Our rights do not originate with government, but they are to be "secured" by government.
Formerly: Libertarian Party of Citrus county

Monday, May 31, 2010

Do Powerful Politicians Cause Corporate Downsizing?

If federal spending stimulated the economy, Why Detroit isn't prosperous?

Professors Lauren Cohen, Joshua Coval and Christopher Malloy, of Harvard Business School, have completed a study titled "Do Powerful Politicians Cause Corporate Downsizing?" Based on 40 years of data, they have proven that federal government spending does not stimulate local business spending. The conclusion is the fact that the more federal dollars come into an area the less private sector spending occurs.

Of course since this is a real study, using real history, and truthful analysis of the numbers it will be either ignored or discounted by the liberal press.

But it is plain to see that when the government gets involved, private enterprise is pushed out or leaves for greener pastures, kind of like Green jobs. As Obama gave us the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009, and investment in greed jobs, BP ceased production of solar cells at its Frederick, Md., plant and laid off 320 of the 430 employees there. This ends all of BP’s solar cell manufacturing in the U.S.

More government in a sector is proven to result in a decrease in private investment in that sector. Look at medical research, how many new developments come from places with government control of healthcare compared to places where the private sector controls healthcare? Obamacare is going to kill medical research and development.

Rodger Hedgecock has a good commentary on this Harvard Study HERE

Sunday, May 30, 2010

The Ministry of Silly Bans

Another true but extreme example of the nanny state.

Pajamas Media » The Ministry of Silly Bans

My favorite line from this article; "Obviously the nation’s educators would be much more comfortable teaching robots, or potted plants."

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

Random Questions on Liberty

The proposed financial reform legislation now in the senate adds additional oversight and more bureaucracy to oversee all financial institutions. I find it odd that the two organizations that arguably are the biggest cause of our recent financial meltdown are exempt from this "reform." If the financial "reform" is meant to protect us why then are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac exempt?


What’s the difference between rent and property taxes?


I generally consider giving preferential treatment to a person or group based on their race as racist. If the government treats people differently based on race does that make the government racist? Unless the government plans on treating people differently based on race, why does it need race data when collecting a census, to reapportion congressional representatives?


Who determines at what point you’ve “earned enough?” When did working harder and longer become a sin?


If the constitution is a living document, why does it have provisions and methodology to change it?


Obama and the liberals who support him do not believe in America's promise, as expressed as Martin Luther King Jr.'s hope, of equality of opportunity, but in equality of outcomes. Individual skill, industry and effort are meaningless; they believe that those who choose to work harder should be forced to support those who choose to be less industrious. How does punishing hard work and rewarding sloth make any sense for a society?


How can publicly funded universities claim to support free speech and open dialog, yet institute rules and penalties to students and faculty who say “offensive” things? Do you have a right not to be offended?


The basis for secession of the US from England was “Taxation without Representation.” Does the authority of unelected bureaucracies to tax people constitute Taxation without Representation?


Why is it racist to prosecute criminals (people who crossed the border of this country illegally)?


Newer amendments to the Constitution supersede earlier amendments and the body of the Constitution. The Census bureau get’s its authority from Article 1 of the US Constitution. Does the 5th amendment right to remain silent supersede the census bureau’s mandate to answer personal questions?


The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution says the people cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law buy the federal government. The fourteenth amendment says that the states cannot deprive people of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. How is the police confiscation of an individual’s money or property, pressing neither a criminal charge nor instituting any due process, legal or constitutional?


Except for national security what is the reasoning for the government to exempt itself or offer exemptions to individuals or corporations to any law or rule it’s instituted? Or more concisely should the rule of law apply to everybody equally?


Why is it legal for the government to exploit the use of unpaid interns but not profit based entities? Should individuals be allowed to voluntarily work for no pay to gain experience? Does experience and the contacts made while interning, have value?


In certain religious sects “Pork isn’t Kosher,” should this apply to Congress?


Not liberty related directly, but why does the government want amnesty for nearly 20 million illegal aliens when 15 million citizens are out of work?

Monday, May 24, 2010

Big Government vs. Americans

209 years ago we had a very famous president, Thomas Jefferson. He voiced the very ideas that this country was based, and why it became so great. Compare his words to those of President Obama.

"A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government." ~ Thomas Jefferson in his first inaugural address in 1801

"I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money." ~ President Obama, Quincy, IL, April 2010

"To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody." ~ Candidate Obama, Oct 14, 2008

Middle America is at war with the elitists on the coasts who do not respect the American people and who do not want to actually listen to or represent the American people. The ruling elite (I think they are called Republicrats or Demicans or some such label), do not understand the people of this country, and the vast difference between Americans and the rest of the world.

The current world wide economic crisis has resulted in demonstrations all across the globe. Look at the protests in the USA compared to those of Europeans, here in tradition dated to before the Revolutionary War, Americans are demonstrating against Too Much Government. In Europe the Greeks demonstrate and riot because they want the government to give more, to take care of them, the Greeks feel entitled to government largess. The Tea Party movement in the USA, is demonstrating for less government, less encroachment on free enterprise, less spending, and the fact that the government is bailing out too many corporations. There's no better example of the difference between Americans and Europeans today, yet even against the clear will of the people, the ruling elite push us towards a European-style social democracy and away from a free republic, with a limited government.

The socialist ruling elite have been trying for a century to emasculate the USA. They have succeeded in many ways to make the USA a “Nanny State” in the model of socialist democracies. Being good Americans, so long as the “Nanny State” didn’t encroach upon our basic liberties, we choose to ignore the government as much as possible. The problem is that at its core America is unique. It was founded by and attracts persons who don’t want the King, or any ruling elite, to determine their fate, but by people who only ask for an even playing field (rule of law) and to be allowed to make it or fail on their own. Americans want to benefit from the risks they were willing to take and effort they were willing put out. Americans know that being allowed to benefit from that effort and risk, also means suffering from mistakes or sloth, but that it is by our own hand, not some ruling elite that we would succeed or fail. This is the essence of “the pursuit of happiness.”

The idea that somebody is “entitled” to something they haven’t earned, grates at almost all Americans, even those receiving the “entitlement.” As a people we are not happy, when we receive unearned wealth. Compare a poor person living on welfare to a poor person barely making ends meet but not taking government handouts. Unlike those on welfare the working poor have hope. To fully understand the American Dream, go and read TownHall columnist Star Parker’s story, or simply look at any of the studies of lottery winners; their happiness is briefly increased, but after the novelty of buying stuff wears off, their mood darkens and they no longer derive the same enjoyment from the simple pleasures in life.

How can a man be satisfied with something he didn't earn? Ask any person on welfare if they are “satisfied” with their life. If we look critically we see that if “spreading the wealth” would bring happiness and was “good for everybody,” then those on welfare would be happy or at least content? The ugly truth is that unearned money does not bring happiness, redistributing money by force won't make for a happier America. The socialists’ and Obama’s theory that we will have a better society through income equality is demonstrably false. It is a theory only promoted by those who want to be in control of how the wealth is redistributed.

Most Americans don’t want to punish the rich, because they know that in this country most of the rich are rich because of their industry and skill, in the same token most Americans would have allowed GM and AIG to fail, the natural consequence of bad business decisions. Our history is littered with failed auto companies like Tucker, Stutz, REO, Studebaker, Saxon Mfg., Simplex, Packard, Willys, DeSoto, Nash, Hudson, AMC, and DeLorean. When we are told a company is too big to fail, we know it’s a lie. We know that if allowed to go bankrupt, GM would have been sold off in pieces and new companies would have put the viable assets of GM to work. Government ownership of industry, is instinctively wrong to all Americans, it reminds us of other countries where the government owned or controlled industry, like communist Russia, China, or pre-WWII Germany. None of which Americans want to emulate.

At our heart all Americans want the greatest opportunities possible to succeed based on their work and merit. This is exactly what the free enterprise system provides. It makes earned success possible for the most people. This is the heart of the American dream; however “crony capitalism” is not free enterprise. Excessive regulations that only serve to protect big business who coincidentally provide huge sums of money for politicians, is not free enterprise. Bailouts of business who are “too big to fail” (which means that big enough to make huge political contributions), while adding regulations to small business which make it impossible to start up, is not free enterprise. Thomas Jefferson was right and most Americans believe that “a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.” In essence this is liberty and the very definition of the pursuit of happiness.

Americans admire Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, all creative entrepreneurs. Americans disdain Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and the driver’s license bureau, all rule making bureaucrats (who generally exempt themselves from their rules). In our hearts we understand and own the fact that that income inequality by itself is not what makes people unhappy, and that only earned success can make them happy. The purpose of forming our republic and the purpose of free enterprise is to create an environment where all people can pursuit happiness, not materialism. Americans stand for and demand equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. Americans want true prosperity and happiness, a real cure to poverty, not a bandage to treat poverties symptoms. We don’t want to be told we’re better off with a “pill” to mask the symptoms than to receive the operation to cure the problem.

Intuitively Americans know that more government spending is just a pill to cover the symptoms of too much government, and we want the cure, which is less government spending. Yes the surgery will be painful, and the recovery long, but slashing government spending is a cure not a pill to mask the symptoms. Just like when you need a radical mastectomy, a pill only deadens the pain until you die, it doesn’t save you, and sometimes you must cut the cancer out. Too much government is a cancer. The American people have rejected Obama’s advice, we’re not better off taking a pain pill, than getting necessary surgery.

The spontaneous rush of formerly inactive citizens into political activity, like the Tea Party of yore, is Americans traditional response to too much government. The vast increases in federal spending that began with the Republican TARP legislation in fall 2008 and accelerated with the Obama Democrats' stimulus package, budget and health care bills. Americans believe in principle over power, that’s why you see Democan and Republicrat alike losing when they refuse to take principled stand on less government. Americans don’t want government to “get things done”, we want government to get out of the way. Just like after Katrina, it was the government in the way that kept the people, churches, and even Walmart from delivering much needed aid to the people of New Orleans, we know we are better off if we can just get the government out of our way.

Political strategists for both parties are wrong, trying to maintain power rather than following principles. Maintaining power is not what matters most to the vast majority of Americans. We want leaders who are committed to principle not to the exercise of power. Things are changing; we want and are willing to vote for people who will downsize government. The 2010 primaries like the 2008 elections were not a renouncement of free enterprise and call for more government, but a punishment for unprincipled power mongers regardless of party who are taking power without the consent of the people.

The American people are at war against bigger government, we threw off the shackles of tyranny by a ruling elite 200 years ago, like then we tried peacefully at first, so today through elections and demonstrations Americans are again peacefully working to throw off big government. The Gadsden flag has become the symbol of the Tea Party. Any person running for office needs to consider the words on that flag; “Don’t Tread On Me”. Big government is at war with the American people, they started the war, they forgot the principles this country was founded on.

This war against the American people has already become violent; it’s not Americans taking up arms against the government, but the government and is socialist stooges like government labor unions, who use violence to attack Americans who stand on principle. Every violent act at demonstrations in the USA over the past few years has been, caused by socialists or illegal aliens attacking Americans standing up for their rights. A prime example is the 4 SEIU thugs under indictment for attacking Mr. Kenneth Gladney at a St. Louis tea party assembly last August. Mr. Gladney was protesting a health care forum hosted by Rep. Russ Carnahan (D-MO), handing out Gadsden flags and voicing his opposition. Then from the periphery members of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) attacked and horrifically beat him. Gladney is a typical tea party participant, an American standing up for his rights, he’s not the racist redneck MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann would have you believe. He’s an African American, and the SEIU thugs reminded him of that as they beat the crap out of him, using the N word repeatedly. There is only one way that this war of big government against the American people will not become more violent; when given the choice vote for leaders who will stand on principle, not covet power.

Social Justice

The concept of “Social Justice” is decidedly non-libertarian, non-Christian, and counterproductive. To start with the term “Social Justice” is very elastic, and appears to change based on who is using the term. For the purposes of this discussion I’ll use the summary from Wikipedia:
Social justice is also a concept that some use to describe the movement towards a socially just world. In this context, social justice is based on the concepts of human rights and equality and involves a greater degree of economic egalitarianism through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution. These policies aim to achieve what developmental economists refer to as more equality of opportunity than may currently exist in some societies, and to manufacture equality of outcome in cases where incidental inequalities appear in a procedurally just system.

On it’s face Social Justice is oxymoronic. How can you protect human rights through wealth and property redistribution? Leftist proponents of Social Justice do not believe in human rights.

From a libertarian point of view, Social Justice is tyranny and theft. To believe in social justice you must believe that people do not have property rights or for that matter human rights. Walter Williams in Socratic style posed these questions.
Do you believe that it is moral and just for one person to be forcibly used to serve the purposes of another? And, if that person does not peaceably submit to being so used, do you believe that there should be the initiation of some kind of force against him?
His premise is that “I am my private property and you are your private property.” As such if we accept the idea of self-ownership it is relatively easy to determine what acts are moral and immoral. All laws are based on enforcing moral judgments. Rape, murder, theft, etc. all violate fundamental property rights.

Fundamental libertarian principles, that this country was founded on, are that you have the right to yourself, and your property, and to use that property as you see fit so long as you do not infringe upon the rights of another, and to protect yourself (property) against others who would take it. Basically that nobody has the right to anybody’s body or the product of the use of their body (labor and property) through force or fraud.

I do not understand the social justice concept of equal outcomes. How can it be morally right to manufacture equality of outcome in cases where incidental inequalities appear in a procedurally just system? This concept says that regardless of how much effort an individual puts into society they deserve an equal portion of societies output. This concept intimates that even if there is no discrimination, everyone is treated justly, and everybody is given equal opportunities, if some people don’t materially prosper force can be used to give those who fail to prosper the fruits of labor of those who did prosper. The concept of Social Justice punishes people who choose to take risks, work harder, and take advantage of their natural gifts. Social Justice is anti-liberty and an attempt at a moral rationale for collectivism.

Implementing social justice can only lead to social and economic ruin. The history of economies shows that collectivist economies become so unproductive and lacking in prosperity that they don’t produce the very wealth to redistribute. That’s the self-defeating danger that social-justice elitists face as they shift private voluntarism to federal dictate. A prime example is the overall wealth of Cuba before and after the implementation of collectivism.

Social Justice is also non-Christian. The concept of Social Justice clearly violates both the old and new testaments. The Old Testament is very clear "Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly" (Leviticus 19:14-16). This is where the concept of justice being blind, that all men are created equal, and that all people should be treated fairly, originates. Our system has been perverted, how else would you explain the difference in sentence of a person convicted of robbing your house of $1000 cash going to jail for years, and the rewards for bankers who robbed your house of its tens of thousands of dollars of its value.

In the parable of the talents (Matt: 14-28), three men are given an opportunity (money), one was very successful, one was moderately successful, and one did nothing with the opportunity. The man who was afraid of the master; hid the talent(money); he did not invest and use the opportunity proffered. This man was admonished and that talent was given to another to use it productively. Biblically success is rewarded and laziness is punished. Biblical redistribution of wealth was not towards those who could, but did not work, but to those who are successful so that society can grow through individual achievement. Historically in the US, this principle has been witnessed as practiced in our tax system. When Pres. Kennedy lowered taxes on the rich, the coffers of the US treasury increased. When Pres. Regan lowered taxes on the rich, the coffers of the US treasury increased. When Pres. Clinton lowered taxes on the rich, and instituted welfare reform, the coffers of the US treasury increased, and those needing government assistance decreased. From the parable of the talents we see that when people are afraid of the master harvesting where he hasn’t sown, they hide their money and the result is the riches of the master do not increase; as taxes rise under Social Justice, the wealth of a nation sits hidden and unproductive.

The New Testament is filled with actions and deeds and teaching of Jesus taking care of the needy. In the Biblical parables where He engaged the needy he called for individual action not authoritarian action. The Good Samaritan helped the wounded traveler, giving his time and resources. He didn’t round up authorities to demand 20 percent from everyone, threatening penalties if they didn’t forcibly chip in.

The parable “the rich man and the eye of the needle” is another parable which proponents of Social Justice don’t understand. They misuse it to convey class warfare against the wealthy. In this parable Christ calls on the rich man to GIVE all of his own wealth. A standard the wealthy man was unwilling to meet. The obligation which Jesus imposed fell to the rich man, not to the government. Jesus didn’t demand that authorities intervene, confiscate, and redistribute the man’s earnings.

God is impressed when His creatures do good freely, out of genuine charity. If the rich man is coerced to give his wealth, then no pleasing human act is performed. Christians are exhorted to help the needy, voluntarily. The voluntary help the people of the US provide for victims of natural disaster, cancer, etc. is legendary, we freely give more than can often be accepted. It is misguided and disingenuous to appropriate Christ’s exhortations for voluntary sacrifice as justification for welfare-statism.

Consistently the implementation of “Social Justice” does not produce the results its proponents promise. By definition “social justice” violates basic unalienable rights, punishes those who can best help society, and rewards those who would drag a society down. Our fore fathers termed those unalienable rights as Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. The term Pursuit of Happiness, was used over property rights, as the term property was considered too limiting. Their writings clearly describe pursuit of happiness as the right to the product of your labor, property, and to do with such property as you see fit so long as it doesn’t infringe on the rights of another. Social Justice is no justice at all, as it calls to take your property and give it to others who don’t have it, even if you have acquired it justly without discrimination to any other, the mere fact that you are successful and somebody else is not, is reason enough to take your property and give it to another, the effort put into acquiring property is inconsequential.

Friday, May 21, 2010

Too much government hits Homosassa Springs Wildlife Park.

My family has been visiting the Homosassa Springs Fish Bowl since the mid 60’s. The spectacular view from the fishbowl was always the highlight to any visit. The glass to the fishbowl requires cleaning on a regular basis.



Mike Wright in the Citrus county Chronicle reports that “Until last December, volunteers cleaned the outer glass. Then the DEP strengthened its commercial diving regulations, requiring more training before divers can be certified.”

Now we have paid people doing the job of volunteers, adding to the cost for the state and the park (thus we the people). I’ve looked to find where there had ever been a problem with the volunteers cleaning the fishbowl. I cannot find any record of any incident, ever.

Park Manager Art Yerian said “I think it’s a great thing. If it makes things safer, how can anyone argue with that?” Yerian’s quote is typical of government employees. It put the job into government hands, and made it more difficult for private citizens. It adds to the cost, and in as much as there are no recorded incidences of anybody being hurt, how much safer than 100% success rate for years.

Just another example of Too Much Government.

A minority of 1

A minority of 1
bY Robert Ringer www.robertringer.com
May 21, 2010

As BHO continues to transform the United States into a socialist hell, yet another poke in the eye is the National Mediation Board's proposal to make it easier for airline and railroad workers to unionize.

For 75 years, the rule has been that for any class of workers (e.g., pilots) employed by an airline or railroad to unionize, a majority of all employees in that class have to vote for unionization. But the proposed new rule would require only that a majority of employees who actually vote on the question of unionization would be needed to unionize.

All Democrats love unions; Republican progressives love unions; and even many conservatives believe that a worker should be allowed to join a union voluntarily, so long as those who do not want to join the union are not forced to do so.

Which probably makes me a minority of one. Why? Because not only do I believe that workers do not have a right to unionize a company through tyranny of the majority, I don't believe that any worker has a right to join a union without the consent of his employer.

It is a basic tenet of libertarian-centered conservatism that without property rights, no other rights are possible. Unfortunately, most people do not understand this fundamental concept. They view property only as inanimate matter, separate and apart from a person's life.

In actual fact, they are so connected that one is virtually an extension of the other. If you took everything an individual owned, the fact is that he would not own his own life, because whenever he attempted to create something for his personal gain, the fruits of his labor could again be confiscated.

The same is true of purchasing property. The money used to make a purchase presumably was earned through the purchaser's efforts. That makes the money an extension of his life, and, therefore, the same would be true of anything purchased with that money.

A libertarian-centered conservative believes that no one has a right to any other person's property, which includes both his body and everything he owns. When people make "humanitarian" statements about human rights being more important than property rights, they are, in a sense, correct. That's because human rights include property rights, as well as all other rights of man.

A man has the right to dispose of his life and his property in any way he chooses, without interference from anyone else. By the same token, he has no right to dispose of any other person's life or property, no matter what his personal rationalizations may be.

As explained in "Fundamentals of Liberty," there are only three possible ways to view property:

Anyone may take anyone else's property whenever he pleases.
Some people may take the property of other people whenever they please.
No one may ever take anyone else's property without his permission.
It is self-evident to anyone who believes in individual liberty that the only morally valid way of viewing property is No. 3. Likewise, no one has a right to tell a property owner (property being land, buildings, a business, or anything else that a person may own) what he can or cannot do with his property.

Take a business, for example. It belongs to the owner, whether he started the business himself or bought it from someone else. No one has a right to take any part of someone else's business, nor do they have a right to tell him what he can and cannot do with his business.

If a business grows large and has millions of shareholders, the business is the property of many people – the shareholders. Thus, size is irrelevant when it comes to property rights. When property rights are violated against a multinational corporation as opposed to a "mom-and-pop" business, it simply means that far more people become victims of government aggression. It is a moral absurdity to believe that bigness validates aggression.

Therefore, as a minority of one, I am compelled to say that regardless of the size of a business, the only way unionization is morally valid is if the owner of that business voluntarily agrees to it. Why? Because it's his business! It's his property! And it is his human right to set the rules for his own property!

In a truly free society, a worker has one inalienable, overpowering right with regard to his job: He can quit at any time. He is not a slave, so his employer cannot chain him to his work. If he wants to belong to a union, he is free to search for employment with a company that allows workers to unionize.

The fact that so many people reading this article will find my comments to be extreme speaks only to how far down the road toward socialism we have traveled. We no longer respect property rights, especially when the property is a business. Generations have been brainwashed into believing that abstract notions such as "the good of society" and "social justice" are more important than private ownership.

The proposed new ruling by the National Mediation Board opens a debate that is nothing more than a distraction. The real debate should be over whether or not employees should be allowed to unionize at all without the consent of the owner.

This is precisely the kind of issue that has caused conservatives to lose their way over the years. Until politicians have the courage to confront an issue such as unionization head on and stop buying into debates about whether to move further to the left or stick to what has become the status-quo left, America will continue its acceleration toward total collapse – both morally and economically.

It will be interesting to see if anyone reading this article has a strong enough belief in the absolute sanctity of property rights to agree with what I've said here. That would be nice, because it would instantly elevate me to the status of being part of a minority of two.


Please visit Robert Ringer at http://www.robertringer.com

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

Scientific Conflicts of Interest

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) release a report (5/12/2010) titled Evaluation of Biomarkers and Surrogate Endpoints in Chronic Disease. The conclusion basically called for giving the FDA greater regulatory authority over dietary supplements. The report was funded by the FDA.

Kind of odd how a report funded by a government agency calls for that agency to have greater authority. I believe that’s called a Conflict of Interest, and is analogous to Texaco funding a study that indicates that the batteries in electric vehicles are hazardous to the environment and recommends we enhance the internal combustion engine.

If we must suspect the science funded by industry that promotes that industry, then we must suspect the science funded by government that promotes more government.

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

More Government Based on Lies

BMI – Body Mass Index, quite possibly the most useless health measurement ever devised. It determines if you’re obese, overweight, or normal. It is an old standard that most doctors agree is not very accurate, or useful. The government is now trying to pass a law requiring all doctors to collect the BMI number and give it to the government. Why? What concern of the federal government is it if the population is skinny or fat? It’s a power grab, they have passed healthcare laws, and will now use that law to determine what people can eat, etc.

The Federal government doesn’t believe what you choose to eat should be your choice. According to the Obama Justice Department you do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food you wish. The government, not you, can and will determine what you should eat.

The Government as usual is wrong, and not only is it infringing on the constitution, but on your rights as a person. It comes down to property rights, do you own yourself or does the government own you? If the government owns you then it can determine what you should eat, how and where you should live, how much money you should be able to earn. Obviously Obama believes the people of this country are slaves to the government. To quote Obama, "at some point, you have made enough money."

Politicians with the power to determine each citizen's income and each citizen’s food choice are no longer public servants. They are public masters. If what you are allowed to keep of your own labor, if what you are allowed to keep of your own property, and what you are allowed to eat is determined by some master, by any reasonable definition that makes you a slave.

The stupidity of the BMI can be best expressed by an experience I had with my son. My son was a swimmer and wrestler in high school and can knock out a 100 pushups without breaking a sweat. As a wrestler, the school requires a special physical, because many wrestlers cut weight and reduce their body fat to un-healthy levels. To protect the health of student athletes, they are required to go to a doctor and have their percentage of body fat calculated. Based on those results they are told if they are allowed reduce weight to lower weight classes.

Based on my son’s 7% body fat that the school hired doctor measured, I received a letter from the school informing me that could not cut any weight, and would not be allowed to wrestle in any weight class less than 135 pounds. At the same time the school measured every student’s weight and height and calculated their BMI. Two days after receiving the official school letter saying my son was not allowed to cut any weight, I received a letter telling me my son was overweight and at risk of being obese, and offered diet and exercise suggestions, and “counseling.”

I called the school and asked to talk to the counselor about my son’s weight “problem.” We talked about his caloric intake, he was eating around 6000 Calories a day (trust me dual sport high school athletes cost a fortune to feed), and she was not surprised at his being overweight and suggested we reduce his food to less than 2000 Calories until he lost some weight, and asked how we could encourage him to get at least another hour of exercise every day. I said he’s in the pool with the swim team at 5am, and swims about a mile and a half before coming to class, and after school is in the weight room and wrestling room from 3 to 6 pm, and was running several miles every weekend morning to “maintain” as he put it, so I asked why the 5+ hours of exercise he got everyday wasn’t enough, and what should I do with the other letter her department sent me saying he wasn’t allowed to lose any weight because his body fat was low. She said well the BMI was only a guide, and obviously my son was health and this didn’t pertain to him. I asked if he was still going to be reported as overweight and in danger of being obese, and she said yes because his BMI was high, but that we shouldn’t worry about it, it was just for government reporting purposes.

At his high school between football, soccer, volleyball, tennis, baseball, track, cross country, swimming, wrestling, weight lifting, rowing, softball, and intramural sports, at least a quarter of the students are athletes, it is a big joke among them that almost all of them are classified as overweight or obese. These kids know it’s a lie to say that they are overweight.

Student athletes are generally the higher performing students in a school; they work harder, and statistically perform better and are more productive citizens after they graduate. How does the government expect productive young people to take the government seriously and trust what the government has to say when they are obviously being lied to? The blatant false claims by our government do nothing but undermine the faith our children have in it. If you know your government is willing to lie to you to get you to justify taking away your rights, then by the governments own example, it must be acceptable to lie to the government to get what you want. How can lying to the government about your taxes be wrong, if the government can lie to you? The lesson our children are getting is that the government lies (or worse is totally inept), and cannot be trusted. The consequences will be a citizenry who do not support the government, think it is acceptable to cheat the government, and in general a cynical attitude to anything the government does. The real world example of this is Greece.

Yes there are some fat kids in school, but claiming that 30% of our children are overweight, as reported in some studies, is crap. This is based on the BMI, which doesn’t take into consideration athletes, or active kids, or people in excellent shape but heavy on the muscle side. The government knowingly reports students who are in prime physical condition as overweight. If you were conspiratorial you’d think that the government is trying to make a crisis where one doesn’t exist, just so they can fix it.

Is there really a problem with overweight kids? The news and Mrs. Obama are saying it’s a “public health crisis.” She said child obesity, "It's threatening our children, it's threatening our families and, more importantly, it's threatening the future of this nation." The reality according to the CDC;
• Percent of adolescents age 12-19 years who are overweight: 18%
• Percent of children age 6-11 years who are overweight: 15%
• Percent of children age 2-5 years who are overweight: 11%


I’m sorry but those numbers don’t look like a crisis, considering a significant number of student athletes will fall into that overweight category those numbers look more like a normal distribution of people over a large population where some are skinny some are normal and some are overweight, and hardly something the federal government should be able to use as an excuse to determine what kind of food you can eat. If you’re listening to Michelle Obama about a crisis of overweight kids, it’s a lie! It’s just another nanny state lie, perpetrated to take more control over the everyday lives of “We the People.” It’s a lie to slowly turn sovereign citizens into virtual slaves.

Oh, my swimmer/wrestler son is two years out of high school and in the military; he’s still obsessed with eating right and staying in shape but not about his weight. This photo is about 3 months old, taken just before he shipped out to the Middle East. In it he’s gained around 20 pounds since high school, so according to the government he is obese. The rules (laws) our government now proposes are based on lies. Just remember that when the government gives you numbers saying we have an obesity crisis, that this is an image of what the government counts as obese.

Monday, May 17, 2010

Paradigm Shift

Is every election "the most important election ever"? I've heard this a lot; in 1976 when we kicked out the Republican crooks after Watergate; in 1980 when Regan was elected because of 20% mortgage rates; in 94 when the Democrats were booted out of congress; Sorry every election can't be "the most important ever". I’m sorry but the 1960/62 election cycles brought in a bunch of people that were able to pass the 1964 Civil rights act, seems to me to be a lot more important than today’s. That election cycle resulted in fruition of the American dream, and put the law behind the Declaration of Independence statement that “All men are created equal.” This has to be the high water mark of the Republican Party (if you didn’t know it was the Democrats that were against the Civil Rights Act).

This year incumbents are running scared. The mandate the Democrats thought they had, was actually the people booting out the big-government big-business controlling Bush administration. As VoxDay put it "the big-government faction of the Republican Party has expertly toyed with the small-government portion of the party and successfully managed conservative dissatisfaction with the status quo. . . the prospect of a Democratic bogeyman is raised to scare the limited government legions into supporting the lesser of two evils."

Because most people are too busy trying to pay bills, get junior off to school, and keep their job, the details of politics are ignored. For Decades now the Republicrats keep offering two sides of the same coin, only allowing us the choice between a big-government socialists, and big-business socialists. The Republicrats have enough power to keep the press in their pocket, even Fox. The Republicrats are doing everything they can to make everyone dependent upon either Big-Government or Big-Business to support them.

Take the newly proposed S.510, the Food Safety and Modernization Act of 2010 was drafted by Monsanto and other agribusiness giants. S.510 requires federal definition of "food," federal certification of "food" before it can be sold (even from a farmers' market), federal licensing of food growers (formerly known as farmers), processors and sellers – all in the name of "food safety," of course, and funded by a new food tax. This will kill small farmers, and family farms. Agribusiness wants to use federal law to bolster public confidence in their products, and, oh yes, make entry of new competitors in their business all the more expensive. This is a perfect example of the Democrat Big-Government agenda working with Republican Big-Business agenda.

According to the Obama Justice Department "There is no 'deeply rooted' historic tradition of unfettered access to foods of all kinds. … Plaintiffs assertions to a 'fundamental' right to their own bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for themselves and their families is similarly unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish."

The audacity of the Obama administration is appalling. Please re-read that last quote that was expressed in a recent brief filed by the Obama Justice Department in opposition to a lawsuit brought by the Farm-To-Consumer Legal Defense Fund challenging the federal ban on the interstate sale of raw milk, "There is no 'deeply rooted' historic tradition of unfettered access to foods of all kinds. … Plaintiffs assertions to a 'fundamental' right to their own bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for themselves and their families is similarly unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish." Amendment 9 of the US Constitution says “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The position of the Obama administration is that you only have the right to obtain the food of which they approve. There is no reasoned rational that could explain the clearly unconstitutional position of the government.

The people of this country, are now tired of the game, they aren't playing by the "rules" that the power elite have enacted. This is causing quite a stir among currently elected officials. It seems that they don't like the situation. Hopefully this anti-incumbent and anti-establishment sentiment will hold through to November and we will quit electing career politicians.

Look for attacks on the internet, and any media that the Republicrat ruling elite do not control. They cannot stand to scrutiny of their ideas and words are exposed. When rational voters hear that it is the government’s official position that you "do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food you wish;" no rational voter will elect a Republicrat. Educate yourself; we do have a choice that is more than the lesser of the two evils that the Republicrats offer us. Vote 3rd party, preferably Libertarian. If you’re an incumbent, retire, it will save you a lot of headaches.

There is a paradigm shift in this country happening, it’s not Republican/Democrat or Left/Right, or Conservative/Liberal. The people are realizing that there is now a war between those who love liberty and all it entails and statists who want to control everything. The statist is and has used welfare to purchase votes from those who would rather mooch off the work of others than contribute to society. We may be at that shift, where like in all historic democracies, once the moochers discover that they can vote for themselves the product of other peoples labor without any cost to themselves, the producers and workers who contribute most to society are taxed to death, and the society crumbles. Hopefully the voters see this and the anti-incumbency, anti-insider attitude will hold through November, and we can elect people will make principled stands for liberty and justice and not just career politicians.

Thursday, May 6, 2010

Do You Have Any Principles?

“So how’s that hopey changey thing workin out for ya?” ~ Sarah Palin

Are you tired of having to pick between the lesser of two evils? The Democrats and Republicans are now two sides of the same coin. Both believe in bigger government, and both simply do whatever their corporate sponsors dictate. Are you tired of not having a real choice? Ever notice how when somebody who actually represents you runs, one of the two major parties crucifies that person.

We can do something about it. You can do something about it. You don’t have to pick between a Republican corporate shill, or a Democrat socialist stooge. The press and the two big parties have propagandized you to believe if you don’t vote for either the Democrat or Republican your throwing your vote away. That simply isn’t the truth. Forget what the press and the big parties say, start voting for principle.

If you believe and want the government to take care of you, and to give you stuff, and are willing to sacrifice your freedom, liberty and self respect in exchange for government handouts then vote for the Democrat. If you want to help big business, ignore the rights of the individual, and impose your sense of right and wrong on everybody else, vote Republican.

If however you honestly believe that people should be allowed to succeed, and free to do as they wish so long as they don’t use force or fraud to take the life, liberty, or property of their fellow citizens, then look for a candidate who supports the basic founding principles which this government was established. For the Florida Senate we have 4 choices; Meek the Democrat, who wants to punish success and dictate how we all should live, son of a congressperson, a career politician; Rubio, career politician who talks conservative/libertarian but who’s voting record is pro-business pro-big government; Snitker the Libertarian, is a citizen politician, who actually supports term limits, limited government, and individual liberty; and finally Crist the career politician, tries to be everything to everybody, he is a pro-government politician who is noted for flip flopping on issues including his party;

What are your principles, if you believe in individual liberty, equal rights, fair taxation, and limited government you have a clear choice, Alex Snitker. Since no single vote will actually change any election, voting your conscience is the only principled thing to do. Quit picking between the lesser of two evils and vote for who you want. Forget what the media, and Democrats or Republicans tell you, look at the issues, look at what the candidates say, where they come from, and what they have done. If you believe that the people, you, me, any average citizen, can and should be the government then vote for the only candidate who for US senator from Florida who isn’t a career politician. Vote Libertarian.

It’s Not a Mystery

CBS News runs the headline: “Faisal Shahzad’s Motive Shrouded in Mystery”.

Faisal Shahzad’s motive isn’t shrouded in mystery, he’s an Islamic jihadist, willing to use terror to try and force Islam an all of the world. His attempt at mass murder failed, but that doesn’t make him less evil, or his reasoning less clear. He is an inept, but evil mass murder, whose motivation is based on Islamic beliefs.

NY Mayor Bloomberg said: “If I had to guess 25 cents, this would be exactly that. Homegrown, or maybe a mentally deranged person, or somebody with a political agenda that doesn’t like the health care bill or something. It could be anything.”

Mass attacks on NY City; including subway attacks, past unsuccessful and successful attempts on the World Trade Center, etc., were the actions of militant Islam. Why is Bloomberg in denial, and how could he not think that a terrorist attack on NY is based on the actions of Islamists?

Liberal frustration with the facts, and trying to blame the USA for terrorist’s acts against the USA is like blaming a rape victim for her own rape. Liberals are relativistic and cannot recognize that there is such a thing as evil. Terrorist acts are evil; the people who commit them are evil; people who promote terrorist acts are evil. This isn’t a difference in opinion that can be discussed and a compromise worked out. Islamists believe that the rest of the world has three choices; convert to Islam, becomes slaves to Islamic people, or die. They are willing to die, to achieve their goals, they are not willing to compromise. This is a war on western civilization.

Why do liberals want to accept a group of people who believe that when women are raped they should be stoned, who use terrorism to advance their goals, who will tolerate no other belief except their own, who riot over cartoons they don’t like, and whose stated goal is to overthrow western civilization and institute Islamic Law? Not all belief systems are equal, some are better than others. Western Civilization, specifically US ideas of liberty and freedom for all, equal rights for all, limited government, and equal protection under the law, are a better belief system than any of the big government central control belief systems like; Socialism, Fascism, Feudalism, and even Islamism. All of the big government central control belief systems (secular or religious) when enacted have historically proven to lead to misery and often to their implementation has lead to mass murder.

MSNBC newsreader Contessa Brewer said: “I get frustrated… There was part of me that was hoping this was not going to be anybody with ties to any kind of Islamic country. … There are a lot of people who want to use terrorist intent to justify writing off people who believe in a certain way or come from certain countries or whose skin color is a certain way. I mean they use it as justification for really outdated bigotry.”

If you think Ms. Brewer is frustrated, how do you think the jihadists feel? They tell us exactly what their goals are. They tell us exactly why they are terrorizing Western Civilization. Not even moderate Muslims condemn terrorist actions. And we still don’t take them seriously. They say they want to destroy western values and institute Islamic Law throughout the world. They say it’s acceptable to use lies, deceit, and terrorism to reach that goal. When they do what they say, the left tries to blame anything, except what the jihadists say are the reasons for terrorism. Why is the left, and the press “frustrated” when the truth hits them in the face?

There is a worldwide, religious, Islamic war on Western Civilization. How do I know this and how can I say that with such conviction? Easy, the people waging the war against western civilization say so. They are not lying. Their goal is clear and clearly stated; to overthrow western civilization and install worldwide Islamic law. What I don’t understand is how and why liberals, especially the liberal press, keep apologizing for them, and continue to blame the victim for the evil deeds of the Islamist.