The Minority Report in America: why it is dangerous to have a different viewpoint than the one approved by the State.

Washington Post http://m.washingtonpost.com/national/group-representing-ex-marine-says-veteran-is-being-detained-for-anti-government-facebook-posts/2012/08/20/gJQAdNplAY_story.html

From the article:
"Police —acting under a state law that allows emergency, temporary psychiatric commitments upon the recommendation of a mental health professional —took Raub to the John Randolph Medical Center in Hopewell. He was not charged with any crime..."

"A judge ordered Raub detained for another month, Rutherford executive director John Whitehead said..."

"Dee Rybiski, an FBI spokeswoman in Richmond, said there was no Facebook snooping by her agency."

"'We received quite a few complaints about what were perceived as threatening posts,' she said. 'Given the circumstances with the things that have gone on in the country with some of these mass shootings, it would be horrible for law enforcement not to pay attention to complaints....'"

"Col. Theirry Depuis, the county police chief, said Raub was taken into custody upon the recommendation of mental health crisis intervention workers. He said the action was taken under the state’s emergency custody statute, which allows a magistrate to order the civil detention and psychiatric evaluation of a person who is considered potentially dangerous."

My perspective:

1. Some may say that he wasn't arrested, but that is of little consequence for this man was clearly seized.

2. The fact that he wasn't charged with a crime may be seen as a good thing by those who would see this as merely a common sense measure to keep people safe from 'unstable' or 'crazy' people. However, the fact that someone can be seized without a warrant and held for a month in a psych hospital without a single charge (and for merely posting opinions on a social media site), should frighten everyone. Apparently, we now live in the world of pre-crime where the state cab declare that you are a criminal for merely disagreeing with them.

Even if he said some outlandish things, he has done nothing to warrant a seizure nor a detention. Furthermore, to do so for admittedly no crime (no harm to another person or a persons property) is the most glaring disregard of one's natural right to their liberty and constitutional right to their free speech.

3. Using the fear of the violence of recent mass shootings to justify violence perpetrated by the state is not only logically incoherent, it is down right scary. If the terrorists hate us for our freedom and wish to take it away, then how can the solution be allowing a bunch of domestic terrorists in suits (aka the state) to strip us of those very freedoms?

Also, it is right that we should be mindful of what people say, and to "pay attention to complaints," but paying attention does not mean violating the very rights of people the government was instituted to protect. To observe his posts and possibly visit him in a friendly and truely inquisitive fashion would have been alright, but to lock him up (and likely pump him full of unnecessary and harmful psychotropic drugs) for a month because he is fearful of the growing government power and threat to individual rights (apparently, rightfully so) is not just ridiculous, it is downright soviet; it is tyranny.

Paul Ryan, seriously?...ahem, Obama seriously?

"But the Obama campaign recognized, correctly, that Ryan's positioning of himself as the point man on behalf of an austerity that would remake America as a dramatically weaker and more dysfunctional country makes him the most vulnerable of prominent Republicans.

Ryan scares people who live outside the "bubble" of a modern conservative movement that thinks the wealthiest country in the world is "broke" and that Ayn Rand is an literary and economic seer.

The House Budget Committee chairman imagines himself as a high priest speaking unfortunate truths about debts and deficits, the unforgiving foe of social spending who would gladly sacrifice Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid on the altar of debt reduction. Ryan has branded himself well within Republican circles, so well that he has parlayed himself into contention for the vice presidential nod. To get that nomination, however, Ryan must count on the prospect that the party that takes as its symbol the memory-rich elephant will suddenly suffer a spell of forgetfulness. That's because the Republican congressman from Wisconsin, for all his bluster, is anything but a consistent advocate for fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets. He is, in fact, a hypocrite,

Or, to be more precise, a hypocritical big spender - at least when Wall Street, the insurance industry and the military-industrial complex call.

Ryan has been a steady voter for unwise bailouts of big banks, unfunded mandates and unnecessary wars. Few members of Congress have run up such very big tabs while doing so little to figure out how to pay the piper. How has Ryan gotten away with his fool-most-of-the-people-most-of-the-time politics?"

-- excerpt from "Paul Ryan? Seriously?" By John Nichols, Common Dreams

My perspective:

This is a confounding analysis, for it ignores the moral ideal of the primacy of the individual, scoffs at the idea that we, yes the almighty U.S., are subject to the same laws of economics as the rest of the world (from the largest nations to the smallest of families, down to an individual's pocketbook), and ridicules the notion that we are heading down a government led fiscal path to the same dead end that Greece and the Eurozone are experiencing (the same to which all nations/political unions throughout history have ultimately succumb).

Make no mistake, I agree that Ryan is a hypocrite, but no less than any other politician, especially Obama/Biden. But what really irks me is that this stinging analysis is all used as a way to bash the republican candidates and in turn support Obama. Yet, Obama pushed for bailout after bailout. Encouraged monetary policies like QE 1, QE 2, and more. He threw money at sham business plans (I.e. Solyndra, G.M.), and now in his arrogance, thinking that those demonstrable failures worked so well, he is calling for bailing out all industries (at least the industries and companies within them that he likes or that throws money at his campaign). He kept us engaged in foreign wars (and gitmo open), and he got us involved in even more wars--unilaterally, with no concern for the consent of the people, or approval of congress. He is involving our service men and women in foreign conflicts for the sole purpose of political power grabs, and supporting the regimes he likes. He fights Al Qaeda in afganistan and supports them in Libya and now Syria. Ohh, and if Bush spying on Americans was so bad, I guess it's quite alright that Obama assassinated an American citizen...(sure he was a terrorist, but then again so are those who are "reverent of individual liberty," "anti-global," or "suspicious of centralized federal authority" to quote Obama's DHS).

From the article:
"The House Budget Committee chairman imagines himself as a high priest speaking unfortunate truths about debts and deficits..." And obama doesn't imagine himself as a high priest speaking unfortunate truths about the dangers of budget cuts and limited government?

I am not saying this means we should turn to Romney or Ryan as our savior. Actually, i am calling for quite another thing. I am saying that we must stop looking to fallen man to be our savior. The right wants corporate welfare and and their own brand of unadmitted soft socialism. The left wants a dependent class, and the state as the supreme being sovereign above all. Both sides of the isle are fascist in the textbook definition of the term.

if both sides are such obvious and demonstrable hypocrites, then why do we keep lining up on the battle lines that they have drawn, encouraging us to take their sides and support them at the expense of our honor and honesty? We are pushed into a world of false choices. We are given a binary set of options and it is in neither that the answers can be found. Why keep defending or supporting any of these power hungry narcissists?

It is pure folly to point out special interests in one side as if they don't exist in the other. This is why our system is so broken today, no one can take anyone seriously anymore. The 'debate' has devolved into schoolyard arguments devoid of logic or self-application of the principles we claim to espouse.

The only way forward is to recognize these inherent faults of any system built on power hungry men. Does Romney want power? sure he does. but can anyone honestly say that Obama doesn't love the power he has or hasn't used it for his own purposes or to aid his special interests? Just because we can point to some faults in Romney doesn't mean that we should hail Obama or praise him blindly. If we are honest seekers of truth, and truly people that desire justice, and individuals who want to be loved and live out love, then we must look for those same faults in every man. For it is not out of a label or a specific party platform that these faults arise; all faults find their source in the heart of man, and it is there we must look and do so indiscriminately.

**disclaimer** I am not a republican, democrat, or affiliated with any other political party. I am a free individual and a free thinker. I pursue truth and desire to live in peace with all regardless of their personal lifestyle. I believe that force/violence/coercion/aggression is evil when wielded by one person or a group of people (even if we call them our leaders,'representatives,' or the state). I put my faith not in man, But in God and his divine laws, yet i force no man to live as I believe I ought to live. I only ask that others respect my individual rights to life, liberty,and property, as I respect theirs. I believe that only through mutual consent may one be bound to and contract, scheme, or policy. And I believe as a moral truism that voluntarism is always superior to coercion.

If we all started truly respecting one another's rights and maintaining respect for one another's opinions, we could all get along much better than we do currently, and maybe then real progress could be made--instead of constantly meandering back and forth between the popular principles of the day.

That is all.

Female vs. Male chauvinism? Or simply human nature?

Janet Napolitano-run Homeland Security treated male staffers like lapdogs, federal discrimination lawsuit charges - Daily News http://m.nydailynews.com/1.1133207

It doesn't take a genius to see that women, when in places of authority, are just as apt to abuse their authority as men. To say otherwise would be sexist.

I don't see chauvinism as a distinctive male trait, but as a distinctive human trait. It is a defect flowing logically from the fallen and sinful nature of humans.

Just as racism can be and is committed by members of all races, bigotry and subjugation are able to be committed by all humans, both male and female.

What makes this phenomenon worse is the escalating boomerang effect inherent when forgiveness is scoffed at as weakness in favor of vindictive retaliation. Because women have been the victim of subjugation so many times, it is completely understandable that, given the opportunity, they would like to give men a taste of their own evil behavior. But as the old adage goes, two wrongs don't make a right, and an eye for an eye make the whole world blind.

Thus, let this isolated example be used not as ammunition in battle of the sexes, but as a point of enlightenment and reconciliation.

Men, understand your faults and own them. Don't attempt to justify treating women as less of a person than your golf buddies.

Women, don't fall into the trap of hypocrisy of pointing out a fault in others and using it as justification for your own practice of it. For, in doing so, you convict yourself of the same sin for which you now persecute others for practicing when it should be you most of all that understand how it feels to be on the receiving end.

Problem Solvers: A Better Way to Settle Disputes

Here is a link to a fantastic article discussing the benefits of the collaborative law process. Interestingly, it looks quite similar to the processes that brought about what we know today as the Common Law. Adversarial systems seem rather perverse as means to achieve the ends of order, justice, peace, and domestic tranquility, don't you think?

This paragraph from the article is a good summation of why this process is more effective at reaching the aforementioned ends:

"The collaborative process minimizes stress on the attorneys as well. Meetings in the process are scheduled between the parties and not subject to the court calendar. Attorneys are not required to browbeat their clients to agree to a settlement that a judge has recommended. The attorneys are not pitted against each other, and the resolution is not viewed as a win for one side and a loss for the other. Instead, the resolution addresses the issues important to each client in a manner acceptable to each. Each party also fully understands the responsibilities of the resolution and is more likely to adhere to and carry out future obligations. The parties are happier with the results and more satisfied with their lawyers, because they have reached an agreement in a process in which they participated."

Colonialism is alive and well in the Islamist ideology

"A message to the world, especially colonialist powers..." read a headline on the Drudge Report today. Unfortunately, the link was broken and so we are left to ponder exactly the context of this statement; however, for my purposes, it is of little importance. Regardless of the message that Iran and Islamists desire to spread, one major flaw lies within their propaganda: Islam IS and always has been colonialist. Although many Muslims would take offense at this, especially those in the middle-east and Asia, how is their goal of bringing about the rule of Shari'a across the entire globe (global caliphate) any different than the 'other' colonial pursuits?

In a more ironic observation, how is it that Islamists cry foul at colonialism at all when they were the first real colonialists? Although Western colonialism is more prevalent in the history books, it was the Islamists that pioneered the practice--i.e. Islamic conquests across the middle-east, Africa, and even southern Europe to name a few. Before the Crusades or Western Colonialism ever entered the history books, Muslims were already invading, overthrowing, and erecting their own socio-political structures. Sure, they allowed the people of the Book (Jews and Christians) to remain in the land and continue to practice their religions, but only by paying taxes to their Muslim rulers and becoming second class citizens (dhimmis).

All this quote represents is a rhetorical tool; a subversive discourse in true Focaultian fashion. Don't deny that the West practiced colonialism (and in some ways still does), but don't allow the past sins of one culture to validate and justify the practicing of the same sin in another. The answer is not to be found in some political system or organization, in west or in east. The answer is to disregard the desire to assert power over your fellow man and to live in peace with one another by desiring liberty for all.

Are these law makers high?

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/reason/HitandRun/~3/vjh7Zn4LJVw/reasontv-obamas-doj-cracks-down-on-medic

"'The law has been hijacked by profiteers who are motivated not by compassion, but by money,' said Melinda Haag, one of California's U.S. Attorneys, at a DOJ press conference on October 11, 2011."

This statement exposes the economic ignorance of those in the federal government. First off, how are business to function without making a profit? As John Mackey said profit to a business is like air to a human. One needs to breath in order to survive, but that is not the reason for one's existence.

Of course, the government folk will say that they are not against these people making a profit, just not obscene profits. So their solution is to put these 'profiteers' out of business so that neither compassion nor profit can be realized. And in the absence of these legal entities, illegal enterprises will spring up to supply the demand for this want (and in the legitimate cases, a need). These illegal enterprises are also known as drug dealers. You know, those people that care only about profit and obscene ones at that.

We can keep trying to repress the individual while wasting our wealth on enforcement programs than have never worked while they curtail our liberties or we can allow this industry to exist in society. It will exist regardless, might as well have it exist in the way that makes money and doesn't kill people or destroy their futures in the process.

Saying drugs ruin people's lives is nothing more than a guess--one who've assumes that ex-users can't turn their lives around. But when we have the policies we do now it is a self fulfilling prophecy.

Did Somebody Say Monopoly? (Part Deux)

"The Federal Communications Commission is scheduled to vote Thursday to begin taking public comments on three different paths for regulating broadband. That includes a proposal by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, a Democrat, to define broadband access as a telecommunications service subject to 'common carrier' obligations to treat all traffic equally.

Genachowski's proposal is a response to a federal appeals court ruling that has cast doubt on the agency's authority over broadband under its existing regulatory framework.

The plan has the backing of many big Internet companies, which say it would ensure the FCC can prevent phone and cable companies from using their control over broadband connections to determine what subscribers can do online.

"There is a real urgency to this because right now there are no rules of the road to protect consumers from even the most egregious discriminatory behavior by telephone and cable companies," said Markham Erickson, executive director of the Open Internet Coalition. The group's members include Google Inc., eBay Inc., Amazon.com Inc. and online calling service Skype Ltd."

From MyWay news. entire article here.

My Perspective:

Aside from the fact that we shouldn't even have an FCC, let alone one with any control over content, It is crazy to think that a governing body designed to manage limited resources (Radio Bandwidth) should be allowed to extend their power over the only resource on Earth that will never suffer from the problem of scarcity: The Internet.

The internet is quiet honestly the best invention for the common man. It is an infinitely expansive entity that can be accessed and added to by all. The government claims that they worry about service providers controlling what content people can and cannot access, and of course, they use the buzz word of discrimination.

This is obviously a massive case of projection and a red herring, for it is only government that can completely cut off access to content. If a service provider chooses to block certain content (i.e. a christian based web service that does not allow pornography or access to homosexual sites) then a person has the ability to go elsewhere until he/she is satisfied with the service. On the other hand, when the government has the power to control content, only what the government deems appropriate will be allowed. Under this scenario, anyone who seeks content that is not government approved will find him/herself on a wild goose chase at best and/or under indictment at worst.

In a truly free market, any service that is desired and not yet provided for is a de facto opportunity to create a new service and wealth. ISP's will be directed by market forces to provide that which is desired, or else they will risk loosing customers to a competitor and thus lose profit, which could ultimately drive them out of business.

This leads to another interesting observation. "The plan has the backing of many big Internet companies...[through the] Open Internet Coalition. The group's members include Google Inc., eBay Inc., Amazon.com Inc. and online calling service Skype Ltd."

Isn't it odd that in a world of greedy corporations who hate onerous regulations we find some of the biggest names in the game coming out to support more government power.

This is classic cronyism. Obviously these companies are already established and have a huge customer base. Obviously they provide a good service devoid of the problems they claim to be concerned about (problems that don't actually exist in reality, only in the minds of government bureaucrats). Yet they claim that we need this government protection. My question is, "from who?"

If these companies believe in the new government power to keep content open and neutral, then why wouldn't they do it themselves? the answer is, they will. And if "We the People" are truly outraged over content control by our ISP then wouldn't this drive us to switch providers, thus bettering the bottom line of the companies in the Open Internet Coalition? Yes, it would. But they aren't concerned about their own behavior, and they are certainly not concerned about taking business from sub-par companies. What they are really concerned about is possible new upstarts and increased competition, and they see this new government power as a way to stymie competition.

these Big Businesses are already working hand in hand with the Gov. to get this new power passed into law. If they can do that then it is entirely conceivable that they can and will use their lobbying power to make rules that protect their interests at the expense of you the consumer and free-person. (Don't believe me, check out what happened during the New Deal and how large established businesses used the NRA - National Recovery Act - to prop themselves up while using the rules, which they created, to keep their smaller competitors down).

These Big Businesses are using the government to protect their corner on the internet market. With increased regulation, it will be harder for new and small companies to compete against the established Big companies. "Did somebody say Monopoly?"

Snapshot Fallacy

The desire for governmental fixes to our short term problems are always based on a common human mistake: The snapshot fallacy. In a picture you are given an infinitesimally small time frame with static information from which to draw all of your conclusions. This is another example of the knowledge problem. We look at the now and try to solve it as quickly as it happened. But that is in effect trying to pay for a 1 trillion dollar debt in one day. The debt accrued over a long time, yet it went undetected. Now that we can see the aggregate result and or consequences of our previous decisions over time we finally realize the folly of our ways, yet in cases where we borrow again against the future we are simply perpetuating the problem. Only long term solutions work for long term problems. However human ingenuity can create solutions that maximize the speed with which we can fix our previous woes, but if the solution is not based upon reality, then we again will cause even newer and by their very nature, more complex and thus more difficult problems to spot and fix (law of compounding action: All actions are based off of the altered perceived reality created by their results)

To combat this phenomenon we must first be honest with ourselves and accept things that are true even though we don't like them. Then we must seek the Truth out honestly. This will give us the knowledge to to fix problems, but then we must do the hardest part, and that is abide by these laws. If we do not follow them, then all our fixes will be flawed, and produce worse results.

Free Markets require Free Men

Obama and his sidekicks keep deriding the free market. They tell us that the free market is a joke and that it has failed. They demonize the free market as an instrument of evil intent, but what is the free market? It is just what it says, a market of free people. It is the ability for us to live and conduct commerce freely. When they talk about corporate greed and 'market abuses,' they are actually pointing to problems they [government] have created and then calling it the free market. It is nothing of the sort. This is just a massive projection of tyranny on liberty.

George Orwell wrote of a day when the government would engage in flagrant acts of double-speak, and we all thought we'd be too smart for that. However, the subtleties the progressives used slipped by with little detection until now. The government, when it trashes the free market, is in fact demonizing the American people for we are the creators of and actors in the market, and it is only through our personal liberties that the market works, and yet our liberties rely on the market remaining free. It is similar to a symbiotic relationship with one major difference. A symbiotic relationship is between two different entities, however the free market is impossible to separate from us. We are the 'Free' in Free Market, and without our freedom, neither the market, nor the "individual" can survive.

A Clinton on Welfare?

"Former President Clinton's niece, Macy Clinton, said she is in such a rut, she uses a government benefit card to get food from her local grocery store. She blames her financial trouble on former President Clinton's brother, Roger, who she says abandoned her."

"It's hard, because I'm a Clinton, too, but I have to be on food stamps, and I have to sacrifice everything just to make it day by day,"

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/blogs/yeas-and-nays/Say-what__-Clinton_s-niece-living-on-food-stamps-92266554.html#ixzz0mPTSAHSZ

My Perspective:

So the Clintons, who were all about helping others, want us to foot the bill for their own family problems...This is ridiculous and is a perfect example of the "do as I say, not as I do" political crowd. Welfare gets votes, plain and simple. If these people really cared about the poor they would be doing more than passing laws to make other people take care of it (foot the bill).

Also, I find it hard to believe that a Clinton could not find a good enough job to put food on the table. There are plenty of people who support themselves on meager jobs, they just have to live a meager lifestyle. She is taking the easy way out, and there is no question about that.

Lastly, she blames her situation on her father. Well, being too poor to be able to afford food should have been a sufficient motivator for her to either make amends or request help from her Uber-rich uncle Billy. Unfortunately, she instead turned to welfare which only eased her current situation. She still has all the problems that got her to where she is at.

Of course, she could have asked for help from the family. I don't know all the things she tried. However, if she did approach Uncle Billy or Aunt Hillary, she was obviously turned away (and probably told to just go on welfare). And we wonder why the family unit is in shambles in America.

Throwing money at a person or problem rarely fixes it, especially when the real issue is not a lack of money, but a lack of responsibility (on all sides).

A Mentality not Based in Reality

"It's just going to be like Christmas," said DeCarlo Flythe, who lost health coverage for his family when he was laid off almost three years ago. "It's going to be great. You know, no worries (about) the bills. We are going to go ahead and pay our co-pay and be alright."

Flythe, a diabetic, said he checked into buying a policy for his family, but he couldn't afford it. He recently landed another job, but the new benefits haven't kicked in yet.

Flythe was among the patients Monday at the Walltown Clinic, a joint program of Duke University and Lincoln Community Health Center that serves the low-income neighborhoods near Duke's campus. The clinic serves 3,000 to 4,000 patients a year – 80 percent don't have health insurance – and charges co-pays based on what patients can afford.

"People will come in and say, 'I suddenly don't have a job. I've lost my insurance. Can you help me?'" said Kaity Granda, a physician's assistant at the clinic.

Norman Rucker said he hasn't had health insurance in almost 10 years because his employers haven't offered it.

"I'm not a person who gets sick a lot, so I didn't think I'd need any medicine," said Rucker, who racked up about $100,000 in hospital bills over that period by going to the emergency room whenever he needed care. "I'm trying to pay them off. Collection agencies call me all the time." ~WRAL.com Link here.

My Perspective:

So if he doesn't have to worry about his bills, why can't I stop caring about mine? This seems to be an inequality of non-responsibility. Shouldn't we all have an equal right to be equally irresponsible without being unfairly penalized by the consequences just because of our class: economic or social, or any other trait. If anything, this mentality rewards those who are a drain on the system while hurting those who prop the system up by their own hard work and personal sacrifices.

As sad as it is for people like Flythe, It is neither moral nor practical for his personal debts, decisions, and unfortunate circumstances to be paid by someone else who is of no fault. I'm sorry, but he was laid off 3 years ago and couldn't find a job? I can get a job at McDonald's and get benefits almost immediately. An acquaintance of mine just started working full time in a kitchen wash room to support himself and he gets medical coverage for as little as $18 a month.

Of course, not everyone can find these jobs, but have they really looked? Have they made the hard choices such as moving to a new area or city where the economy is flourishing. Or have they even spent their "time off" doing anything productive? That time could have been used to learn new skills and become more marketable, but instead many use those extended times of unemployment as a paid vacation, and paid by who? You.

This story puts the lie to all the stories that we have heard over the last year and a half. There are free clinics everywhere where people who don't have insurance can get the care they need to survive. However, it is up to them to provide for themselves if they want more. We are all in the same position, we all must obey the law of Nature: which is the laws of human nature, economics, physics, biology, etc. -- or better yet: Reality.

As much as we would like to legislate a utopia, it is not possible to accomplish that which violates these laws. A piece of paper with words on it, however noble they may be, can not stand up to nor overpower the laws that govern the universe.

"Norman Rucker said he hasn't had health insurance in almost 10 years because his employers haven't offered it. "I'm not a person who gets sick a lot, so I didn't think I'd need any medicine," said Rucker, who racked up about $100,000 in hospital bills over that period by going to the emergency room whenever he needed care. "I'm trying to pay them off. Collection agencies call me all the time."

So just because someone didn't extend it to him on a silver platter, Rucker "couldn't" get care. He could have changed jobs, picked up personal insurance, or moved to another state that was more friendly to his situation (after all that is what the states are for, options, opportunity, and competition).

Rucker made a simple value judgement, the implications of which are severe and far reaching. Not only did Rucker value the status quo of every other part of his life above the cost of improving the status of his healthcare, He thought he didn't need insurance because he rarely got sick. In the second case he may have made a good judgement because he may not have wanted or needed the "state dictated minimum coverage," but he clearly misjudged the importance of his health in relation to the importance of all his other desires. If Rucker would have either paid for a catastrophic plan, or budgeted his money to provide for those times when he would get sick or injured--because we all do, and it is fool hardy to believe otherwise--he would most likely not be in this position. Also, I find it hard to believe that this man rarely got sick, yet ended up with a $100,000 bill. If that is true, then he was simply foolish in the method he chose to solve his problem. It would be akin to a person using single dollars as toilet paper instead of using much less of that same money to buy a product that did the job better and for a more reasonable cost. In any case, his original problem of relying on employer based coverage was a problem caused by the state, but I cover that issue elsewhere: Insurance: Hedging yourself; The Fallacy of the Single Payer System.

Although unfortunate, Rucker's situation could have been foreseen, but he made his decisions and now must live by them. This may seem a harsh reality, and that is exactly what it is. I have no problem with private individuals helping him out, and they should--and history has proven that they will without the safety net of government discouraging private charity. but to have me by threat of force from the government pay for his mistakes and poor value judgments is not the remedy, it only masks the symptoms of the disease. The symptoms being the unfortunate circumstances he is experiencing right now. If we [government] can quell his discomfort of the symptoms by getting the collective to pay his price, then he is only being delivered to his own sickness, and in doing so, is spreading it further. This is the ultimate end of statism and the errant belief that men can become gods in which they attempt to manipulate the laws of the universe for their own liking and personal gain. It is a fantasy and it is being perpetuated by those whom we have put our trust in to lead us. How dare they! Yet, if we are aware of this and do nothing then I think it more appropriate to say: How dare us.

When Reality Doesn't Matter...

MADDOW: Should we not expect the public option anytime soon?

BROWN: No. Just—Rachel, you know history. I‘ve seen your show enough to know that you understand sort of how progressive—the progressive movements worked. When we passed, what, Social Security was passed in the ‘30s. It wasn‘t all that great at the time. When Medicare was passed, it was good, but not great.

… That‘s what happens here. This—you can bet that a lot of us are going to introduce a public option bill.

As soon the president signs this, we‘ll start working towards it. It may take a year. It may take five years. There are a lot of things we‘re going to do to continue to improve this system. We obviously don‘t give up on it. We don‘t get everything we want. But we work—we look how this bill works, we look how this new law works, and we continue to try to improve it.

Link here

My Perspective:

I love how liberals are so ready to champion a cause simply because it creates a "better world"--even if it only does so in their minds. Rachel Maddow has such an arrogance of character that she can't even see the evidence directly in front of her. Sen. Brown not only admits that a public option is in the future (which I'm sure Ms. Maddow was thrilled to hear), but he also gives two prime reasons why he and others should not be voting on any "progressive" healthcare bill.

"Social Security was passed in the ‘30s. It wasn‘t all that great at the time." How is this supposed to encourage Americans. Sure, in the 30's Americans were given a gift from the Federal government. With the creation of Social Security some Americans were granted government aid, but as time passed, and government required more power and money to fund itself, Social Security turned into a government backed retirement plan. Where in the Constitution is the government authorized to guarantee anyone's retirement, let alone finance it with other people's money?

Social Security's progressive journey is an argument against this healthcare bill, not for it. Just look at the end of Brown's statement..."It wasn't all that great at the time." Hell, I don't know if Brown has noticed, but Social Security ain't all that great now either. Not only is it a mandatory program that taxes you over 15%, in addition to your income and other taxes, but it has been run into the ground. If the same scheme as Social Security was perpetrated by a private company, they would be sued out of existence (oh wait...Bernie Madoff anyone?)

Only in the mind of a progressive, where the idea of a perfect world trumps the realities of the one we live in, could this "case in point" be used in a positive manner. Most people look at Social Security and ask, "so we want government to be in charge of our healthcare too?" Yet Sen. Brown and Ms. Maddow think that all the progressive Social Security promises make the program great--even if the promises can't be kept. This is a mentality that relies on dreams, happy thoughts, and is unable or unwilling to look at the facts. A world with no death or poverty would be nice, but it is not a reality, and you can tax the wealthy 1000% but it won't change the reality. It won't fix the problem. It will only be an added burden on those trying everyday to make life better for their fellow man.

Also, I have a problem with the progressive promises of Social Security even being viewed as "great," for they are antithetical to the ideas that founded this country. Maddow and Brown think that Social Security is fundamentally a good idea, where as I, and other freedom loving individuals, find Social Security to be fundamentally and morally flawed. Any "right" that the government grants you, which imposes on another's rights, is not a right, but a selfish want. If healthcare is so important to everyone, then why do they spend their money on clothes, entertainment, or cigarettes instead? The fundamental question being asked here should not be, "doesn't everyone deserve healthcare," but instead "shouldn't something as important as healthcare (apparently it is important, since they want to spend over $1 Trillion on "fixing" the "problem") be worth your hard work, and wise discretion?"

"...Medicare was passed, it was good, but not great." So is medicare great yet? I thought it was going broke, just like all those other government programs and services...To even use medicare and Social Security as evidence to support the Progressive Healthcare bill makes me wonder about Brown's, and Maddow's intellectual abilities. There is no way one can look at those two programs and think anything other than..."well they had good intentions, but boy did they mess that up." (and that's giving them the benefit of the doubt that they were working out of good intentions).

Just looking at these two examples, how could anyone want more of the same? These two programs alone are making America go broke; not the government--because they can always tax us more--but the country. We can't afford to pay off all of the unfunded liabilities now--these are the promises that the government made of which they had no right, legal or otherwise, to make. So how can we be expected to pay off those debts while adding this new, insanely expensive, healthcare bill? all while our economy is in shambles, and it will remain that way until we get leaders who embrace free markets and limited government again. We don't need more government to fix this healthcare problem, because the problem is the government.

I'm sick and tired of people hearing of a noble pursuit and thinking that as long as it is the goal, the means don't matter. We need solutions based in reality. We need free market solutions, but free market solutions mean that people must be free for them to work. The left/progressives would rather see us living obliviously in their dream world of to-good-to-be-true promises that solve nothing--while at the same time creating new problems at every turn--than see us living in unfettered freedom because that would make the progressives, and their "solutions" obsolete. Another case of creative destruction leading to a better life for all.

Evil Corporations Require Big Government

"Market entrepreneurs like Rockefeller, Vanderbilt and Hill built businesses on product and price. Hill was the railroad magnate who finished his transcontinental line without a public land grant. Rockefeller took on and beat the world's dominant oil power at the time, Russia. Rockefeller innovated his way to energy primacy for the U.S.

Political entrepreneurs, by contrast, made money back then by gaming the political system. Steamship builder Robert Fulton acquired a 30-year monopoly on Hudson River steamship traffic from, no surprise, the New York legislature. Cornelius Vanderbilt, with the slogan "New Jersey must be free," broke Fulton's government-granted monopoly.

If the Obama model takes hold, we will enter the Golden Age of the Political Entrepreneur. The green jobs industry that sits at the center of the Obama master plan for the American future depends on public subsidies for wind and solar technologies plus taxes on carbon to suppress it as a competitor. Politically connected entrepreneurs will spend their energies running a mad labyrinth of bureaucracies, congressional committees and Beltway door openers. Our best market entrepreneurs, instead of exhausting themselves on their new ideas, will run to ground gaming Barack Obama's ideas.

If the goal is job growth, we need to admit one fact: Political entrepreneurs create fewer jobs than do market entrepreneurs. We need new mass markets, really big markets of the sort Ford, Rockefeller and Carnegie created. Great employment markets are discoverable only by people who create opportunities or see them in the cracks of what already exists—a Federal Express or Wal-Mart. Either you believe that the philosopher kings of the Obama administration can figure out this sort of thing, or you don't. I don't." - Daniel Henninger of the WSJ

Entire Article Here

My Perspective:

What the left commonly calls big business and "Evil corporations" who seem to be able to manipulate Adam Smith's invisible hand--at your expense of course--can't exist without the authoritarian hand of government. Big government breeds bad business. Businesses operating in a truly free market are not the problem. Government, who distorts the market to obtain a desired political outcome, is.

The Real Cost of Government Intervention

"One of the biggest reasons for higher medical costs is that somebody else is paying those costs, whether an insurance company or the government (see chart above). What is the politicians' answer? To have more costs paid by insurance companies and the government." ~ Thomas Sowell

From: Carpe Diem (entire article)

My Perspective:

This is exactly what I have said in the past, yet Dr. Sowell says it so much better, as always.

Bipartisanship...What's That?

"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Sunday that Republicans have left their mark on the healthcare bill and should accept that the bill will go forward.

"They've had plenty of opportunity to make their voices heard," she said on CNN's "State of the Union" Sunday morning. "Bipartisanship is a two-way street. A bill can be bipartisan without bipartisan votes. Republicans have left their imprint."

Read the whole article here

My Perspective:

WHAT?!? Bipartisanship can only exist if the people's representatives from both parties come together to vote for, or against something. Just because the Democrats allowed the Republicans to supposedly have some input on the bill doesn't mean that the bill is bipartisan, especially if those same Republicans vote against the bill. I would like to see how Pelosi would react if this same statement came out of a Republican's mouth.

The only true bipartisanship happening in Washington right now is the push back against the healthcare bill. Both Dems and Republicans are agreeing on saying "NO" to this bill while Pelosi and the like can't even garner enough support from their own party. The Dems had a super majority until Scott Brown was elected, and they could have pushed this through at any time regardless of Republican opposition.

Oh, and about bipartisanship being a two-way street...

Pelosi and her ilk have ignored the will of the people and are trying to force this bill through because they can't get support from either Republicans or many Democrats. That is anything but bipartisan. I love how politicians think we are stupid enough to believe this line of bull. I think they truly believe that us normal dumby dumb dumb citizens need them and their genius. They believe that we can't figure out anything without a powerful centralized government to do it for us...yeah those guys that can't run their own cafeteria (which is done by many of those dumb citizens everyday as their living); those guys who can't run the postal service without a huge deficit; those genius politicians that can't keep their monopoly on schools without keeping school choice off limits...yeah I think they can make my decisions for me better than I would have. Hell they can probably make everyone's decisions for them. I mean, they are so much smarter than us. That is why this healthcare bill isn't passing, it is because we just don't understand. I sure hope Obama will have another 7 hour healthcare summit so I can finally become a smart intellectual like him and his friends...

Quote of the Day

"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"Fear the Boom and Bust"

From econstories.tv

The Power of Truth and Knowledge.

My Perspective:

It is good to hear that there are those on the other side of the pond who are trying to maintain our liberties.

Global Warming is the biggest sham ever pushed on the American people and the world, especially the

third-world. These "environmentalists" want to keep us from using our resources and technology, and they

cause more harm then good with their "well intentioned policies."

What these people don't understand is that even though our resources may be finite, there is no limit to

human innovation. We can, and we will figure out a way to provide and do it at a fair market price. Every

decade or so, some alarmist theorizes about some environmental calamity. In the 70's it was global cooling,

then the population bomb, and of course the land-fill issue, endangered species, etc. The point is, these

"scientists" don't realize that as situations change, so too do people and industry. If there is a need for

energy and thus a demand, then there will be a supply, and there are huge incentives for people to discover

new methods.

The population bomb was supposed to have us all eating each other before the new millennium. If you

haven't noticed, that didn't happen. Why? well mainly because the man who predicted it didn't take into

account a very important variable. Human ingenuity. Yes, the world population is increasing, but because of

advancements in farming technology we have more than enough food, and at a very low price. Sure, hired

hands at farms probably took a beating, but they found new work (and probably better, more likable work)

and food production was increased while prices were lowered. So even though the population soared, we

could keep up, and the same is true with other resources like oil, electricity, metals, and others. New

advancements in technology are changing the world everyday, and once nano tech gets up and running,

the world will get that much bigger all over again.

Don't believe the obvious lies of a select few scientists, bureaucrats, and ex-politicians. Climate change is

just another vehicle of government to gain power. Remember, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste."

~ White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel.

The Beauty of Market solutions

From Carpe Diem

"In 1967, the American alligator was listed as an endangered species (under a law that preceded the Endangered Species Act of 1973), meaning it was considered in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

However, the creation of large, commercial alligator farms contributed significantly to saving alligators in the U.S.. Alligator farming is a big and growing industry in Georgia, Florida, Texas and Louisiana, and these states produce a combined annual total of some 45,000 alligator hides.

Florida has 2 million wild alligators. In fact, there are so many wild alligators in Florida that state officials have lifted the ban on alligator hunting, and they now have an 11-week hunting season each year"

"Bottom Line: Private property rights, commercial farming, and the commercial sale of alligator meat and hides was largely responsible for the full recovery of the American alligator and helped save it from extinction. The same approach could help save tigers (see recent CD post), elephants and rhinos, or any other endangered species."

Is Olbermann ever right?

Get the truth here: Republicans and Civil Rights

"In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes.

[See http://www.congresslink.org/civil/essay.html and http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1982/3/82.03.04.x.html.]"

My Perspective:

Olbermann is trying to make this about race so he can have an explination as to why Obamacare failed. It couldn't be because we are smart enough to elect someone on ideas. No, we are only simple minded country folk who are all racist white people who only care about race. If that isn't sterotyping (aka racism) then I don't know what is.

Even though Olbermann is wrong, it doesn't matter. The past votes of a party don't matter as much as the current ones do. If my principles dictate liberty, then I must be against this healthcare bill, along with many other government "fixes." And If Olbermann thinks that wanting to maintain liberty means that I am a racist then he must be so consumed by race that it is always on his mind. It seems to be that way for many democrats and progressives. So many seemed to question Obama's blackness. Reid and other key figures were caught discussing his qualities of being light skinned and negro dialect-free. Those are the people who keep telling us that we always make it about race, but we don't. Those who favor liberty, true freedom for all mankind, don't think about the messenger, they think about the message.

It is not men but ideas that this country looks to, and if an idea is a bad, regardless of the man who has it, then we will say so. We don't care if it appears racist, because we can defend our position from every angle of attack. The progressives and liberals use race as their trump card, their last line of defense, or their first strike weapon. When they can't win the debate on the issues, then they try to deflect to another issue that has strong emotional ties, and is easily used to smear the other side (even though, as you can read in the link above, the republicans have always been the party for blacks).