animals...specifically, personnel who wear the nation's uniform...is perfectly legal.

Is this really in the best interest of the country and military?  Of course not.

But there's an agenda to promote, and the Senate is not going to make a little sex with goats stand in the way of a "good" cause.

Georgetown University: Hip Hop Elective

So, I turn on the news this morning and find out that Georgetown University will be offering a new, amazing course that conforms really well to it's distinguished, Jesuit background in higher academia...

..."Sociology of Hip Hop: Jay-Z".  You see, it's a course dedicated to to the rapper Jay-Z and his career.  Michael Eric Dyson, a liberal author and radio host (and oh, also a professor at Georgetown), will teach this class.  What could you possibly spend a semester at one of the most distinguished Ivy League schools learning about a rapper?  From his lyrics, you'll learn about "racial and gender identity, sexuality, capitalism and economic inequality."

Oh.

I guess it's good they are not offering courses such as:
"Capitalism: A Profound Masterpiece"
"WWII: A Study of American Sacrifice and Triumph"
"The Great Depression: A Study on How to Avoid Socialist and Government Interventionism"
"The 1960's: Contrasting Those Who Sacrificed for the Greater Good and Those Who Were Self-Absorbed"
"The American Housing Bubble:  How Good Intentions From Politicians Paved the Road to Hell"
"The Basic Economics of Supply and Demand: Why People Still Don't Get It"
"The American Media: A Study of Absurdity"
"Political Ethics: A Study of the Lack of Ethics and Morality in Public Officials" Part I
"Political Ethics: A Study of the Lack of Ethics and Morality in Public Officials" Part II
"Political Ethics: A Study of the Lack of Ethics and Morality in Public Officials" Part III
"Common Sense: A Study in Libertarian Thinking"

Let's hope the Georgetown alumni have something to say about this sham Jay-Z class.  If they don't, then shame on them.  President Clinton--you first.

Double Down

To "Double Down" in Blackjack: The player is allowed to increase the initial bet by up to 100% in exchange for committing to stand after receiving exactly one more card.

To "Double Down" in politics:

First Card:


The Double Down:



"Families like yours, young people like the ones here today--including the ones who were just chanting at me--you're the reason that I ran for office in the first place."

Even though the President is extremely smart, especially in politics, I don't think he'd do well at Blackjack.

You don't Double Down when you are given a very, very bad card.  Note to whoever is advising the President to embrace the OWS crowd.

Stop.

In my humble opinion (of course), the OWS crowd is destructive, not creative.  It's socialist, not capitalist.  It's negative, not positive.  It's backward thinking, not forward thinking.  It's a proven failed philosophy, not a correction to a masterpiece.  It's exactly what we don't need.  To think otherwise is to embrace insanity.  Really, I'm not kidding.  Let me put it this way...would you let anyone at the OWS rally look after your child while you're away?  No?  Then why are you taking their view on the economy...something that will shape your child's future?

This country has done magnificent things, and this economy has driven prosperity to all time highs.  Prosperity is relative, of course, but so is the definition of poverty.  The lack of a job is not the issue.  The real issue is the lack of incentives for businesses to create those jobs.

If government figured out that instead of "telling" business what to do, they "incentivized" business, the economy would flourish.

At the beginning of economist F.A. Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom", Hayek stated that when government controls the economy, what's more at stake is not our wealth...but our "alteration in the character of the people."  If the President believes that government should control all the "faults" of the economy, then we will fundamentally change as a people.

According to the Tax Foundation, 60% of the population now gets more in government benefits than it pays in taxes.  Over half of our population lives at the expense of the rest.

Is this truly what we want in our country?  60 will become 70%....and 70 becoming 80%.  Unless we change, this is not conjecture, it is fact.  Do we want a culture of takers or makers?  Do we want freedom and self-responsibility or do we want the tyranny of the Nanny State?

This is the true discussion.  All else is smoke and mirrors.

And It Begins

We better get our act together soon...or more of this will happen.

Via Drudge and Breitbart.

"A cyber strike launched from outside the United States hit a public water system in the Midwestern state of Illinois, an infrastructure control systems expert said on Friday....

...The network breach was exposed after cyber intruders burned out a pump.  'No one realized the hackers were in there until they started turning on and off the pump'....

The attack was reportedly traced to a computer in Russia and took advantage of account passwords stolen during a hack of a US company that makes SCADA software.

The US Department of Homeland Security has downplayed the Illinois cyber attack in public reports, stating that it had seen no evidence indicating a threat to public safetey but was investigating the situation."

Ok, let me be the first to tell you.  There is a significant threat to public safety and we've known about this for years now.  This is just the first public incident you've heard of.  

Our electronic infrastructure is not as sound as you think.  If you don't think it's a big deal, just wait until an entire city can't drink any water for a couple of weeks because some "hacker" has disabled a computer system.

This is one area where the Federal Government has an obligation to use our tax money for good purposes.  Hey Homeland Security...how about a little less patronizing comments and how about a little more action?

A Visual Contrast

So I like to pontificate...a lot.  Sometimes what I'm thinking doesn't quite come out on paper as expected.  My fellow MBA students would probably agree.

As a change, today I'll just let the pictures tell the story.  If a picture is worth a thousand words, then the following is almost long enough for my thesis!

A Different 1%

They are a different 1%.  Not the ones the Occupy Wall Street crowd rants against.

They are the 1% of the population who serves their country, and loves her to the core.

They are the 1% who asks for very little, but gives so very much.

They are a small group, but they are all around the globe and all around the country.

Find them.  And then thank them.

Honor our Veterans.

Those Evil Corporations

You have probably noticed already, but I am not a fan of the Occupy Wall Street movement(s).  Why?

First, they lack a coherent argument.  Most of their sputterings arguments center around either socialist or communist platforms.  Second, they lack a sustainable vision for the country.  The effects they call for would not only make the economy worse, they would cripple it. Third, they offer no reasonable, rational, or executable solutions.  Most of these folks have not considered the secondary and tertiary effects of their solutions...and those effects are the most important for long term economic viability.

And they are just plain weird.  That should count for something, right?

And if that doesn't make sense, maybe this will.  Enjoy!

"That's Who We're Creating"

I am not a regular watcher of Judge Judy, but I must admit...I might start.

Below is a great video clip from the Judge Judy show (now on You Tube...because it's been pulled by CBS from their site?)

Summary:  Guy gets government money for rent.  You see, he's a student (already receiving $22,000 from the government to go to school) and he doesn't have a job.  Therefore, the government gives him an extra $400 for rent.  If we just stopped there, it wouldn't sound so different than what we have become accustomed to from the government.

Yet, this man decides to live with his girlfriend and spend the money on...other things.  Judge Judy has a few words for this...uh, upstanding young man.

Judge Judy...yes, send it to Congress.  In the meantime, the rest of us will remember this debacle when we vote.

A Simple Explanation

Ok, I stand corrected.  Here's a recent video which, I guess, totally makes me wrong in everything I've thought about the Occupy Wall Street crowd.

And here I thought these folks had no logic or economic foundation on which to make a coherent argument.

Just kidding.  Enjoy the circus.

Californication

On October 9th of this year, Govenor Jerry Brown signed into law AB499.  This law allows minors, as young as 12, to get preventative HPV vaccines without the consent of their parents.  Of course, this should be of no surprise in a state which allows for minors to have an abortion without the parents' consent or even notifying them of the procedure.

Yikes.

On the very same day that Govenor Brown signed this bill into law, he also ensured that another evil was eliminated.  On Sunday, he signed into law a measure that prevents teenagers from using an indoor tanning bed WITHOUT PARENTS' CONSENT.

So, let me get this straight.  It's ok to have an abortion without parents' consent, but the use of a tanning bed without consent is now illegal?

Can someone explain this absurdity to me?

Numbers

You know, like words, numbers have meaning.

I'm a big fan of Marco Rubio.  I'm not a fan of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner.

Case in point.



You see, the jobs act is so fundamentally important (according to the President), that there is no option but to support it.  If you don't support it?  Then according to his party, then you're against preventing murder, rape, paying firefighters, police, etc.  Hyperbole.  Pure and simple.

I think what the American people are tired of is speaking out of both sides of the mouth when real people are hurting.  People want real solutions, not real campaigning.  That goes for not just Democrats, but for Republicans too.

Me?  I'm still waiting for a leader.

A Really Bad Idea

I blogged (shortly)  in July on the ATF's "Fast and Furious" program that ended up getting one of our border agents killed.

Good to see this is being investigated.  Good to see the media doing its job.

Hopefully people will be held accountable.  Anything else would be...criminal.

You Should Put Down Your Flags...

...because I don't think you understand what it stands for.

Via Lex.  As the "protests" around the country gain in size, make sure you take a look at what they are arguing for.

I don't like what I'm seeing.