Two Steps Forward, Four Back…
Apr 10, 2011 Political
The federal government is patting itself on the back for the so called largest budget cuts in history and while Barack Obama is taking credit for the deal, the deal is not worth mentioning. Te Republicans were looking for 61 billion dollars in cuts and they got 38 billion. Democrats were looking for much less and were unwilling to waiver on cuts to the murder factory known as Planned Parenthood. While the government was busy haggling over a few billion dollars and ultimately cutting 38 billion, the debt jumped 54 billion dollars.
That is right, the entire deal was wiped out and 16 billion more in debt was added to the mix while they were busy debating the issue.
We absolutely need the largest cuts in history and they need to be a hell of a lot more than 38 billion or even 61 billion. Had republicans been successful in getting 61 billion they would have a net gain of 7 billion. This is no way to run a budget.
No entity can run deficits forever without failing and governments are no different. Our Founders realized this and preached the virtue of paying off the bills. They ran deficits but made paying them off a priority.
Now, of course, it is different. Our government is hell bent on providing everything to everyone and it has succeeded in creating a class of people who rely entirely on government to exist. These people cost us more and more because they contribute little or nothing to the equation. This is not the America our Founders envisioned.
People need to go out and work. They need to be productive members of society and realize that if they produce they will live better lives than by sitting around waiting for the government to deliver a check once a month.
Our government needs to recognize its limits, the limits placed on it by our Constitution, and it needs to live within those limits. That means providing the services for which we the people chartered it and nothing more.
Then, and only then, can we start to realize the prosperity our Founders dreamed of when they gave us the gift of freedom.
While freedom isn’t free, enslavement to the government costs a lot more than can be imagined in money, honor and dignity.
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Have We No Freedom?
Mar 11, 2011 Political
A law is being considered that would require that alcohol detection devices be installed on cars to keep people from driving while intoxicated. The interlock devices must be blown into and an alcohol level below a determined limit (the article states 0.03) must register before the vehicle will start. The devices are designed to require the driver to blow at intervals to ensure that a sober person did not initiate the original air that allowed the vehicle to start. If a person is over the limit six times the car will no longer start.
Interlock devices are sometimes court ordered for DWI offenders as a condition of keeping their licenses.
Installing these devices on all vehicles is a bad idea. The nanny state is now trying to force all drivers to prove they are not over the limit before starting a car. This would be another loss of freedom in this country. Forcing the millions of people who do not drive while intoxicated to do this because a relatively small number of people drive drunk is ridiculous and another infringement into our lives. Since the records can be downloaded it is another way for Big Brother to see what you have been up to. I can imagine a future where the records are pulled each time a person goes to renew a driver’s license and that person being denied because they tried to drive after a few too many.
I have no problem with people who have DWIs being required to have one of these on their cars. That would be a condition of their being allowed to continue to drive. They drove drunk and they have to pay the price but why does everyone have to pay the price with preemptive breathalyzer tests before they can operate a vehicle?
These things are not easy to operate and it takes time to get use to them and even then it is time consuming. Suppose some woman is getting into her car late in the evening and she notices a group of nasty looking men heading her way. On any given day she could lock the doors, start the car and leave. If she is delayed because of the device or the device does not work then she will be at the mercy of potential attackers.
Who will be responsible for that?
I am tired of the nanny state. We have laws against driving while intoxicated and we have police officers to look for those who do so. We do not need to infringe on the rest of the driving public to make some do gooder feel good about himself.
We do not need to be told what to do and we do not need to be monitored in all aspects of our lives.
Most of us are smart enough to do the right thing.
And we have laws to take care of those who are not.
But Big Dog, what if this would have saved a family from being killed by a drunk driver. That will be little consolation to the family killed because a person was busy reblowing while driving so the machine could ensure a drunk was not behind the wheel.
And how often are people killed or injured by drunk drivers? The number is small compared to the number of non impaired accidents and other ways people die.
Stay out of our lives you nanny state morons.
As for me, I will rebuild my vehicle from the ground up before I buy a new car that must have one of these and I don’t even drink.
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: freedom, interlock, law, nanny state
Economic Freedom?
Mar 1, 2011 Political
I’ve heard people claim that America is the “land of the free.” I’ve even heard them say, “At least we have economic freedom.” Well, not really. Certainly not according to Bronx City Councilman James Vacca. You see, Mr. Vacca says:
They’re obligated to be in sync with surrounding gasoline prices in the immediate community.
In other words, you, as a person who invests your time and money in a business; a person who takes the risk with your capital and resources; you who can buy things that people want; have no right to determine how much money you will make. Your profits are, according to Mr. Vacca, supposed to be exactly what Mr. Vacca says that they should be, and not one dime more. Because, of course, if everyone else raises their prices with you, then you would be guilty of collusion.
Mr. Vacca hates freedom, plain and simple. The fact that there are other gas stations just blocks away with lower prices, instead of satisfying Mr. Vacca, infuriates him. Mr. Vacca gets to decide what everyone should pay for gas, and he doesn’t give a damn how much it costs the gas station owner to obtain that gas. So according to Mr. Vacca, you are not free to buy and sell things in America — at least not without getting his personal permission and approval of your profit margin.
Oh, and keep in mind — as the gas prices rise and people start again complaining about the “obscene profits” made on gas — the entity that makes the MOST “profit,” by far, on each gallon of gas sold is the government. The average gas station in America earns 2.7 cents per gallon of gas sold. On average, the government makes 45.9 cents per gallon sold.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: economics 101, freedom
That’s a Jailin’
Jan 25, 2011 Political
Did you know that wearing a hat can get you thrown in jail for life? Did you know that if you call a court “a joke,” that you can be jailed for 60 days? Oh, no, not in a communist country, right here in the so-called “Land of the Free.”
And yes, I’m completely serious. Both of these things have happened in the past two days.
In the first case, one Pete Eyre was wearing a hat. He wasn’t bothering anyone else. He wasn’t harming anyone. He wasn’t putting anyone in danger. Heck, his hat wasn’t even blocking anyone’s view of anything. A man told Pete to remove his hat. He refused. So he was beaten and thrown in jail. That was yesterday. Today, the judge decided that Pete would stay in jail for the rest of his life. Yes, that would be in America. New Hampshire, to be exact.
In the second case, another person, Ademo, was watching the decision that the judge was making in the above case (to keep Pete in jail for the rest of his life for the crime of wearing a hat). Ademo, seeing that the judge was a total fool, and seeing that the judge was going to jail his friend for life, got up, and walked out of the court. Well, he tried to walk out of the court. On his way out, he said something about the court being a joke. The same fool judge then threw Ademo in jail for 60 days. Yes, you read that correctly — 60 days in jail for calling a courtroom “a joke.”
And no, there will be no “winning in court,” or “lawsuits” or “settlements.” You see, these people are all 100% immune from the very system they support. While this judge probably deserves to be tarred and feathered, there is no chance he will face any discipline in any way — because other judges, who like having unlimited power, would have to rule that he did something wrong. If I were to see this judge on the street, I would certainly let him know what an absolute fool he was. Of course, that would likely get me thrown in jail for a few months as well.
So, next time you’re walking around, believing you’re in a free country, think of Ademo and Pete. They’re spending lengthy time in jail for the serious crimes of wearing a hat, and saying that the court is a joke. And you keep telling yourself that you live in a free country, because you’re not going to convince me.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Freedom Versus…
Jan 5, 2011 Political
Situation:
Mr. X wants to help some people. He decides he’d like to provide them with food. He is specifically targeting homeless people in the local downtown area. He believes that these homeless that he sees need food, and he wants to meet that need. Mr. X starts up his kitchen and invites the homeless in. The homeless show up and start eating. The same homeless people come day after day and eat the food Mr. X provides. Mr. X is happy because he feels he is helping people. The homeless people are happy because they’re getting food.
After about a month, Mr. X decides that he wants to feed these people full-time. He’s going to need more money to do it, but he doesn’t have the money…
In a Free Country:
Mr. X comes to me and asks me, personally, for help. He explains his need and how he is helping people. I explain that I can appreciate his need, but I disagree with his methods. I say that I believe by providing and endless supply of food for the same homeless people over and over again that he is, instead, actually supporting them and encouraging them. After all, they don’t need to change their lives if he will provide them with food. Instead, I suggest to Mr. X that if he includes a program with job training, skills training, or placing other requirements on the free food, that I would be willing to donate some of my own time and money.
At this point, Mr. X has the option of accepting my terms and conditions, or looking elsewhere for support for his ideas. He may find others that agree with him and he continues to provide the free food. He is happy, the others are happy, the homeless are happy, and I am happy. He may not find enough others and instead agree to my conditions, and we find others who also agree. Then he is happy, the others are happy, the homeless are happy, and I am happy.
In America:
Mr. X decides he wants to feed the homeless. He sends men with guns to my house to force me to pay for the feedings. I object, and he threatens to send me to jail if I do not pay for the homeless meals. I ask why he needs me to pay for the meals, and he explains that it’s my civic duty and that it would be anarchy if I don’t pay. I ask Mr. X why he isn’t paying for the meals, and he explains that it is only civilized if I pay for the homeless meals and pay Mr. X’s salary while he is feeding them because I can afford it. He again threatens to throw me in jail if I do not pay him. He sends more men with guns to steal my property if I do not comply. More homeless show up for the free, unconditional meals, so Mr. X sends another bill to me for more money, telling me that since I have money and the homeless do not, it is my obligation to pay. I refuse to pay because I do not agree with the process, so Mr. X sends men with guns to kill me for disobeying. Mr. X is unhappy because he has a job that he does not like, but he has to pay his bills. Other people are unhappy because they have to pay high taxes they do not like. The homeless are not happy because they are not getting steak with every meal that they feel they deserve. I am dead.
I only wish this were an exaggeration. Sadly, it is not. Worse, the majority of people in America today support everything that is happening. And a wide majority completely would support my death in the situation above.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: charity, coercion, freedom, government rules