---------
Internet
---------
http://www.techeye.net/internet/obama-touts-internet-id-for-all-us-citizens
I highly suggest that you read the article linked above, because it makes the very clear point regarding online shopping.
Liberals would likely spin this as reasonable regulation to keep American consumers safe from things like identity theft.
Fundamentalist christian conservatives might spin this as proof that Obama is the Anti-Christ (read the article).
Neo-Conservatives would spin Obama's move as being a apart of a larger effort to fight terrorism, but in this case using identification of Internet users. (that would be utter bullshit)
True libertarians wouldn't spin this, only to point out the fruitlessness of the whole endeavor.
------------
Anonymous
------------
I think that Obama is trying to piss off Anonymous, which is getting easier and easier each time anyone in government even slightly suggests regulating the Internet (FCC + Net Neutrality) or harming someone who uses the Internet for anti-corruption purposes (Julian Assange). I have read pictures by Anonymous and they seem to go something like this:
The government/corporation is doing something we don't like;
We think that a DDoS attack from many locations is proper protest;
All who agree with the above are encouraged to participate in the DDoS on such-and-such date;
They won't get away with this atrocity;
We are many, We are Anonymous.
I may have not caught all of the subtleties of a typical Anonymous post, so plz don't complain; I am merely a blogger, not an Anonymous participator (as much as I would love to, I have more important things to worry about than protests of any kind).
At any rate, I believe that Obama is digging his own whole by unconsciously taking on Anonymous. I cannot wait for the 2012 election posters:
"Obama tried to kill the Internet."
-or-
"Boehner did nothing to stop Obama's massive power grabs."
-------------
Real Change
-------------
John Boehner, the new speaker for the House, will prove himself to be an idiot in the next two years if he doesn't do at least two things:
1) Repeal the Food Safety Modernization act; (a very dangerous and very stupid bill)
2) Repeal Obamacare. (a very stupid and somewhat dangerous bill)
Any idiot can repeal those, if at the very least through the indirect means known as defunding the program.
However, repealing these two acts of Congress would only put America back onto a course without the problems these bills would create. That is, Americans have not yet began to seriously suffer from the effects of either bill, for now.
I will contribute my entire savings account and checking account to Boehner's re-election campaign is he gets at least one of the following passed through Congress:
A) A total repeal of the Income tax, with no replacement, not even the suggested Fair Tax;
B) An abolition of a Federal agency whose budget is at least one billion dollars per year;
C) A repeal of the 1968 Gun Control Act;
D) A ban on the playing of Justin Bieber music in public, and/or distribution of his music.
I might work for Boehner for free for 7 years straight if he can successfully purge the United States Code; that would involve what I like to call simply repealing every act of the United States Congress, thus achieving the above A, B, and C. D is just icing on the cake, should he even consider it as even Constitutional, much less as being worthy of a second thought..
------
Doubt
------
Don't get me wrong; I don't consider any Real Change to occur in my life-time, much less before the Second Coming. I can fantasize, can't I?
It will be a miracle if Boehner focuses on a non-partisan issue, like Federal regulation of everything short of my hear beat (obvious hyperbole should be obvious). This is nonetheless the reason why I have written-off any change coming from the Federal government.
I will begin focusing on the States as a source of change, because I see lots of real change:
-New Hampshire has abolished its knife laws.
-Arizona and Alaska have joined Vermont in what is now called Constitutional Carry, with some restrictions.
-Several states (38?) have considered or have already passed laws that challenge Federal regulation of intrastate commerce, specifically regarding guns.
Well, that is all for now, I have to sleep.
Mmmm, freedom.
Showing posts with label ObamaCare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ObamaCare. Show all posts
Monday, January 17, 2011
Sunday, November 7, 2010
What If Republicans Fail?
Are Republicans in Congress and the various state houses and senates going save us from the moves of the current Democrat Congress? I can't say one way or the other, because I was disappointed by the Republicans last time around, but that was then. What about this time? Listening to talk show hosts and reading various articles on the Republican victory this last week, I must still ask the question: What if the Republicans fail?
What if the Republicans repeal only the insurance mandate part of Obamacare? The rest of the bill includes various onerous tax regulations that would serve to create a wider gap between the upper class and the middle and lower class in America. The whole bill is sophomoric, but such sophomoric attitudes has stopped few people from invading Russia, only to be defeating by the Russians. If Republicans edit Obamacare, rather than repeal it, they will be defeated in 2012.
What if the Republicans refuse to put a leash on the Federal Reserve, as a minority of Republicans in Congress are suggesting? If the it is not leashed quickly, then the Fed will continue to manipulate the financial markets, thus damaging the already delicate industrial and commercial centers of America. Can you say, "Welcome to: Post-Industrial America?"
What if Republicans decide that the war is going well and that another surge like Bush's(300,000 troops) and Obama's (300,000 troops) would help American interests in Afghanistan and Iraq? I know of no goal for the Iraq or Afghanistan war as of today, so the Republicans do have an opportunity to at least set a goal for both wars. But the war is not the issue; Republican integrity and intelligence is the issue.
What if Republicans bailout another industry and nationalize that industry, as Obama did with General Motors? The Newspaper industry is due for a bailout, and aren't there enough lobbyists to tempt a Republican here or there to secretly add a few million dollars for the New York Times? Or, a band of Neoconservatives could force through a nationalization of all newspaper companies, placing all of them under the control of the Associated Press. Congress passes laws everyday, so such idiocy is bound to work its way through incrementally.
What if Republicans finally start cracking down on the drug war, the war on poverty(or the poor), and the war on illegal immigration? Even though none of these things are fiscally comparable to the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, they nonetheless wind up as important issues. I would suggest that Republicans make it easier to work in America, whether that be through easier citizenship applications or through work visas that don't require the person to get permission from their nation of birth. The total scrapping the Federal Tax code, and replacing it with nothing would be a good start. Should illegal immigrants be afforded the freedom to work, then we will not have to worry about any amount of Amnesty of the same; they are here to work for money, not vote for money. Plus, if you want to solve the problem of illegal immigration, you could remove the whole illegality part. But what politician makes his name without first making something illegal, and making a little money off that?
What if the Republicans take on the drug war more so than has been seen since alcohol Prohibition? No-knock warranst are the norm today for police departments, both for weapons and drug confiscations. Should someone tip the cops off that you have drugs or illegal firearms, you could be attacked by the cops, even if all you had was a BB-gun from the 50s, some vitamins, and some Aspirin above your sink. Republicans should move, particularly in the state legislatures, to ban both the issuing and the serving of no-knock warrants, else the drug war will turn into a means of random civilians anonymously putting their personal enemies in the sights ATF agents. Oh wait, that is what already happens. This needs to end, now!
What if the Republicans find some things that Obama did to be acceptable? The numerous monstrous bills that have been passed in the last decade must certainly contain something that a single Republican can convince the rest to leave in effect, right? After all, Republicans are always involved in the numerous committees in Congress, so one of them had to manage to slip in a few hundred thousand dollars for a supportive charity or two; this is the nature of the politician, to pay off those who get you into office; I know of no political party that has none of these politicians, not even the self-proclaimed principled Libertarian party. Those bad eggs in the Republican party are the reason why the moderates go along with the growth of government in America, and they must be exposed as the whining juveniles they are.
How about the Democrats?
What if the Democrats go back to being anti-war, after their short binge of being pro-war with their favorite man in the Oval Orifice. The Democrats could go back to their superficial peace-nick ways, demanding that the Republicans spend less on foreign wars and other such foolery, only to demand that the Republicans instead spend that money on domestic wars (Drugs, poverty, freedom, guns, tax-payers, voting, my future job prospects) or other such foolery.
Basically, the Republicans have an opportunity to recoil government across the board, and I think that is what Americans are expecting, or at least the benefits if such reduction of government. Also, the Democrats will be the thorn in the side of Republicans as they do whatever they are going to do; and I say, let the Democrats hoot and holler about spending, the war, poverty, guns, and a lack of bigger government. In the long run, no Democrat will be satisfied in demanding these things, even if they get them; I wonder if Republicans will be satisfied when 2012 comes around, in whatever they end up doing.
Some of you may have concerns about the lame-duck Democratic Congressional session. I have a quote for you: "If the people fear the government, that is tyranny; if the government fears the people, that is Liberty." --Thomas Jefferson
What if the Republicans repeal only the insurance mandate part of Obamacare? The rest of the bill includes various onerous tax regulations that would serve to create a wider gap between the upper class and the middle and lower class in America. The whole bill is sophomoric, but such sophomoric attitudes has stopped few people from invading Russia, only to be defeating by the Russians. If Republicans edit Obamacare, rather than repeal it, they will be defeated in 2012.
What if the Republicans refuse to put a leash on the Federal Reserve, as a minority of Republicans in Congress are suggesting? If the it is not leashed quickly, then the Fed will continue to manipulate the financial markets, thus damaging the already delicate industrial and commercial centers of America. Can you say, "Welcome to: Post-Industrial America?"
What if Republicans decide that the war is going well and that another surge like Bush's(300,000 troops) and Obama's (300,000 troops) would help American interests in Afghanistan and Iraq? I know of no goal for the Iraq or Afghanistan war as of today, so the Republicans do have an opportunity to at least set a goal for both wars. But the war is not the issue; Republican integrity and intelligence is the issue.
What if Republicans bailout another industry and nationalize that industry, as Obama did with General Motors? The Newspaper industry is due for a bailout, and aren't there enough lobbyists to tempt a Republican here or there to secretly add a few million dollars for the New York Times? Or, a band of Neoconservatives could force through a nationalization of all newspaper companies, placing all of them under the control of the Associated Press. Congress passes laws everyday, so such idiocy is bound to work its way through incrementally.
What if Republicans finally start cracking down on the drug war, the war on poverty(or the poor), and the war on illegal immigration? Even though none of these things are fiscally comparable to the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, they nonetheless wind up as important issues. I would suggest that Republicans make it easier to work in America, whether that be through easier citizenship applications or through work visas that don't require the person to get permission from their nation of birth. The total scrapping the Federal Tax code, and replacing it with nothing would be a good start. Should illegal immigrants be afforded the freedom to work, then we will not have to worry about any amount of Amnesty of the same; they are here to work for money, not vote for money. Plus, if you want to solve the problem of illegal immigration, you could remove the whole illegality part. But what politician makes his name without first making something illegal, and making a little money off that?
What if the Republicans take on the drug war more so than has been seen since alcohol Prohibition? No-knock warranst are the norm today for police departments, both for weapons and drug confiscations. Should someone tip the cops off that you have drugs or illegal firearms, you could be attacked by the cops, even if all you had was a BB-gun from the 50s, some vitamins, and some Aspirin above your sink. Republicans should move, particularly in the state legislatures, to ban both the issuing and the serving of no-knock warrants, else the drug war will turn into a means of random civilians anonymously putting their personal enemies in the sights ATF agents. Oh wait, that is what already happens. This needs to end, now!
What if the Republicans find some things that Obama did to be acceptable? The numerous monstrous bills that have been passed in the last decade must certainly contain something that a single Republican can convince the rest to leave in effect, right? After all, Republicans are always involved in the numerous committees in Congress, so one of them had to manage to slip in a few hundred thousand dollars for a supportive charity or two; this is the nature of the politician, to pay off those who get you into office; I know of no political party that has none of these politicians, not even the self-proclaimed principled Libertarian party. Those bad eggs in the Republican party are the reason why the moderates go along with the growth of government in America, and they must be exposed as the whining juveniles they are.
How about the Democrats?
What if the Democrats go back to being anti-war, after their short binge of being pro-war with their favorite man in the Oval Orifice. The Democrats could go back to their superficial peace-nick ways, demanding that the Republicans spend less on foreign wars and other such foolery, only to demand that the Republicans instead spend that money on domestic wars (Drugs, poverty, freedom, guns, tax-payers, voting, my future job prospects) or other such foolery.
Basically, the Republicans have an opportunity to recoil government across the board, and I think that is what Americans are expecting, or at least the benefits if such reduction of government. Also, the Democrats will be the thorn in the side of Republicans as they do whatever they are going to do; and I say, let the Democrats hoot and holler about spending, the war, poverty, guns, and a lack of bigger government. In the long run, no Democrat will be satisfied in demanding these things, even if they get them; I wonder if Republicans will be satisfied when 2012 comes around, in whatever they end up doing.
Some of you may have concerns about the lame-duck Democratic Congressional session. I have a quote for you: "If the people fear the government, that is tyranny; if the government fears the people, that is Liberty." --Thomas Jefferson
Friday, March 19, 2010
Legislative Tyranny: Commentary on a John Locke quotation
So, my mom sent me a link to a Free Republic post, which quotes several sections of John Locke's Two Treatises on Government: sections 221-225. The Free Republic post is here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2474248/posts
Section 221:
The "contrary to their trust" clause is very important, but the next line quoted is the real meat, because Locke is suddenly so much more specific there. Basically, if a legislature or the executive makes itself, the community (whatever that is), or some other person the invader of property and the disposer of life, liberty, or fortune of the People, then the legislative or executive is ripe to be dissolved. (I wonder if Locke considers ignoring such a branch of government to be dissolution?)
I bet if you mention that to anyone in the Federal government, you might get your name put on a list, just in case the Federal government actually becomes tyrannical, so that SWAT teams can scoop you up for your treachery.
Since Socialized Medicine means that the State has a vested interest in how you and I live, the State would then come to your house and demand that you take any test or any medicine or any treatment, regardless of your being a free human being or how safe the intake actually is. Since every Fiat Government in human history likes using the threat of force to get what it wants, you can be rest assured that Socialized Medicine will lead to the Federal government to start threatening people if they don't pay. Oh wait, the IRS already does that. Fiat Government always justifies its actions by the outcomes it wants, regardless of actual outcome. I expect that the most prominent outcome the Federal government will seek is to make everyone in America healthy, but to lower costs first. Money is too important, you know, for the Feds to worry about your genuine safety as a child of God. Then again, the Feds probably should be worrying about foreign threats rather than whether or not I took my medication this morning.
Section 222:
Locke, having a deep interest in property as the most important liberty, focuses on the value of property when a man enters into society.
Locke is right that men look to legislative bodies to protect their property, and that makes sense only as long as that man trusts the legislative. However, history shows that legislatures are the worst entities to go to seeking protection, because they are slow and constantly passing new laws to replace the old laws. I would rather pay a thief to protect my property, because I could at least hold him accountable if he steals something, whereas the legislature could ban something I own and the police, and maybe the National Guard too, would come and take that property of mine and I would then have to fight dozens of jerks rather than one jerk. (However, Governments only lose by suicide, though I will get into that in a later post.)
The first emboldened part of the quote is obviously the most important, and probably because the guy put it in bold when Locke did not (Sarcasm, how original, eh?):
"whenever the legislators endeavour to take away, and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, [the legislators] put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any farther obedience, and are left to the common refuge [defensive force?], which God hath provided for all men, against force and violence."
I don't know any better quote that should be plastered all over the walls of Congress, because the Legislature needs to read it before voting on any bill. Not even the Ten Commandments are this important when considering whether a bill ought to be passed, because the irreligious only listen to the threat of force, just like a typical Statist.
Ought we then to show up at Congress with our rifles and shoot the lot for their crimes? My answer is no. The American People ought to ignore the legislative fiat, because such does not apply to us who can consent only to so much. If they come for our children, offer hot lead. If they come for our guns, offer them all of the hot lead they want. If they come for our lives, get your neighbors to offer them hot lead as you call your relatives for more hot lead.
If the Legislature in DC wants war, they can have it from after they start demanding what they ought not have. We Americans are a people of prudence, killing only in defense of good people . . . and twice for the French. If you have not gone against the Ten Commandments, then how can the Legislators punish you? The Ten commandments are the justification for government, and the limit on government. Every other document is merely redundant for the sake of those who have darkened intellects due to Original and Actual sin, me included.
The next emboldened lines of the quotation speak of the contractual breach that the Legislature commits when it does as Locke describes beforehand. Locke is just being redundant, but only to make sure that the reader understands the implications of oppressive government. I won't go into any more of Locke, because I see this as Locke's most important point. I just wish that he could have not written so much just to get to it. If you haven't read it yet, read it all; it is good moral support in the face of tyranny.
Now, to apply the quotation to America, you would first have to figure out how you could dissolve all of the legislatures of the states and of the Federal government, because, by Locke's standard, each is in violation of their contract and deserving of dissolution. I do realize that some states are better than others, mostly just Texas, but John Locke is defining the principle of government, and that we ought to adhere to that principle. Locke probably did not expect what we have now to come about, but, in his defense, statism requires our kind of technology to procreate (or is that defecate?) at a noticeable speed. I advocate that the legislatures purge the statutes they created and only meet once a year or less.
I will just cut to the chase. Who do you trust more, the government or the People? The Declaration of Independence and Constitution say the People. Therefore, I answer: the People. Fie upon they that threaten my for not giving up what is God-given rightfully mine to keep. I'll keep what God gave to me, thank you very much.
In the Future, I will have to describe how I imagine a government by the consent of the governed would deal with crime, while needing no legislature to define crimes. I will name that Means later in its own post.
In the Future, I will answer the first question in parentheses that I ask regarding whether ignoring part of government equals, to any degree, dissolving that part of government.
Thanks and enjoy what you have because you only have today,
Joe
Section 221:
The "contrary to their trust" clause is very important, but the next line quoted is the real meat, because Locke is suddenly so much more specific there. Basically, if a legislature or the executive makes itself, the community (whatever that is), or some other person the invader of property and the disposer of life, liberty, or fortune of the People, then the legislative or executive is ripe to be dissolved. (I wonder if Locke considers ignoring such a branch of government to be dissolution?)
I bet if you mention that to anyone in the Federal government, you might get your name put on a list, just in case the Federal government actually becomes tyrannical, so that SWAT teams can scoop you up for your treachery.
Since Socialized Medicine means that the State has a vested interest in how you and I live, the State would then come to your house and demand that you take any test or any medicine or any treatment, regardless of your being a free human being or how safe the intake actually is. Since every Fiat Government in human history likes using the threat of force to get what it wants, you can be rest assured that Socialized Medicine will lead to the Federal government to start threatening people if they don't pay. Oh wait, the IRS already does that. Fiat Government always justifies its actions by the outcomes it wants, regardless of actual outcome. I expect that the most prominent outcome the Federal government will seek is to make everyone in America healthy, but to lower costs first. Money is too important, you know, for the Feds to worry about your genuine safety as a child of God. Then again, the Feds probably should be worrying about foreign threats rather than whether or not I took my medication this morning.
Section 222:
Locke, having a deep interest in property as the most important liberty, focuses on the value of property when a man enters into society.
Locke is right that men look to legislative bodies to protect their property, and that makes sense only as long as that man trusts the legislative. However, history shows that legislatures are the worst entities to go to seeking protection, because they are slow and constantly passing new laws to replace the old laws. I would rather pay a thief to protect my property, because I could at least hold him accountable if he steals something, whereas the legislature could ban something I own and the police, and maybe the National Guard too, would come and take that property of mine and I would then have to fight dozens of jerks rather than one jerk. (However, Governments only lose by suicide, though I will get into that in a later post.)
The first emboldened part of the quote is obviously the most important, and probably because the guy put it in bold when Locke did not (Sarcasm, how original, eh?):
"whenever the legislators endeavour to take away, and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, [the legislators] put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any farther obedience, and are left to the common refuge [defensive force?], which God hath provided for all men, against force and violence."
I don't know any better quote that should be plastered all over the walls of Congress, because the Legislature needs to read it before voting on any bill. Not even the Ten Commandments are this important when considering whether a bill ought to be passed, because the irreligious only listen to the threat of force, just like a typical Statist.
Ought we then to show up at Congress with our rifles and shoot the lot for their crimes? My answer is no. The American People ought to ignore the legislative fiat, because such does not apply to us who can consent only to so much. If they come for our children, offer hot lead. If they come for our guns, offer them all of the hot lead they want. If they come for our lives, get your neighbors to offer them hot lead as you call your relatives for more hot lead.
If the Legislature in DC wants war, they can have it from after they start demanding what they ought not have. We Americans are a people of prudence, killing only in defense of good people . . . and twice for the French. If you have not gone against the Ten Commandments, then how can the Legislators punish you? The Ten commandments are the justification for government, and the limit on government. Every other document is merely redundant for the sake of those who have darkened intellects due to Original and Actual sin, me included.
The next emboldened lines of the quotation speak of the contractual breach that the Legislature commits when it does as Locke describes beforehand. Locke is just being redundant, but only to make sure that the reader understands the implications of oppressive government. I won't go into any more of Locke, because I see this as Locke's most important point. I just wish that he could have not written so much just to get to it. If you haven't read it yet, read it all; it is good moral support in the face of tyranny.
Now, to apply the quotation to America, you would first have to figure out how you could dissolve all of the legislatures of the states and of the Federal government, because, by Locke's standard, each is in violation of their contract and deserving of dissolution. I do realize that some states are better than others, mostly just Texas, but John Locke is defining the principle of government, and that we ought to adhere to that principle. Locke probably did not expect what we have now to come about, but, in his defense, statism requires our kind of technology to procreate (or is that defecate?) at a noticeable speed. I advocate that the legislatures purge the statutes they created and only meet once a year or less.
I will just cut to the chase. Who do you trust more, the government or the People? The Declaration of Independence and Constitution say the People. Therefore, I answer: the People. Fie upon they that threaten my for not giving up what is God-given rightfully mine to keep. I'll keep what God gave to me, thank you very much.
In the Future, I will have to describe how I imagine a government by the consent of the governed would deal with crime, while needing no legislature to define crimes. I will name that Means later in its own post.
In the Future, I will answer the first question in parentheses that I ask regarding whether ignoring part of government equals, to any degree, dissolving that part of government.
Thanks and enjoy what you have because you only have today,
Joe
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)