Remember the Troops Who Defended American Soil


The last war unarguably fought in defense of American Freedom was the War of 1812

I am sympathetic with “support the troops”, and am adamantly in support of a Memorial Day to honor veterans who’ve actually defended the US from aggression.

But I have never, ever found anyone who can explain to me how the veterans of ANY foreign war but WWII ever “defended our freedom”.

Even if I believed in the Iraq or Afghanistan wars, I would like to know exactly how our freedoms are being defended by the troops there. Or were in the Vietnam, Korea, WWI, the Spanish-American War, the Mexican-American War, or the Civil War.

As far as I can see, these were all nothing more than foreign adventures for the esoteric agendas of politicians who valued their own power and advantage more than the lives of brave, loyal, but mortally exploited American boys. And the wars they drag us into are almost always used as an Appeal to Cowardice to actually abridge our liberty, back here in the States.

That’s not Defending American Freedom.

Uther Pendragon is a Neocon


Uther would have been right on board with the unprovoked invasion of Iraq, as long as you told him that Hussein was developing chemical, nuclear, and magical WMD

There’s this show on BBC called Merlin. It covers the story of Camelot, of Arthur and Merlin, when they’re teenagers.

Prince Arthur’s father is, of course, King Uther Pendragon. In this version, Uther’s son is learning to become the good ruler his father is not.

In watching the show, Uther is presented ambiguously, as one of the protagonists, but I find myself force to take a stance (in my head, or to friends) against him, because he is constantly doing things that, were he not one of the “good guys”, would be instantly recognized as evil.

In fact, I’ve come to the conclusion that he is actually the most evil part of the show, the actual antagonist without whom none of the greatest wrongs or conflict would occur.

What’s most interesting, though, is that every single aspect of his role in the show is identical to that of the violent, authoritarian interventionists in the American and British political class (sadly, this turns out to include Obama), in real life.

Although it’s a specific movement of Trotskyites, I’m using the term “neocon” for this movement, because it’s familiar and its evils are widely recognized across most of the political spectrum.

Uther Pendragon / A Neocon:

  • Claims to defend the people’s rights, but governs as an authoritarian, using safety as their excuse
  • Once quietly supported a movement for their own gain, but then decided it was their enemy
  • Has since imposed a police state, along with supportING violence, war, and tyranny elsewhere, in the name of stamping out that movement
  • Will unhesitatingly torture, imprison, or kill in pursuit of the war against the movement, including using proxies in order to be able to claim clean hands for themselves
  • Will threaten, imprison, and worse anyone who might reveal their involvement in some of these evils
  • With their brutality and wrongdoing in the name of crushing the movement and any other opposition, has created their own enemies
  • Those enemies included good people, driven bad by desperation under the evils of the abusive government
  • And actual evil men, criminals, et cetera, who would have been nothing more than part of a fringe underworld end up able to ally with and manipulate the desperate good people, gaining far more power and influence than they would without the evil of the abusive government
  • The people of the nation end up being subjected to retribution and violence driven purely as blowback against the previous evils of their government
  • That government lacks credibility in the struggles for justice of many other lands, despite a long-past history of being a beacon of justice

Frankly, I could have written an article about either the violent interventionists of the American political class, or Uther Pendragon, and then just did a search and replace for words like Bush/Uther, Camelot/America, and magic/Muslims, Gaius/Assange, and published the new version credibly, without any other modification.

Whose evils does this article really reveal most clearly…the fictional Uther or the real Neocons? Sadly, I think it’s hard to say.

Political Experience is a Liability


People complained, of both Obama and Palin, that they lacked experience.

Now if that meant actual experience of being a manager or executive, a leader, it’s a reasonable discussion to have.

But when they mean lack of political experience, they are mistakenly attacking the BEST qualification of any candidate.

All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely“, as Lord Acton pointed out. And he noted that this includes power through influence, and “corruption by authority”, meaning the way that an institution corrupts its members.

And there is no more corrupting institution than government, which is set apart from all the rest of human society by the ability to legally initiate force…aka “power”.

There are few things more harmful in our society than career politicians. They know less about the real world, and find the evils of government coercion more normal. They are generally against responsibility, anywhere it should be expected.

They, and government employees, including government contractors, and their ilk, form what is now recognized as a separate class of people, the Political Class, that has the most harmful views of any segment of society.

They come to office and are indoctrinated in a culture that devours society and the economy for its own dubious benefit, becoming less aware of the real world every year they are there.

What we need is for our politicians to have less political experience, not more.

Even if we simply replaced every single politician, each year, with someone chosen from the general populace by random lottery, America would be far better off.

Why Tolerate an Unelected Congress?


This is an apt beginning to the political coup the opponents of Obama have feared...the convening of an unelected Congress. It should be stopped, its actions are not valid, including anything it passes.

You’d think it’s pretty obvious that if we had a Congress that was unelected, people be outraged. We are a constitutional republic, and our legislators should be elected.

And yet, that is what we have right now.

This “lame duck Congress” is not our elected set of legislators. In fact, not only are they not the ones we elected, they are the ones we specifically un-elected.

And that is outrageous.

You there, in the back, who just yelled out “But it’s always been that way”…yes, I saw who you were. Don’t worry, dissent is imperative to learning the truth.

And the truth is that lame duck Congresses are rare, because they are so obviously bad.

A Congress that is unelected, with members whose ideas have already been voted against, rushing those evils through a back door to lock them into place.

We specifically elected DIFFERENT politicians. The guys passing bills they know we oppose right now are, in effect, usurpers.

And, although there have rarely been lame duck Congresses before, this may be the first one that is specifically intended to violate the will of the people. Up until now, lame duck sessions are usually held NOT to pass laws the People are known to have just disapproved, but for a unique emergency, like impeachment, or the McCarthy hearings ostensibly to root out Communists.

But this political coup…and it is a coup, same as if the Army showed up in Congress with tanks one day and “temporarily” ousted the government…is unusual, because it’s all about passing new expansions of government that could not possibly get through next session:

  • A massive expansion of the FDA’s powers
  • Amnesty for Illegal Aliens
  • Gays in the Military
  • An unpopular arms treaty
  • A massive expansion in the already-overextended unemployment subsidy

All of these are important issues, that should be considered by our elected representatives, if by the Federal government at all.

Yet they’re being railroaded through by the corrupt Establishment on both sides. The Political Class have been carefully quiet about this, but we should not be. They think they can violate our will, for their own good…but it is intolerable.

As with the TEA Party backlash against the past three years of massive government expansion, we need to “rise up” and organize an objection to this coup, and stop it from continuing to seize power unconstitutionally.

REPLACE the Bush Tax Cuts


The American taxpayer suffers under the massive cost of complying with the tax code, as well as having to pay the taxes, themselves...and the Bush tax "cuts" only made this worse

Republicans, Conservatives, libertarians, independents, and even Democrats who aren’t rabidly Liberal are all defending the Bush tax cuts, insisting that some or all of them must be extended…but it’s not because any of us like them.

In reality, even Conservatives and Republicans never really liked the cuts, except as a lesser evil versus no cuts at all…and the same is even more true, today.

Why aren’t the Bush “cuts” likable? Because they’re ridiculously bloated with rules, exceptions, special favors for special interests, bureaucracy, government winner-picking and other distortion of the economy, and therefore are insanely expensive to implement.

In other words, Americans have to PAY billions of dollars, in time and actual cash, to deal with the complexity it adds to the tax code.

Unlike the Reagan tax cuts, that may actually have saved taxpayers even more in compliance cost than in taxes reduced, the Bush tax cuts were estimated to add up to $114 billion per year in compliance cost, with its maze of tax credits, exemptions, and other economy-distorting favoritism and punishments. This nearly cancelled out the actual “cuts”.

It is estimated that simply complying with the overall income tax costs about $350,000,000,000 every year. That is a little less than ten times as much as the “tax cuts for the rich” that the Liberals are trying to block being extended right now. It is far more than the ENTIRE set of Bush tax cuts being debated now. It is over several times as much as ALL of the cuts, including the Stimulus welfare disguised as “tax cuts” that Obama is demanding be extended as well.

We could let the ENTIRE tax cut package expire…all of the Bush cuts for the “wealthy” AND “middle class”, all of the Obama stimulus “cut” handouts, including in both cases all of the tax credits that give free money to people who don’t pay real income taxes at all…and yet leave the taxpayer with MORE money in their own hands, if:

We simplify the tax code.

We could flatten it, while letting the overall revenue estimate INCREASE to eliminate all of those “cuts”, and people would still save so much that the economy would prosper.

This could be done by eliminating most exemptions, credits, and other economy-distorting favoritism, and reducing the number of tiers of taxpayers.

We should, as any real economist has insisted for at least two decades, implement a flat tax…everyone pay the same tax rate…whatever it takes to match the current income tax revenue. Exempt everyone’s income up to the poverty level, so nobody in poverty has to pay, but leave everyone else paying the EXACT same amount.

This would reduce tax compliance to less than one tenth of its current cost. But let’s imagine it leaves compliance as high as $100 billion dollars per year.

That means we’d save $250 billion next year. Inflating this over ten years the way tax cut estimates usually are, this would “inject” between three and four TRILLION dollars into the economy in the next decade.

We don’t need Bush/Obama “cuts” that cost us more in compliance than they actually save us per year. What we need is a simpler, fairer tax system that we can pay and then get on with our job of creating wealth for ourselves, and therefore the economy.

Who is the Real Traitor: Wikileaks, or Their Attackers?


There is no more important expression to protect, than any truth embarrassing to the government.

That is, above all else, the freedom of speech the Founders wanted the First Amendment to preserve.

In fact, its big test, in 1798, was against the Alien and Sedition Acts, that were passed to silence those who would embarrass the US government.

This censorship so outraged the American public that it brought down the Adams administration, and destroyed the Federalist Party, that had dominated American politics up to that very point.

And that should tell you something about the kind of people who are wanting to censor Wikileaks, for the crime of publishing truth that is embarrassing to secretive liars in the US government.

And to those who would claim that Swedish/Australian Wikileaks isn’t protected:

The Founders clearly intended the entire Bill of Rights to restrain the US government in ALL actions, not just on Americans. Just ask Judge Andrew Napolitano.

Wherever the US government goes, the Constitution is there…it’s the sole source of its legitimacy. And the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution.

Not only do the Obama administration and neocons want to violate the 1st amendment, but they are promoting the tyranny of government secrecy.

If the government keeps an embarrassing secret from its own voters, this changes how they vote. That is the same violation of an election as if there were armed stormtroopers in your polling booth, changing your vote.

What is the excuse these attackers of the Constitution use as their excuse? That people who have lied to and kept secrets from the American voter might be endangered.

It is yet another example of Appeal to Cowardice, their favorite tool today.

These people, who assault the American ideals of truth and justice, who want to engage in the terrorism of a police state against political speech, are the real traitors.

Entrapment: The FBI Rolls its Own Terrorism


The FBI has a disturbing pattern of taking loudmouth bluffers and pushing them into FBI-supplied "crimes"

All over America, right now, drunks are sitting in bars talking about how they’d love to shoot their evil Ex in the head. Almost none of them will ever do it, of course.

But, someday, one will.

If the police state then organizes a task force to go around offering guns and encouragement to those drunks, then arresting any who are talked into acting on their bluff, it will be entrapment.

Some of those men (almost all, in fact) would never otherwise have done it.

Right now, all over America, angry people are talking about how they’d like to do this or that thing that really amounts to terrorism, if it weren’t petty hot air. A task force looking for these people and offering to help them is exactly the same kind of entrapment evil.

Some goofy, poser kid in Oregon was recently bragging that he could “get a gun because I’m a rapper”, wanted to blow something up, et cetera.

The FBI contacted this kid, pretending to be a terrorist organization, and got him to accept a fake bomb, which he then tried to use to blow up a Christmas tree.

This was precisely the same kind of unacceptable entrapment. We will never know whether the kid would have actually tried to blow up anything, without our own government’s encouragement and enablement.

And worse, this is a disturbing pattern. They did it in Chicago, Dallas, New York, Rockford, and elsewhere. We also don’t know how many will be spurred on to do something they wouldn’t have, but end up bypassing the FBI scammer and actually kill someone BECAUSE of our own government’s urging, as happened with the 1992 WTC Bombing.

Entrapment is always wrong…even when the police state uses Appeal to Cowardice to justify it.

You’re Censoring People, not Corporations


The moment a corporation stands up, like Frankenstein’s Monster, and starts talking without human intervention, I’ll agree that they might be censored.

But the fact is that a “corporation” is comprised of individuals, and THEY have their freedom of speech protected…even while they work for or own that corporation.

Censorship advocates, like judicial nominee Elena Kagan, and Liberal Republican John McCain, want to silence people, on the flimsy premise that they happen to be members of a corporation. They are violating the first amendment, because individuals are writing the copy that is being banned from publication.

You might as well censor them for belonging to a political party. We could just say “the constitution protects individuals, not parties”.

For that matter, publishing houses, newspapers, and blog hosting sites are corporations…everything they publish could be censored the same way.

You could censor the corporation if it tried to talk like some monstrous creation, but not the employees and management of the company who are actually buying political ads or other speech.

Fire in a Crowded Theater


Why You CAN Yell Fire in a Crowded Theater...

Censorship advocates say “you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater”, to prove that there are limits to free speech.

But the way they mean it, is not true.

You cannot actually be banned from yelling fire in a crowded theater.

In fact, you are completely free to yell fire in a crowded theater, and as long as there’s an actual fire, you probably be treated as a hero.

If there is NOT a fire, but everyone believes that you honestly thought there was, you shouldn’t be penalized, either.

But if you LIED about it, and it turns out that people were hurt, money lost, et cetera, then you can pay civil and (dubiously) criminal penalties.

But that’s not a restriction of free speech: It’s justice for others, who have been violated by fraud, which is a kind of coercion as evil as any other.

In other words, it’s hurting people with lies that brings penalties, not that your speech can rightfully be censored.

Corporations are Socialism



It's amazing how many things government intervention causes, and then blames on economic freedom

When people discover Stop Blaming Capitalism for Socialism’s Failures, or its Facebook Group, some are astonished at the list of problems government intervention has caused, them blamed on freedom of choice.

What often surprises them the most is that it includes the modern corporation.

We’re taught, in socialized education anyway, that corporations are an icon of everything wrong with capitalism.

The problem is that everything that makes a modern corporation has been imposed on us by government laws and force…and that’s socialism.

In fact, you can’t anything like the modern “public corporation”, in a free market.

Why could British Petroleum take risks that no privately owned company would dare? Because it’s effectively nationalized, as a Public Corporation. No owners or managers will be held accountable for the oil spill, not even under Obama’s abrogation of Rule of Law. Likewise any managers or owners in a company selling products it secretly knows are harmful, or fraudulent.

This is why you hear ads on the radio, by The Company Corporation, saying that you should incorporate your business, or to avoid liability for any harm you cause.

In a free market, there would be no way to simply renounce your liability for actions you take, or a company you own.

This can only be done by government fiat.

The very reason that Liberal Democrats pushed for the creation of corporate law, in the US, was to nationalize industries that they could not openly take over.

Since they couldn’t get people to accept an unaccountable People’s Automaking Bureau like you could in China, they simply ensured that existing automakers would become unaccountable bureaucracies owned by People.

In order to get the special treatment of a public corporation, a company must become OWNED by “the public”:

It is not allowed to simply write a custom document of ownership and sell stock to the public, to raise millions in capital. Instead, the company must follow a massive set of regulations, becoming in effect a mini-government.  In return for selling out their property rights, its owners and management become exempt from the consequences and liability for their actions, just like government bureaucrats.

Companies that do this, of course, have an unfair edge over companies that do not…so they come to dominate an industry, for example automaking.

And thus, the automaking industry comes to be owned by The People, through a quasi-governmental agency.

Impure, adulterated socialism, called Market Socialism…but socialism nonetheless.

The Double Thank-You of Capitalism


John Stossel is correct, when he points out that politics and socialism are Zero Sum Games, where wealth is taken by force and nothing gained, while the free market is a Win-Win Game, where in any transaction both sides feel they have gained, not lost.

You thank the clerk, and he thanks you…because he wanted the money more than the product, and you wanted the product more than the money.

Keynes is Dead, Long Live…Keynes?


Each time a government has tried to spend its way out of a depression, the result has been ongoing economic failure

John Maynard Keynes was an economist…or at least a political activist who used economic-sounding arguments to justify government intervention.

In the 1930s, he was THE economist, if you believed in that government intervention.

But, as we all know, his Theory proved to be a complete failure. It failed to produce results during the Great Depression, but staggered on until the 1970s, when it failed so spectacularly, causing staflation, that it was pronounced dead, even by Liberals in the US and open socialists around the world.

But, unfortunately, George Bush came along in 2001, and after having run as a free marketer, governed as a Keynesian. He infected the political scene with the premise that you could stimulate an economy out of a downturn, by having the government spend massively, even as it increased regulation (in part, by putting strings on the spending). When the economy fell into trouble because of his bad foreign and domestic policies, he responded with Stimulus and Bailout™ packages. That trademark, of course, means that he must pay the Keynes estate a royalty for each mention.

Obama, having run as the Anti-Bush, has committed the perplexing political suicide of simply building on every Bush precedent…most of which really are more Liberal Democrat in tenor, anyway…and one of the symptoms is that he continued the Stimulus and Bailout™ packages.

The problem, as we predicted and is now proving true, is that stimulus spending and bailouts don’t help the economy: They hurt it.

This pattern of behavior has caused what people denying the word Depression call a “double dip recession”, which we’re entering (again) right now.

The only way out, is to end the Keynesian meddling, and let the economy grow on its own. Japan and Sweden learned this the hard way, after each suffering a “lost decade” in the nineties. Now it’s our turn.

How to Prevent another Haitian Disaster


It’s not enough to simply run around making feelgood gestures in a panic-stricken reaction to the earthquake in Haiti.

We need to address why this went as horribly as it did. Sure, a similar earthquake in New York City would kill millions of people, but in almost any other area of the world, whose population density was comparable to Haiti, it would not have been as bad.

A few years ago, Haiti suffered a similarly exaggerated catastrophe because of a hurricane, that caused more death there than it would have anywhere else.

And next time anything goes wrong, at this rate, it will cause a needlessly great level of death and suffering, unless something is done to fix the underlying problem.

Why, exactly, is Haiti so impoverished?

What situation has its major city full of large, but insanely dilapidated buildings?

That’s pretty simple…it’s something we’re moving toward in the US, although we have a long way to go:

This is the fate that awaits anyone trying to create wealth in Haiti


Socialism.

Haiti, some time back, was considerably more prosperous and stable.

Then Jean-Bertrand Aristide, self-described Marxist, overthrew its elected Parliament, slaughtered its businessmen, farmers, essentially anyone who brought prosperity to the region, and imposed a reign of socialist terror that made Cuba look like a capitalist Mecca.

It has continued to decline, despite a stream of foreign aid, ever since. Well, OK, foreign aid generally just causes more poverty, but the core problem here is the country’s Marxist government, creating the poverty that causes the aid to appear necessary.

What Haiti needs isn’t simply more handouts, but to end its own self-imposed third world economic situation, where creating prosperity and well-being is outlawed, and punishable by death.

Fine, Kill Your Baby, But Don’t Make Me Help


Uncle Sam Squandering Taxpayer DollarsThe proposed Health Care “Reform” law includes, apparently, the taxpayer funding of abortion somewhere in its thousands of pages. But many taxpayers believe abortion is murder.

Abortion may need to be legal, but this doesn’t mean that people who oppose it can be justly forced to pay for it.

The first amendment protects, in essence, our freedom of conscience. Certainly in regard to religious beliefs.

It’s ironic that abortionists like to say that abortion should be legal because of religious freedom; Some portion of those against abortion oppose it on religious grounds…

To the extent that religion is the motivation behind opposing abortion, the first amendment therefore bans government funding of abortion, because one should not be forced to violate their own religion.

Now I’m agnostic, and like Thomas Jefferson regarding slavery, I believe abortion cannot be banned, even though it’s the killing of a human baby…but despite those things, it is clear to me that forcing people who believe abortion is murder to fund that killing would be a holocaust-level evil.

An Evil Hate Crimes Law


Ron Karenga, klansmanIn what way is the new hate crimes legislation evil?

In what way is it not?

  • Hate crime laws violate the first amendment’s protection of freedom of expression and conscience. You have a right to hate someone, and to express that; you just aren’t allowed to murder them, regardless of the reason.
  • Hate crime laws belittle actual crimes. Instead of murder being the ultimate evil, murdering with politically incorrect intentions is treated as if it were somehow, magically, worse. In reality, murder is equally wrong and evil, no matter what your motivation. If anything, murdering people at random is surely worse for society as a whole.
  • What’s more, this law was passed through fraud. Enough Americans oppose such evil laws that corrupt politicians had failed to pass any, for the past decade…until they snuck it into a massive military spending bill, defrauding the American people, and illustrating why no Congresscritter should be allowed to vote for any bill they have not read, completely, themselves.

What the Liberals (Democrats and RiNOs) have proven, in passing this law, is that they are dishonest and corrupt, sneaking legislation through when they know America would oppose it, and that they despise American freedoms enough to do so even when the first amendment is at stake, and that they are sociopathic enough not to care that this undermines the basic morality against actual violent crimes.

Where the Hell Are Medical Savings Accounts?


chained caduceusThe actual problem with our failing health care system is that consumers have no control over it. Already, too much is paid for by middlemen like insurance companies and government. If Americans only paid 5% of their food bills, a cheeseburger would cost fifty bucks, too.

Why are people handing off control of their health care to middlemen? Because government imposes massive taxes on them, and then “rewards” them, with tax breaks, for paying needless insurance companies to cover their well-care, checkups, and minor problems while charging them triple what those will cost.

If you say “screw that, boss, I’ll take the cash instead of the health insurance”, you’re forced to pay taxes on the money, when the insurance was pre-tax.

The solution? (aside from cutting the massive tax burden)

Medical Savings Accounts.

Instead of giving the money to a middleman insurance company, you get to keep it yourself, to save for any medical needs. It is not taxed, and once you accumulate enough to cover any predictable needs, you roll the rest over into a retirement account each year. Meanwhile, you by a very cheap catastrophic insurance plan, that only covers unexpected, rare disasters like cancer and falling in a wood chipper. These can cost only a fraction of a harmful full-coverage plan.

This gives you control over your own health care, the ONLY way to cut costs. It also allows you to save for your retirement, freeing you from depending on the ridiculous, doomed social security system that will NOT be there when even Gen X retires.

Why do we not have this?

Ask your congressman.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 778 other followers

%d bloggers like this: