Thursday, January 31, 2013

Secession is Inevitable

I’ve long stopped referring to the American Civil War as a such and instead taken to calling it the American Secession War or Secession War for short.  History doesn’t have to written by the victors so long as there still is truth.  And the truth is, the Southern states, for whatever reason, had a right to secede from the United States.  The United States Constitution was a contract between the States and any contract can be walked away from by any party.

Now, I know that people’s knee-jerk, government-skooled reaction will be to accuse me of supporting slavery or racism or both.  I don’t care.  Arguments like charges of racism mean nothing to me as I have nothing to prove to you and if I have to join your little fascist club in order to prove you wrong, forget it.

The fact is, secession is just as much a legitimate option today as it was 150 years ago.  It’s just that 150 years the anti-Secessionists, or centralized fascists as they were, happened to win the war and forcibly keep the Southern states despite what the people wanted.  Funny how progressives think democracy is a great thing except when they disagree with the majority.  Of course, bringing up the Secession War with them will always expose their hypocrisy in their support for democracy.

Today, we are seeing the beginning of what will eventually lead to the break up of the United States as we know.  I am certain that by the end of the century, there will be no United States of America, at least not the one we see today.  This has nothing to do with the extensive empire our Imperial Federal government has established but the actual continental United States.

In California, for example, we see the Hispanic population quickly surpassing all other races.  It will not be long before they group together and declare much of southern California to be part of Mexico.  Already there are activists there who are stating their intentions to do so and it is only a matter of time before the radical becomes mainstream.  Hispanics tend to have a curious sense of racial loyalty.

So, if such a thing were to happen,  would they be considered to be racist for either forming their own nation or “reuniting” with Mexico by the progressive left and other anti-secessionists?

Right now, secession is not possible as too many states get too much money from the Federal government.  But already that money is starting to dry up.  I’ve heard that Federal education funding, for example, is starting to slow down, something that only a Democrat in power could accomplish without much trouble from his opponents (look up the principle of Counterpush).

Eventually, when the Federal government chooses the military and the elderly over the states, you will start to see more and more movements to secede from the Union.  But that’s all fine as the current Union is one of violence and is bankrupt both financially and morally.

Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Quote of the Day: Anarchists and Statists

“Anarchists did not try to carry out genocide against the Armenians in Turkey; they did not deliberately starve millions of Ukrainians; they did not create a system of death camps to kill Jews, gypsies, and Slavs in Europe; they did not fire-bomb scores of large German and Japanese cities and drop nuclear bombs on two of them; they did not carry out a ‘Great Leap Forward’ that killed scores of millions of Chinese; they did not attempt to kill everybody with any appreciable education in Cambodia; they did not launch one aggressive war after another; they did not implement trade sanctions that killed perhaps 500,000 Iraqi children. In debates between anarchists and statists, the burden of proof clearly should rest on those who place their trust in the state. Anarchy’s mayhem is wholly conjectural; the state’s mayhem is undeniably, factually horrendous.” ― Robert Higgs

Thursday, January 24, 2013

The Idiocy of Our Military Leadership

At the heels of the Defense Secretary Leon Panetta wanting to put women on the front lines, we get this little bit of bad news:

Just over ten percent of women in the military said in 2008 they'd had an unintended pregnancy in the last year - a figure significantly higher than rates in the general public, according to a new study.

The findings come amid news that the Pentagon will lift the ban on women in front-line combat jobs starting in 2016.

"It does definitely have implications for troop readiness, ability to deploy (and) troops in combat missions if they are potentially at high risk for unintended pregnancy and pregnant women can't be deployed," said Dr. Vinita Goyal, who has studied unintended pregnancy in female veterans at Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island.

Access to birth control can be a problem for troops deployed for long periods of time - and if women do become pregnant, abortion is legally restricted on U.S. military bases. Women who get pregnant while overseas must be evacuated.

Oh no!

Men and women like to have sex!  Who knew?!?

Seriously, this is why any military force cannot exist without segregated sexes.  And unfortunately, women are, by and large, physically weaker than men.  I’d rather have a big, strong, burly man dragging my (slowly shrinking) fat ass out of a burning building than some chick dragging me by my ankles.  Mouth to mouth, however, is a different story.

The front lines are a high-stress situation.  Even the strongest of wills can crack under enormous pressure.  Also, you tend to do things you would otherwise not do in those situations.  For example, during the Blitz bombings in England, many people hooked up while huddling in dark buildings thinking they wouldn’t make it.  I can only imagine how many children will be born on a battlefield now.

I always find it amusing that the powers that be seem to think that among all the mundanes (that’s you and me), men and women are equal in every way.  Yet, when their terrible and disastrous policies are implemented, they take zero responsibility for them, get promoted, and make more money doing the same thing again and again.

This is just a small example as to why the power elite fail to recognize the simple principle that each individual is unique and no one person, be they male or female, will be exactly like someone else.  Logically, this means that there is no such thing as equality of existence.  But for some reason, the power elite continue to misunderstand this simple concept and they end up getting egg on their faces again and again, surprised at the reality of human nature.

Unfortunately for us, when the leaders fail to understand human nature, we get massive dystopias like the Russians and their 70 year “experiment” in communism.  The dead bodies tend to pile up in those cases and with the United States becoming the model for the next Utopian vision, I fear the future of our people.

Poster’s Note: Been out for a week because my son was born last Thursday.  You can imagine the distractions that has caused.  I’ll write more about that later.

Quote of the Day: Guns

"If you are for gun control, then you're not against guns, because the guns will be needed to disarm people."- Stefan Molyneux

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

We Need Gun Control...for the Government

In Newtown, shooter Adam Lanza's weapons killed twenty kids, six teachers and his mom and shocked the nation. As Robert Dreyfuss recently pointed out here, American weapons have killed hundreds, probably thousands of kids in Afghanistan. In that one country alone, all sorts of people have US weapons. (The sales are good for the US economy, even if the weapons are used with some regularity against Americans.) Afghan soldiers carry US guns. So do some of the former Mujahadeen “freedom fighters” the Army’s up against. (The United States sold them guns when the freedom they were fighting for was from Soviet, rather than US occupation.)

US troops carry US guns too, of course. Last March, an army sergeant used his to methodically slaughter sixteen civilians, including at least nine kids in their homes in southern Afghanistan one Sunday morning.

And then there are those drones. Seven drone attacks in the last two weeks have killed an estimated forty people in Pakistan and Yemen so far this year and we're not even half way through January. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism reports that from June 2004 through mid-September 2012, drone strikes killed 474-881 civilians, including 176 children.

For all the droning on about violence, it would be good to hear someone drone on just a bit about drones.-How About Gun Control for the Pentagon?

Yes, it would be good, but "liberals" are lying hypocrites. If George Bush had Obama's record, they'd be screaming for his head, but where's the outrage about Obama's killing of innocents with drone strikes?

Sunday, January 20, 2013

Supporting Gun Control Laws Means Giving Government More Credit Than It Deserves

Supporting gun control laws means giving government more credit than it deserves. Government is an institution run and staffed by people with their own interests and personalities. Are they really any smarter, more competent, or less likely to escalate violence than the average person?
If anything, institutional interests and incentives combine with the difficulty of holding government actors accountable to make them more dangerous. The laws they enforce make them an even bigger threat to public safety. Government workers with assault weapons break into people’s homes if they are suspected of having unapproved medicine, haven’t paid off the banker, or happen to live at the wrong address. If those government workers feel threatened during their adrenaline rush they are liable to shoot the terrified residents and their pets — and get away with it. I wouldn’t feel any safer knowing that these were the only people who could legally buy 30-round magazines.
Dispersing the tools of personal defense among peaceable individuals and consensual communities makes life safer by reducing the power of (and indeed the perceived need for) militarized official protectors.
Of course, not everyone is average, and gun violence committed by private citizens is frightful. But the prevalence of violence often signals a power imbalance, usually government enforced.
Mass shootings often, but not always, take place in institutions of rigid hierarchy where an individual made powerless by the system sees aggressive violence as a means of empowerment through conquest. Such motivations can be limited through widespread personal empowerment based on respect for autonomy and the cultivation of responsibility rather than obedience.
True, not every mass shooting fits this pattern, and unfortunately it is doubtful that any society can entirely prevent murder. But it is possible to reduce the number of victims. The best way to do that is by reducing institutionalized dislocation and by encouraging people within the community to take responsibility for defense rather than calling on — and waiting for help from — government officials. Having powerful weapons with big magazines can help them accomplish this. After all, police departments point to active shooter scenarios to explain why they need the types of guns targeted by assault weapon bans.
Most deadly violence committed by private citizens occurs in areas suffering from institutionalized discrimination. Unofficial economic segregation leads to some areas getting the worst schools, the most hostile police forces, the lowest levels of investment, and the largest burden of environmental hazards. These are usually places where minority racial groups, targeted by the bigotry of the powerful, live. The Black Panthers recognized this; their gun-toting swagger was part of their community improvement and empowerment program.
Today government policy — carried out by the people gun control advocates trust with assault weapons — makes neighborhoods into drug war battlegrounds while local politics tries to isolate the problem into particular school districts. Youth are harassed and an obscene percentage of adults are imprisoned, stifling the potential for open and peaceful community development.
The original Black Panthers were not perfect, but remain instructive. They certainly got attention. Rebels at the bottom of every power imbalance can probably learn valuable lessons from their experience.
While we make society more compassionate — which cannot be done without cultivating respect for liberty and autonomy — we should respect the gun rights of all responsible individuals. It is amazing that an 18-year-old can vote and serve in the military, but cannot legally buy a handgun for personal defense, especially since it was once common for rural students to bring guns to school and leave them in the principal’s office so they could go hunting before or after school. If guns are viewed as familiar but dangerous instead of as mysterious sources of forbidden power, they will probably be handled more responsibly.
The alternative to moving toward freedom is making society more prison-like, with heavily armed paramilitaries standing guard while those considered “off” are subject to “mental health” inquisitions. The path to greater responsibility, accountability, and compassion is found in the pursuit of liberty.

 Center for a Stateless Society ( News Analyst Darian Worden is a left-libertarian writer and historian. He has hosted an internet radio show, written essays and fiction, and is the lead writer for Head First, a history adventure series. His website is

DRONE WARS 'The Kill List'..

Rand Paul: I'm Afraid President Obama Has A King Complex Developing

via Barracuda Brigade

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

Summing Up Anti-Gun Control Arguments

I’d like to take the time to sum up the arguments against gun control, as it is currently being pushed by the Federal and several local and state governments:

  1. Gun control doesn’t protect people from violent crime, it increases it.  Every region where gun control is high, there is a higher instance of gun violence and crime in general.  In regions where there are less restrictive gun laws, you’ll see lower instances of crime and gun violence.  Of course, crime has more factors than just the ownership of guns, so the arguments for and against gun control based on crime statistics are fallacious in that regard.  A regions cultural make-up and racial diversity plays a huge factor as well.
  2. Gun control is one of the first things that the greatest tyrants in history have done.  Indeed, Adolph Hitler, Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong, and so many others have reached for the guns of individuals when they have taken power.  This is because even if you have an army with the most advanced technology, it is no match for the sheer numbers of citizenry with standard rifles.  However, one must understand that when employing this reason, you are saying that you are willing to shoot police officers who are “just following orders.”
  3. Gun ownership is a subset of private property rights.  This is largely true and I think it is probably the best way for a libertarian to argue against gun control.  Forget the complexity of safety, law enforcement, and tyranny.  If you simply point out that it is a fundamental or natural right of the individual to not only own property, but to defend it as he or she sees fit, then you have an effective argument against gun control.  If your life is in danger and a gun can save your life, then a government taking that away from you is one that has no interest in your life, liberty, or property.
  4. Gun control would push guns into the underground black market, which allow the criminal element to primarily own guns, next to the police.  I am personally pro-black market as I believe that there should be no restrictions on what people buy, use, and sell, provided they do it without the intent of harming others either financially or physically.  The black market is, in essence, a true free market and it is unfortunate that more Americans don’t take advantage of this, besides just organized crime.  Besides that, the War on Guns will end up being more disastrous than the War on Drugs as drugs are for personal use where as guns are for external use.
  5. Guns don’t kill people, people do.  This is another effective argument as it highlights what most Utopian visions of society fail to see.  People are not all good.  All of us have evil impulses to destructive things, mostly to ourselves, but sometimes to others as well.  Banning guns won’t stop evil anymore than banning umbrellas will stop the rain.
  6. The government doesn’t like competition.  Indeed, citizens who solve their own problems and deal with their problems on their own is what the Statists fear the most.  If individuals can do things without the help of a parasitic government, the parasite withers away.  When individuals own guns, they provide their own security and demonstrate the uselessness of a large-scale police force and the need for a massive national security state, which has been very profitable for a few at the expense of many in the past several decades.

The fact is, most pro-gun control arguments are focused on emotion rather than reason and logic.  Even when they employ reason and logic, they distort it into irrational fallacies which do not prove their point and sometimes prove the opposite is analyzed correctly.

I am not saying that everyone should own a gun.  I think everyone should make a logical decision based on the economics of their situation, the severity of the criminal element in their neighborhood, and any other factors.  In most cases, you probably should own one and carry it with you.

The gun control debate will not be resolved easily as the current President seems Hell-bent on ignoring the will of the people.  There is also a highly regional and cultural difference in the use of guns in our country where New Yorkers don’t quite understand why Texans insist on keeping their guns.  Consider it just one more reason why the United States will probably cease to exist as a country in a few decades.

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Sometimes a Moocher Becomes a Producer

Good Interview. And kudos to Alex Jones as most other talk hosts would just make fun of her.

This is what happens when a moocher gets a job and realizes just how much the government screws over the people who decide to not suck off their collective teat.  When you point out the flaws in their god-kings, they will usually cling to their blind faith.  It is surprising and refreshing to see this woman turn around from it and reject the man for his lies.

It gives some sense of hope for the future because I want people to realize what sham our political process has become and how screwed over many of us are because of the actions of the elite.  Sometimes, you find a person who has the capacity to understand and look beyond their own prejudices.

I wish Michelle Dowery well.  I know that being a maid is not glamorous work, but there is dignity in a hard-earned paycheck, no matter how much the government takes away.

Monday, January 14, 2013

Anonymous -- Response To Obama's 2013 Gun Control Policy

Peter Schiff Interviews Marc Faber On What Will Happen in 2013

Do It Yourself Disaster Survival: Infographic

DIY Disaster Survival Infographic
Infographic Provided by EquipSupply

The Natural Right to Self-defense

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is an extension of the natural right to self-defense and a hallmark of personal sovereignty. It is specifically insulated from governmental interference by the Constitution and has historically been the linchpin of resistance to tyranny. And yet, the progressives in both political parties stand ready to use the coercive power of the government to interfere with the exercise of that right by law-abiding persons because of the gross abuse of that right by some crazies in our midst.-Judge Andrew P. Napolitano: Guns and Freedom

Radical Health Care Reform: An Anarchist Approach

Gary Chartier, professor at La Sierra University, discusses how to achieve radical health care reform through the lens of an anarchist analysis.

Big Boi On Being A Libertarian And His Feelings On Obama

Friday, January 11, 2013

New Nanny City’s Painkiller Problem

There is no greater figure for the nanny state in action than Mayor for life Michael Bloomberg of New York City.  Most members of Congress probably envy him for the initiatives he passes that fly in the face of freedom and common decency.  From banning sodas greater than 16 oz. at a Donut Day party because of its high sugar content (actually, most sodas have high fructose corn syrup these days) to his latest bitch slap, limiting pain medication for government-run emergency rooms.

Now, if it was about cutting costs, I could understand.  Government-run anything is inefficient and incurs much more costs than the private market does.  And let’s be honest, ever since the Federal government decided to outlaw all cheap, easy drugs except for tobacco and alcohol (which is heavily taxed), pain medication isn’t cheap.  But that is not why:

“The city hospitals we control, so … we’re going to do it and we’re urging all of the other hospitals to do it, voluntary guidelines. Somebody said, oh, somebody wrote, ‘Oh then maybe there won’t be enough painkillers for the poor who use the emergency rooms as their primary care doctor,’” the mayor said on his weekly radio show with John Gambling. “Number one, there’s no evidence of that. Number two, supposing it is really true, so you didn’t get enough painkillers and you did have to suffer a little bit. The other side of the coin is people are dying and there’s nothing perfect … There’s nothing that you can possibly do where somebody isn’t going to suffer, and it’s always the same group [claiming], ‘Everybody is heartless.’ Come on, this is a very big problem.”

I don’t know how rampant prescription pain medications are in New York.  I don’t know how big of a problem it really is.  But let’s be honest here: Mayor Bloomberg didn’t bother to cite any specific studies to back up his claim.  He just made a general statement and assumed that the dumb masses would buy it.  And I’m sure they are.

But let’s be clear here: this is what happens when you allow the government to provide services above and beyond what it really should be doing, which is at most next to nothing.  Mayor Bloomberg is nothing more than a central planner who is managing one of the largest, most diverse cities in the world.  And as much as I despise many of his policies, he has managed to get re-elected while allowing the city council to remove mayoral term limits.

In any case, except more cities and states to adopt this wonderful standard of making the poor and veterans suffer physical pain in government run healthcare facilities as they haven’t done so already.  Most politicians look to people like Bloomberg for inspiration.  It’s a monkey see, monkey do kind of a situation.

As for Mayor Bloomberg, I am almost certain he will get to enjoy all the pain killers he can get if, God forbid, he ever ends up in his own, elite private run hospital while enjoying a 20 oz. bottle of Coke or Pepsi and some donuts in the recovery room.  The rules don’t apply to people like him after all.

Thursday, January 10, 2013

Ted Nugent and Peter Schiff Talk Gun Control

Inflation Propaganda Exposed

The CPI is no longer a tool to accurately measure inflation, but an instrument of propaganda the government uses to hide accelerating inflation from the public and financial markets.-

Come Back, Radio Bloger!

We need you here at Skeptical Eye. If you'd like to come back as a contributor (I've given up on that ass Bret - he now wants to BAN ALL guns) then email me through the contact tab at the top of the blog. Thanks!

Wednesday, January 9, 2013

Stupidity Without Consequences

About a week ago I had an interesting conversation with my younger brother, who is currently attending college.  When I told him that a total free market involves no regulations or government oversight, he was appalled that such a thing could happen.  He worried about the “stupid people” who would be scammed by such a system.

I simply responded that stupid people need to face the consequences of their choices and not be sheltered from them by the government or any other institution.  I know this seems like a cruel and heartless line of thinking, but can you honestly say that you are helping people with inferior intelligence if they are unable to face the consequences of their own stupidity?

In the long run, with our massive welfare state where the poor and the ultra-rich seem to get money from the government while the rich and middle class (or the producers) are by and large left with the bill.  What happens is that those who receive welfare benefits stop behaving responsibly and instead are allowed to through caution to wind.

An great example in modern times are the banks here in the United States.  In a truly free-market system, fractional reserve banking would be considered fraud.  Instead we find that all banks have to engage in fractional reserve banking in order to prop up the Federal Reserve.  On top of that, we have agencies like the FDIC which shield banks from the consequences of their own actions.  If there is ever a bank run or a bank failure, the government will be there to either bail the bank or bail out the consumers.  In this zero-accountability system of banking, is it no wonder that they sold bad mortgages to consumers and investors?

With the poor, we see them spending their welfare money on things that are not considered basic essentials to living, such as food, rent payments, and gasoline, and are instead blowing their money of luxuries.  Of course, if we all voted to make such actions illegal, a Federal court judge would tell us we are violating their freedom of speech or privacy rights or whatever fallacious reasons that judges usually give.

To top that off, this country has made it much more beneficial to be poor by providing the poor with more access to disposable income than those who actually produce things and work hard and pay their own way.  The welfare system provides disincentives to be a productive American.

This is a dangerous state to live with parasites at the top and moochers at the bottom with those of us in the middle dwindling as we begin to see no point to having integrity or dignity.

What most economists fail to recognize is that human nature is directly affected by the coercive use of force with regard to removing the consequences of failure.  Failure is probably much more important than success in the market as it tells us what works and what doesn’t work.  When you distort it, you end up with a B-Ark economy running on nothing but the full force and cruelty of the State.

Tuesday, January 8, 2013

Meet Zbigniew Brzezinski, Conspiracy Theorist

You Have the Right to Remain Silent…On Facebook

There is a reason that our nation was founded on principles of limited government.  This is because State power always have dominant privileges over the common man by the sheer force that they can exert on individuals and businesses alone.  When left unchecked, such power means trumping all freedoms that man was meant to naturally enjoy.

In our modern world, this has become ever more crucial as the justice system seems to favor prosecutors over defense attorneys all the time:

U.S. courts have a structural bias against “guilty” verdicts, but when it comes to Facebook data the situation is reversed: Social media activity is more readily used to convict you in a court of law than to defend you.

That’s because prosecutors generally have an easier time than defense attorneys getting private information out of Facebook and other social networks, as highlighted in an ongoing Portland murder case. In that case, the defense attorney has evidence of a Facebook conversation in which a key witness reportedly tells a friend he was pressured by police into falsely incriminating the defendant.

Facebook rebuffed the defense attorney’s subpoena seeking access to the conversation, citing the federal Stored Communications Act, which protects the privacy of electronic communications like e-mail – but which carves out an exemption for law enforcement, thus assisting prosecutors. “It’s so one-sided … they cooperate 110 percent anytime someone in the government asks for information,” one Oregon attorney told the Portland Oregonian, citing a separate case in which Facebook withheld conversations that could have disproved a rape charge, but turned over the same conversations when the prosecution demanded them.

Other defense attorneys voice similar complaints, and the judge in the murder case went so far as to call Facebook “flippant” and “frustrating” in its handling of the defense’s subpoenas. Facebook, for its part, has said it is inundated with judicial requests and tries to handle them uniformly within the confines of the law.

The trouble, it would seem, is that the law itself is not so uniform. As more and more communication shifts onto social networks like Facebook, the pro-prosecution bias of the Stored Communications Act is going to look less like a peculiar legislative oversight and more like a frightening erosion of the right to a fair trial. And if Facebook and its competitors want people to share more freely online, they should use their lobbying resources to fix that particular law.

When the police tell you that you have a right to remain silent and that anything you say can be used against you in a court of law, what they mean is that the police can never, ever testify on your behalf, but only to convict to you.  This is why you do not talk to cops, on duty or otherwise, as the entire justice system has become heavily weighed in the favor of the State rather than the people.

And now, this applies to Facebook as well.  Apparently, the social media site crumbles whenever a prosecutor requests information relevant to his or her cases but when a defense attorney requests it, suddenly it’s an invasion of privacy.  I don’t blame the Facebook administrators for doing what they do; they are more than likely coerced by the full power of the State which backs up the prosecutor.  A defense attorney is simply an independent lawyer who has to play by the rules that the rest of the peons have to as well.

This is why there is a severe need for massive judicial reform at all levels.  Laws need to be repealed and the prosecutors need to be severely limited in what they can do when making a case against a defendant.  Unfortunately, due to the massive amount of cop dramas and courtroom dramas that have gained prominence in the past couple of decades, people have been brainwashed into thinking that the State’s cronies can do no wrong and that even if there are some bad apples, they are taken down like a regular criminal.

From what I’ve seen with the real world, that is not at all how it works.

Monday, January 7, 2013

The Moral Cowardice of Western Churches

I am often disgusted by the moral cowardice of the modern Western Church.  Most of the so-called leaders are nothing more than apologists for the State, thinking that legality and morality are one and the same.  In the latest outrage, I have just read about how the Southern Baptist Convention’s ethics entity and “other gambling foes” are targeting a new bill proposed by Senators Harry Reid and Jon Kyl which would legalize online poker.

Now, full disclosure, I am not a Baptist of any kind, I am a member of the Anglican Church and so I don’t know the inner workings of the Baptist denominations.  Hell, I can barely understand my own denomination’s inner workings.

As for the issue at hand, I am outraged by it, not because I support gambling (which I am indifferent about), but because this is clear cut case of moral cowardice.  I say moral cowardice because all across the country, various state governments have their own, state-run lottery, which is a gambling organization, while many of these same states have laws against gambling on the books.

This illustrates one of the reasons why the Christian Church as a whole has largely failed as an organization.  It has abandoned taking principled stands against injustice in favor of political pragmatism.  It is easy to oppose a law that has yet to be passed.  It is harder to oppose a law already on the books and to criticize a government for its own moral failings.

If an individual behaved as the state governments do when it comes to gambling, he or she would be in prison for racketeering and extortion.

My ultimate point here is that these groups should be consistent in their criticism of the laws passed by the government, instead of trying to rally their flock by taking faux stands against supposed immorality.

Public "Education"

People are not being educated they're being tested for levels of obedience. This is for the work force - the most important quality in a worker bee actually is obedience.-

Sunday, January 6, 2013

Poor and Stupid

When I went through Financial Peace University, a nice 13-lesson series on personal finance taught by Dave Ramsey, he talked about how if you do poor people things, you will be poor and that if you do rich people things, you will be rich.  To highlight his example, he talked about how you don’t see rich people lining up to get lottery tickets.  This is not because they already have lots of money, as most rich people are like the rest of us in that they are never satisfied with the wealth they have, but because they know they are better off investing their money and time in other things.

Seems a bit idealistic, right?  Well, the New York Post just published an article highlighting this simple truth:

Welfare recipients took out cash at bars, liquor stores, X-rated video shops, hookah parlors and even strip clubs — where they presumably spent their taxpayer money on lap dances rather than diapers, a Post investigation found.

A database of 200 million Electronic Benefit Transfer records from January 2011 to July 2012, obtained by The Post through a Freedom of Information request, showed welfare recipients using their EBT cards to make dozens of cash withdrawals at ATMs inside Hank’s Saloon in Brooklyn; the Blue Door Video porn shop in the East Village; The Anchor, a sleek SoHo lounge; the Patriot Saloon in TriBeCa; and Drinks Galore, a liquor distributor in The Bronx.

The state Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA), which oversees the “cash assistance program,” even lists some of these welfare-ready ATMs on its Web site.

One EBT machine is stationed inside Club Eleven, an infamous Hunts Point jiggle joint known as much for its violent history as its girls in pink thongs.

Cops have been cracking down on the Bronx club since 2009 and shut it down temporarily in 2010. In July, five men were stabbed and two others shot outside after bouncers broke up a 4 a.m. brawl with pepper spray. The club appeared to be shuttered when The Post visited Thursday.

It is high time that many Americans force our public officials to acknowledge that being poor is not necessarily a problem of a lack of income, but a lack of character and common sense.  Of course stupid people will take free money and spend it on sleaze.

Meanwhile, the producers of society, the hard-working Americans who pay the taxes, are stuck with seeing the idiots in DC argue about 9 billion is spending cuts and for some reason they can’t seem to find anything in the Federal budget to cut.

Saturday, January 5, 2013

More Stuff to be Depressed About This January

You know, January is probably one of the most depressing months in the country as a whole.  Everyone goes back to work and school after having a great time during the Holiday season.  It’s like a swift kick to the balls for most people when they show up for work the day after New Year’s and realize that the vacation time they just spent wasn’t reality.

And now the US Federal government has raised Social Security taxes on everyone who pays.  Which means there may be a higher rate of suicides this month as most people who are Gen-X or younger know this is money they will never see again.  Yesterday I got my first paycheck of the year and it was significantly less than what I was getting last year.

It would be one thing if they raised the income tax.  I know that money is already wasted and they aren’t even trying to say it goes to a good cause anymore.  But no, they had to go and raise the Social Security taxes, which they still maintain that people like will be able to collect when I turn 65.

And thanks to all of you assholes who voted for Republicans or Democrats this past election.  You’ve voted in real winners who are going to keep on doing this shit.  But hey, it’s okay because they know what they’re doing, right?

Hope you have a good new year.  With less money.

Well, Some Say It Drove Nero Mad...

Lead, the criminal element?

The biggest source of lead in the postwar era, it turns out, wasn't paint. It was leaded gasoline. And if you chart the rise and fall of atmospheric lead caused by the rise and fall of leaded gasoline consumption, you get a pretty simple upside-down U: Lead emissions from tailpipes rose steadily from the early '40s through the early '70s, nearly quadrupling over that period. Then, as unleaded gasoline began to replace leaded gasoline, emissions plummeted. Gasoline lead may explain as much as 90 percent of the rise and fall of violent crime over the past half century.

Intriguingly, violent crime rates followed the same upside-down U pattern. The only thing different was the time period: Crime rates rose dramatically in the '60s through the '80s, and then began dropping steadily starting in the early '90s. The two curves looked eerily identical, but were offset by about 20 years.

So Nevin dove in further, digging up detailed data on lead emissions and crime rates to see if the similarity of the curves was as good as it seemed. It turned out to be even better: In a 2000 paper (PDF) he concluded that if you add a lag time of 23 years, lead emissions from automobiles explain 90 percent of the variation in violent crime in America. Toddlers who ingested high levels of lead in the '40s and '50s really were more likely to become violent criminals in the '60s, '70s, and '80s.-America's Real Criminal Element: Lead

America - CheckpointLand

There are now numerous internal checkpoints within the borders of the "land of the free". A few brave individuals are willing to stand up for liberty and not act like sheep. I have my own stories to tell about these checkpoints, but rather than do that here, I'll write an entire post about it later.

Rand Paul, Fake Libertarian

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) angered many of his father’s supporters by voting for the 2013 NDAA. Doug Stafford, Paul’s chief of staff, stated that Sen. Paul believes that “the full panoply of due process rights should apply to all persons, not just American citizens.” Sen. Paul, however, still voted for the passage of the NDAA.

The NDAA has passed 51 years in a row. The 2013 version of the monolithic bill includes not just funding for the military operations of the country, but also harsher sanctions for Iran. The military will be purchasing Strykers, Chinooks, Black Hawks, and many other machines of war in 2013, all approved by Sen. Rand Paul.-Sen. Rand Paul voted yes for the $650 billion 2013 NDAA

Friday, January 4, 2013

Right to Bear Arms Means Shooting Cops

Whenever a law is passed, or a mandate issues, or an order given by a government official of some kind, you have to keep in mind that they are all to be followed on penalty of death.  I know that most people who break the law don’t ever get a death sentence, but that is what the ultimate penalty is for any crime committed or disobedience to government.

Think about this clearly: if you break a law and then resist being arrested, you will be subdued.  If you try to flee at any given moment, you will be subdued.  If you fight back, you will probably be tasered, beaten, or shot at, depending what kind of law enforcement officer you are dealing with.

I bring this up because there has been a lot of talk lately about the right to own guns, which is really a subset of property rights.  Most people on the right and within the libertarian wing of the political spectrum are largely arguing for gun rights because they wish to defend themselves against criminals and to tyrannical governments.  While the former is understandable, the later is something which most people lack the courage to use guns for.

This is because defying tyrannical governments will ultimately involve shooting police officers and possibly military soldiers, both of whom are the favorite of the right-wing.  Law enforcement officers, by and large, obey orders handed down from above.  When the chips are down, they will defend the people in power rather than the common man.

What this ultimately means is that gun owners wishing to defy the government have to be prepared to shoot police officers.  As all laws are backed by the full force of the government that decrees them and you are willing to fight back against them, then you have to be willing to use your guns against them in response to tyranny.

Now I’m not saying that the use of deadly force should be your first response to tyranny.  Obviously it hasn’t come to that yet.  But you need to be aware of the severe responsibility that comes with the second amendment and that is the taking of the lives of law enforcement officers.

Demand A Real Plan

Sick and tired of watching celebrities who protect themselves with armed guards, calling for the government to outlaw your guns?

Thursday, January 3, 2013

More Guns, Less Crime

Gun sales are up in California and, contrary to what politicians and the media say, gun deaths and injuries in the State are down sharply.-Gun Sales Up, Crime Down

Wednesday, January 2, 2013

The Problem is Always People, Not Systems

Louis Michael Seidman recently wrote a New York Times Opinion piece about we should give up on the Constitution.  I find it particular interesting to read, but fairly predictable.  I’m not really interested in dissecting his work piece by piece, but it occurs to me that there is a fundamental premise that Mr. Seidman (or Professor Seidman?) seems to miss.

Throughout the op-ed piece, he talks about how the system established by the Constitution is not working, yet he fails to recognize that human beings, especially those who aspire to be politicians, are prone to dominate.  While correctly pointing out that the history of our nation under the Constitution is one of people flaunting it for their own preferences or gain, he doesn’t seem to understand that it is because of man’s own desire for power is what drives men in power to override the will of the people they are supposed to represent.

The fact is, we must always be aware of the Libido Dominandi or “Lust to Dominate” that is inherent in all of us.  For many, it just happens to be a larger desire than most others.  In some cases, this manifests itself in a customer tormenting a barista at a Starbucks for not getting the temperature exactly at 140 degrees, even though the barista has science on her side due to having the thermometer.  But for a small percentage of us, there is a huge desire to either “fix” the rest of the dumb masses or to simply cash in the easy way by getting the dumb masses to vote for them.

This is the primary driving force behind many of the politicians you’ll meet today, even at the local levels.  They desire to fix us to meet their own tastes and desires or they simply are looking for an easy job.

While the Constitution does have some arguable flaws, if all the men who were elected to high office took their oath seriously, we wouldn’t see much of the large messes we are seeing today.  But men are not angels and so we always look for our own angles and advantages, especially when it comes to those in power.

There isn’t much that can be done to remedy this.  Changing human behavior is like changing the location of the moon.  It can be done, but it takes an enormous about time, energy, and resources.

Demand A Plan? Demand Celebrities Go F*ck Themselves

These self-serving whores of the 1% love guns and violence as long as they can line their pockets. Hey these hypocritical assholes "probably" voted for and support many kids has he killed with his toy drones and foreign policy? When you elect leaders that commit mass murder, don't be surprised when the citizens follow suit. These fucks can stand on their soapboxes all they want...just as long as they wrap an extension cord around their necks and jump. Fuck You: Jamie Foxx, Jason Bateman, Paul Rudd, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Beyonce Knowles, Amy Poehler, Jeremy Renner, Amanda Pete, Jon Hamm, Carla Gugino, Jessica Alba, Reese Witherspoon, Rashida Jones, Will Ferrell, Sarah Silverman, Aziz Ansari, John Legend, Olivia Munn, Kathryn Hahn, Julianne Moore, Busy Phillips, Jennifer Garner, John Slattery, Nick Offermann, Chris Rock, Cameron Diaz, Courtney Cox, Christina Applegate, Zooey Deschanel, Steve Carrell, Adam Scott, Ellen Degeneres, Mark Ruffalo, Kate Hudson, Peter Dinklage, Jennifer Aniston, Elizabeth Banks, Max Greenfeld,Gwyneth Paltrow, Conan Obrien, Aubrey Plaza, Debra Messing, Megan Mullaly, Jennifer Westfeldt, Selena Gomez, Michelle Williams, Chris Paul, Victor Cruz-

Tuesday, January 1, 2013

If anybody attacks Iran it will be full-fledged World War III

Is Feminism Poisoning Atheism?

Celebrating a Century of Tyranny

Happy New Year everyone!  I would’ve preferred to have celebrated the new year in Spring, but the majority (and the Catholic Church) has spoken, so I guess we have to celebrate it on the coldest season of the year, rather than a much warmer season.  This, combined with the passing of the Christmas season and vacations, will mark the days that follow as some of the most depressing days of the year.

But I have other reasons to depress you.  This year marks 100 years of the beginning of new tyrannies and the reign of the progressive movement.  Now, it could be argued that President Theodore Roosevelt was the first progressive president, and indeed he did start a policy of foreign intervention, government regulation, and majority rules, but this year marks four significant changes in United States policies that have largely destroyed this country.

First of all, the US House of Representatives was limited to 435 seats.  This meant that the Constitutional requirement of having 1 representative per 30,000 people was essentially invalidated.  Now, it has been argued that Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 was merely establishing the initial ratios of the House.  But that’s a stupid argument because I see no language in that section to indicate that this was the initial intention as it reads “The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative”.  So today, we should have 10,000+ members in the House that represents the majority.  Because it has been so diluted, your vote no longer counts as it is only one in about 700,000.

In conjunction with the first problem, we have the ratification of the 17th amendment.  This replaced the selection of Senators by their respective state legislatures to direct voting of Senators by the people of their states.  Unfortunately, this has a similar effect to the first problem in that the individual’s vote is diluted and the only people who are able to influence those representatives are those with lots of money.  Indeed, these days, if you were to approach any representative of either hallowed house of Congress, you’d better have either lots of money or a very influential group of moral busybodies with you.  And good luck getting enough people to follow you.  In short, this year marks the dilution of the individual vote in Congress and the rise of the elite, political class we all know and hate.

Another thing that happened was the ratification of the 16th amendment, which allowed Congress to tax the productive income of responsible, hard-working citizens.  While whole books have been written on how this was wrong, I’m going to dumb down the long-term effects of this: when it was first passed, it was assured to the people that it would only affect the rich.  These days, it affects roughly 50% of Americans and has helped create an elite group within the power structure who take liberties with the tax code in order to avoid paying taxes at the expense of the middle class and their descendants.

Finally, and probably the most insidious and nasty, was the passage of the Federal Reserve Act.  This, in effect, created a monopoly of the supply of currency in America just two decades or so after the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.  Again, books have been written on the effect of the Federal Reserve on the value of the dollar and its effects on the economy, but I’ll sum it up for the dumb masses: the Federal Reserve was officially created to prevent depressions and recession in the economy.  Two decades later, the country suffered the greatest economic depression to date, one that we only escaped by bombing Europe, Japan, and allowing our allies to be bombed into a temporary stone age.

I know I’ve discussed these things before, but I think it is high time we reflect on what the results of these events have been to our society and nation in the past century.  These were not insignificant events as they have all worked together to rob the people of their everyday rights.  Indeed, many of the current tyrannies committed by our ruling class against the common man can be traced to these four events.

So remember the anniversaries of these events and understand their effects on all of us.

Mommageddon: The End of Kim Kardashian?

Related Posts with Thumbnails