by Tom Rhodes, 3/20/2001
The 21st Amendment recognizes drinking intoxicating liquors as a right of the people, repealing the 18th amendment which had prohibited intoxicating liquors. Current laws are such that to purchase intoxicating liquors like beer, wine, and other fine spirits requires a photo ID. This then begs the question:
Is requiring photo ID's to purchase beer a racist assault to keep minorities from their constitutional right to purchase and drink alcohol?
If requiring a photo ID to exercise this clearly constitutional right is not racist than voter ID cannot be racist. Although I think voter ID as a method of preventing dead people from voting, as the Attorney General said over 900 did in South Carolina, for other reasons I kind of hope that the left wins this one. If they do then requirements to produce ID's to purchase beer, wine, etc will have to be repealed on the same grounds. Once those are repealed then requiring ID's to purchase Sudafed should be repealed for the same reason.
More importantly the right to keep and bear arms includes purchasing arms. The Supreme Court has ruled that this is an individual right. There are clearly racist roots in most gun control laws, aimed at not allowing blacks to own guns. Even laws that attempt to outlaw "Saturday Night Specials" (inexpensive guns) making them unaffordable to disenfranchised minorities was directly attributed to racist rationale. Using the logic of liberals that it is racist to require a government issued ID to vote, we can only conclude that it is racist to require a government issued ID to purchase a gun. If the left wins this, then it will set up a whole new set of court precedents that can be used to eliminate government tracking and the requirement to show ID when purchasing a firearm. All you'll need to do is register to purchase firearms the same way as you register to vote, once on the register to purchase firearms you will only need to claim to be the purchaser no need to produce an ID. Registration as a reasonable restriction on the constitutional right should be no different to vote, purchase firearms or alcohol, and should have the same standards. It will eliminate the need for a "waiting period" as you are already registered. Since the government cannot and does not track your vote, it has no need and should not be able to track or know your firearms purchases. A seller need only confirm that who you claim to be is registered to purchase arms, not verify that you are who you claim to be, nor record what you purchased, etc.
This whole movement to outlaw and claim as racist the requirement to provide an ID to exercise a constitutional right may be a good thing. If we believe in the rule of law, and that it is unconstitutional and racist to require a government ID to exercise constitutionally protected rights then it opens a whole gambit of methods to eliminate an intrusive government. Start with the Real ID Act, based on this logic this is clearly an unconstitutional and racist Law and must be repealed. Since you have a constitutional right to travel, the entire ID requirement to fly, board a train or bus, etc. must be considered racist and eliminated. Since you have a constitutional right to drink alcoholic beverages, the laws requiring and ID to purchase them must be considered racist and eliminated. Since you have a constitutional right to purchase firearms, the laws requiring an ID to purchase them must be considered racist and eliminated. Obviously all of the Border Patrol Checkpoints that are not actually on the border are clearly unconstitutional and racist as nobody should be required to show a photo ID to travel.
I believe my position has changed, I agree with liberals and the NAACP, government ID's to exercise constitutional rights are racist and ALL laws, rules, regulations, and mandates by the federal government that require a person to produce a government ID should be repealed. Of course if the left supports requirements to have government ID's to exercise other constitutionally protected rights like traveling or purchasing booze and guns, then maybe it's fair to say that they don't oppose requiring a photo ID to vote on constitutional/racist grounds but instead want to preserve the current system which, as recent James O'Keefe's Project Veritas videos have demonstrated, makes it absurdly easy to register fraudulently or vote as a dead person.
To any of you who oppose voter ID laws, are you consistent and do you oppose requiring voter ID to exercise other constitutionally protected rights for the same reasons, or do you just want to keep it so that voter fraud is easy? If you oppose having to produce a photo ID to vote, and do not oppose having to produce a photo ID to buy a beer, then you need to think about your real motives.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Monday, March 19, 2012
Passing the Buck - Obama Refuses to Own the Consequences of his Actions.
By Tom Rhodes, 2/19/2012
Harry S. Truman famously took ownership for problems and issues coining the phrase "the buck stops here." Our current President is becoming infamous for blame shifting and refusing to own any of the problems he created, or positions he took prior to being elected. In 2008 when talking about high gas prices, Obama said that he "would have preferred a gradual adjustment." As president that is exactly what he got a gradual adjustment to higher gas prices. He appointed people who publicly proclaimed to want European $8-$10 per gallon prices for the USA to head the energy department. Why does the liberal press want us to believe that Obama hasn't taken actions to get exactly the results which he said he wanted? High gas prices to force the US population to quit using cars. That was one of his stated positions prior to being president.
Obama has and is manipulating gas prices to reach his stated and desired position, but unlike President Harry S. Truman, Obama is clearly trying to "pass the buck," telling Fox News, "You think the president of the United States going into reelection wants gas prices to go up higher? Is that-is there anybody here who thinks that makes a lot of sense?"
It does make a lot of since, especially when you look at his pre-president statements and actual actions as president. Just consider where he directs the DOE to spend money. In a blatant bit of insider trading the Washington Post reported that the Obama "administration embarked on a massive program to stimulate the economy with federal investments in clean-technology firms. ... $3.9 billion in federal grants and financing flowed to 21 companies backed by firms with connections to five Obama administration staffers and advisers." - Now do your best Mr. Rogers imitation - Can you say "Solyndra," I thought you could; the result of that one action was half a billion bucks to Obama cronies and a loss of over 1,000 jobs. If Bush had done the same things that Obama did the press would be having a field day.
Obama's actions keep the technology associated with alternatives to Oil prohibitively expensive. As I've noted before high-tech requires rare-earth elements. EPA regulations (not laws) have made mining of rare-earth elements cost prohibitive in the USA. China produces 97% of the rare earth elements, and is using its corner on the market to keep prices high. Obama is trying to use China as a scapegoat, filing a legal case against them for "hoarding" rare-earth elements. The New York Times quotes Obama as saying, "We want our companies right here in America. But to do that, American manufacturers need to have access to rare earth materials." This begs some questions: What moral or legal obligation does China have to export its raw materials at low prices to countries which refuse to mine their own resources for the same? Why is it illegal and immoral to import raw materials like rose wood and ebony to manufacture guitar parts in the USA, but vital that China export its raw materials to make wind mills in the USA. China, acting like a sensible owner of its own resources, is fully within its rights to keep its resources for use within China. They have no obligation to supply raw materials to others, especially when they can add value to those materials and sell finished products. China has no more culpability for an American shortage of rare earth elements than Brazil has for Libya's lack of rain.
The State department says the Keystone XL pipeline is safe (on two different occasions), the 21,000 miles of similar pipelines that crisscross the country from Wyoming to Louisiana are a good indication that it's safe; but rather than allow private business to expand on a proven method that will supply tens of thousands of jobs and 700K barrels of crude oil daily, Obama shut it down. That is a significant impact on oil futures, and gasoline prices.
Overall Obama has kept total US oil production down; actual new drilling where it can be most productive has not increased. At the same time his foreign policy has kept the Middle East stirred up. Minimally this is keeping crude oil markets insecure. This significant uncertainty in the market drives speculators to bump up the cost of oil. Keeping US oil production stagnant and unrest in oil-rich countries forces a premium on every barrel of oil.
So do we take Obama at his pre-presidency word, wanting high gasoline prices, or believe that he now says that he's working to keep gas prices down. The truth is we have seen a steady increase in gas prices under Obama, as he said he wanted. His actions exacerbate not help uncertainty in fuel markets. His attempted socialism of clean-tech results in graft, and keeps solar, wind etc. unaffordable for the masses. His actions just reward his cronies with tax dollars, and he thinks that's just fine and dandy. Even the car Government Motors produces, the Volt, is dependent upon foreign materials and high prices, thus a car nobody wants, and can't afford. No rational person could conclude that Obama is not at least indirectly responsible for high gas prices. Obama refusing to take ownership of the consequences of his actions is not the hallmark of a leader, but instead is the mark of a power hungry political weasel, willing to say or do anything to keep power.
He ran on wanting energy to be expensive, saying electricity prices would have to "skyrocket"; he appointed people to be in-charge of the Dept. of Energy who wanted energy to be expensive; the results of his actions over the past 3 years is that gasoline now costs well more than double what it did when he took office, and making electricity is getting more and more expensive. These are exactly the results he wanted, and told anybody who bothered to listen that he wanted. Why now is he trying to tell the American People that he's not responsible for the price of gasoline?
Harry S. Truman famously took ownership for problems and issues coining the phrase "the buck stops here." Our current President is becoming infamous for blame shifting and refusing to own any of the problems he created, or positions he took prior to being elected. In 2008 when talking about high gas prices, Obama said that he "would have preferred a gradual adjustment." As president that is exactly what he got a gradual adjustment to higher gas prices. He appointed people who publicly proclaimed to want European $8-$10 per gallon prices for the USA to head the energy department. Why does the liberal press want us to believe that Obama hasn't taken actions to get exactly the results which he said he wanted? High gas prices to force the US population to quit using cars. That was one of his stated positions prior to being president.
Obama has and is manipulating gas prices to reach his stated and desired position, but unlike President Harry S. Truman, Obama is clearly trying to "pass the buck," telling Fox News, "You think the president of the United States going into reelection wants gas prices to go up higher? Is that-is there anybody here who thinks that makes a lot of sense?"
It does make a lot of since, especially when you look at his pre-president statements and actual actions as president. Just consider where he directs the DOE to spend money. In a blatant bit of insider trading the Washington Post reported that the Obama "administration embarked on a massive program to stimulate the economy with federal investments in clean-technology firms. ... $3.9 billion in federal grants and financing flowed to 21 companies backed by firms with connections to five Obama administration staffers and advisers." - Now do your best Mr. Rogers imitation - Can you say "Solyndra," I thought you could; the result of that one action was half a billion bucks to Obama cronies and a loss of over 1,000 jobs. If Bush had done the same things that Obama did the press would be having a field day.
Obama's actions keep the technology associated with alternatives to Oil prohibitively expensive. As I've noted before high-tech requires rare-earth elements. EPA regulations (not laws) have made mining of rare-earth elements cost prohibitive in the USA. China produces 97% of the rare earth elements, and is using its corner on the market to keep prices high. Obama is trying to use China as a scapegoat, filing a legal case against them for "hoarding" rare-earth elements. The New York Times quotes Obama as saying, "We want our companies right here in America. But to do that, American manufacturers need to have access to rare earth materials." This begs some questions: What moral or legal obligation does China have to export its raw materials at low prices to countries which refuse to mine their own resources for the same? Why is it illegal and immoral to import raw materials like rose wood and ebony to manufacture guitar parts in the USA, but vital that China export its raw materials to make wind mills in the USA. China, acting like a sensible owner of its own resources, is fully within its rights to keep its resources for use within China. They have no obligation to supply raw materials to others, especially when they can add value to those materials and sell finished products. China has no more culpability for an American shortage of rare earth elements than Brazil has for Libya's lack of rain.
The State department says the Keystone XL pipeline is safe (on two different occasions), the 21,000 miles of similar pipelines that crisscross the country from Wyoming to Louisiana are a good indication that it's safe; but rather than allow private business to expand on a proven method that will supply tens of thousands of jobs and 700K barrels of crude oil daily, Obama shut it down. That is a significant impact on oil futures, and gasoline prices.
Overall Obama has kept total US oil production down; actual new drilling where it can be most productive has not increased. At the same time his foreign policy has kept the Middle East stirred up. Minimally this is keeping crude oil markets insecure. This significant uncertainty in the market drives speculators to bump up the cost of oil. Keeping US oil production stagnant and unrest in oil-rich countries forces a premium on every barrel of oil.
So do we take Obama at his pre-presidency word, wanting high gasoline prices, or believe that he now says that he's working to keep gas prices down. The truth is we have seen a steady increase in gas prices under Obama, as he said he wanted. His actions exacerbate not help uncertainty in fuel markets. His attempted socialism of clean-tech results in graft, and keeps solar, wind etc. unaffordable for the masses. His actions just reward his cronies with tax dollars, and he thinks that's just fine and dandy. Even the car Government Motors produces, the Volt, is dependent upon foreign materials and high prices, thus a car nobody wants, and can't afford. No rational person could conclude that Obama is not at least indirectly responsible for high gas prices. Obama refusing to take ownership of the consequences of his actions is not the hallmark of a leader, but instead is the mark of a power hungry political weasel, willing to say or do anything to keep power.
He ran on wanting energy to be expensive, saying electricity prices would have to "skyrocket"; he appointed people to be in-charge of the Dept. of Energy who wanted energy to be expensive; the results of his actions over the past 3 years is that gasoline now costs well more than double what it did when he took office, and making electricity is getting more and more expensive. These are exactly the results he wanted, and told anybody who bothered to listen that he wanted. Why now is he trying to tell the American People that he's not responsible for the price of gasoline?
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Where is the Law?
By Tom Rhodes 2/14/2012
Last year the IRS created new crony regulation to protect big business. This should come as no surprise. Congress never authorized, nor grated the authority, nor created any law that allows the IRS to require third party tax preparers to get an IRS license; period! The IRS just magically decided that it has the authority, far in excess of any authority Congress deligated.
This is a new rule, not law, that H&R Block and other big tax companies that can lobby government love, they didn't even bother with a law. It's pure big-business protectionism. The Wall Street Journal simply explained it saying; "Cheering the new regulations are big tax preparers like H&R Block, who are only too happy to see the feds swoop in to put their mom-and-pop seasonal competitors out of business."
A friend of mine every year purchases the full blown version of Quicken's Turbo Tax, does his families taxes, and does taxes for a few of his senior citizen neighbors who don't have a computer and are troubled with the complexity of modern IRS rules and regulations. He charges $25 bucks and if the tax return is more complicated than his $39 software program can handle, he doesn't charge and tells the person to find an accountant. He helps out about a dozen people every year. Not a big money maker, but as a school teacher in a rural county, it helps out. The IRS wants to make this illegal, the only logical reason is to help out H&R Block, not protect the average tax payer. Since the IRS requires third party preparers to sign tax forms, it's easy for them to track people who abuse the tax code, etc. The arguments requiring a license to protect taxpayers are false. It is just another government power and money grab.
Without law, this new regulation is typical big government cronyism protecting favored businesses. This regulation benefits only powerful industry insiders and at the expense of mom and pop business and consumers. The result will be less competition, fewer options for tax payers, and higher prices. People, including tax preparer's right to earn a living without government permission from the IRS are being curtailed. Tax payers, not the government, should be the ones who decide who, if anybody, helps them prepare their taxes. Soon you won't even be allowed to do your own taxes, you'll have to have a "licensed" tax preparer prepare your taxes.
The good news is that yesterday, the Institute for Justice and several independent tax preparers filed suit against the IRS challenging its authority to impose a licensing scheme. The Institute for Justice estimates that this will affect about 350,000 tax return preparers
The Wall Street Journal reports that IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman said, "In most states you need a license to cut someone's hair." as the rationale for inventing a new licensing scheme. Using abusive licensing regulations, which limit competition, as justification for more licensing regulations, is absurd. This like the massive amounts of new regulations Obama has instituted is killing economic growth.
This is just another example of the Obama administration doing an end run around congress, legislating without the legislature. It is just another method for Obama and Co. to generate revenue through administrative fiat, rather than through the constitutional process. Over the past century we have done well without needing a license from the IRS to do our taxes; there has not been a huge amount of tax fraud by independent tax preparers not associated with big business like H&R Block; so why the need, and if there is a need why bypass the normal legislative process? Why does Obama want to control yet another part of private business, and grant still more power to corporations? Could it be they want control of how taxpayers use legal deductions to minimize their taxes? If it's tax abuse which they are worried about why not drastically simplify the tax code as promised?
The Uniform Certified Public Accountant Examination is the examination administered to people who wish to become Certified Public Accountants (CPA's). This exam is developed and maintained by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), and is administered by the National Association of State Boards of Accountancy (NASBA). Although the CPA exam is used by the regulatory bodies of all fifty states it is a private certifying body. People should be free to choose to use a CPA to prepare their taxes if they wish. They should also be free to have somebody who is not "certified" prepare their taxes so long as the preparer is open and honest about their qualifications. The need for a government license is redundant and not necessary. The government's sole role should be to protect individuals from those who would fraudulent claim to have qualifications they don't, not to require individuals to use "certified" individuals for services. Although I may want to use an ASCE certified mechanic, there isn't nor should be a law requiring I use one to repair my auto. If I want to hire the neighborhood shade tree mechanic, that should be between me and him, so long as doesn't dishonestly lie about his credentials.
This should apply to Doctors, Lawyers, Barbers, etc. private board certifications should be recommended, but so long as people are honest about their qualifications, people should be free to trade goods and services without government interference. Why shouldn't a marine corpsman with years of experience doing battle field wound care, stitching up soldiers in the field and treating emergency wounds of all types, not be allowed to offer those services to the public when he returns and is discharged from the military. I'd just as soon pay a veteran corpsman to sew up my arm after a home accident, than pay outrageous hospital ER prices. Provided he's honest about his training and experience, he should be allowed to compete with other health care providers, letting the consumer of health care services make the choice between AMA certified doctor or experienced US Marine corpsman or local witchdoctor. This of course would end the AMA monopoly, and put a severe ding in the monopoly on health care that has proven to drive prices through the roof. All occupational licenses are just scheme's to protect entrenched guilds, not truly protect the consumer. Imagine having to have a license to tell somebody what lamp or color would look best in your house, an interior design license, but that is exactly what the existing entrenched interior designers want, protection from the completion of startup designers. Corporate cronyism, not real consumer protection, is what licensing is about. H&R Block wants the IRS tax preparer license, because it protects their business, and will allow them to charge more.
Constitutionally we have a system of checks and balances that separates government power designed to make it difficult for the federal government to enact laws restricting the liberty of the people, and specifically designating what powers the federal government has, and what powers each branch of government has. Obama has made it clear that he does not like the constitutional restrictions which limit his ability to get laws he wants. Laws do not come from one single man in the President, they must come from the legislature, and revenue generating laws must originate in the House. IRS licenses will generate revenue for the IRS, thus laws granting that authority must originate in the House of Representatives, not the IRS bureaucracy. What constitutional authority does the federal government have to institute occupational licenses? From Doctors to CPA's to Lawyers, to Barbers, all occupational licensing has always been thepurview of the States. Clearly the federal government has no constitutional authority to create a law licensing tax preparers, and bypassing congress to create such a "rule" is clearly unconstitutional on many grounds.
The Obama administration unmistakably considers the rule of law and any constitutional limits on the power of the Executive branch to be passé, defunct, outdated, outmoded, null and void. Lucky for Obama the people of the USA have become a passive nation of cowards unwilling to stand up to tyranny. Unlucky for Obama is the fact that the morals of the people are also vanishing, and we are seeing and soon will see even more massive amounts of people just ignoring the law. Once the government has shown that it is not obligated to follow the rules set forth in the constitution, the people are no longer obligated to follow the "rules" set forth by such a government. This year despite the new IRS "rule," my friend is still preparing taxes for seniors without official approval by the government, he just does so illegally using internet based tax programs from a computer at public library as if he were the senior preparing their own taxes, and instead of declaring that income on his taxes is insisting on cash. Any moral obligation to follow the law is no longer valid because the government has publicly and officially said that it is no longer under any obligation to do the same. The prima facie moral obligation to follow the IRS "rule" is superseded by the right of all individuals to work and be compensated for their labor. You don't nor should you ever, have to gain permission from some lord or master to work for yourself or another.
RIP: Rule of Law, slain by B.H. Obama 2012.
Last year the IRS created new crony regulation to protect big business. This should come as no surprise. Congress never authorized, nor grated the authority, nor created any law that allows the IRS to require third party tax preparers to get an IRS license; period! The IRS just magically decided that it has the authority, far in excess of any authority Congress deligated.
This is a new rule, not law, that H&R Block and other big tax companies that can lobby government love, they didn't even bother with a law. It's pure big-business protectionism. The Wall Street Journal simply explained it saying; "Cheering the new regulations are big tax preparers like H&R Block, who are only too happy to see the feds swoop in to put their mom-and-pop seasonal competitors out of business."
A friend of mine every year purchases the full blown version of Quicken's Turbo Tax, does his families taxes, and does taxes for a few of his senior citizen neighbors who don't have a computer and are troubled with the complexity of modern IRS rules and regulations. He charges $25 bucks and if the tax return is more complicated than his $39 software program can handle, he doesn't charge and tells the person to find an accountant. He helps out about a dozen people every year. Not a big money maker, but as a school teacher in a rural county, it helps out. The IRS wants to make this illegal, the only logical reason is to help out H&R Block, not protect the average tax payer. Since the IRS requires third party preparers to sign tax forms, it's easy for them to track people who abuse the tax code, etc. The arguments requiring a license to protect taxpayers are false. It is just another government power and money grab.
Without law, this new regulation is typical big government cronyism protecting favored businesses. This regulation benefits only powerful industry insiders and at the expense of mom and pop business and consumers. The result will be less competition, fewer options for tax payers, and higher prices. People, including tax preparer's right to earn a living without government permission from the IRS are being curtailed. Tax payers, not the government, should be the ones who decide who, if anybody, helps them prepare their taxes. Soon you won't even be allowed to do your own taxes, you'll have to have a "licensed" tax preparer prepare your taxes.
The good news is that yesterday, the Institute for Justice and several independent tax preparers filed suit against the IRS challenging its authority to impose a licensing scheme. The Institute for Justice estimates that this will affect about 350,000 tax return preparers
The Wall Street Journal reports that IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman said, "In most states you need a license to cut someone's hair." as the rationale for inventing a new licensing scheme. Using abusive licensing regulations, which limit competition, as justification for more licensing regulations, is absurd. This like the massive amounts of new regulations Obama has instituted is killing economic growth.
This is just another example of the Obama administration doing an end run around congress, legislating without the legislature. It is just another method for Obama and Co. to generate revenue through administrative fiat, rather than through the constitutional process. Over the past century we have done well without needing a license from the IRS to do our taxes; there has not been a huge amount of tax fraud by independent tax preparers not associated with big business like H&R Block; so why the need, and if there is a need why bypass the normal legislative process? Why does Obama want to control yet another part of private business, and grant still more power to corporations? Could it be they want control of how taxpayers use legal deductions to minimize their taxes? If it's tax abuse which they are worried about why not drastically simplify the tax code as promised?
The Uniform Certified Public Accountant Examination is the examination administered to people who wish to become Certified Public Accountants (CPA's). This exam is developed and maintained by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), and is administered by the National Association of State Boards of Accountancy (NASBA). Although the CPA exam is used by the regulatory bodies of all fifty states it is a private certifying body. People should be free to choose to use a CPA to prepare their taxes if they wish. They should also be free to have somebody who is not "certified" prepare their taxes so long as the preparer is open and honest about their qualifications. The need for a government license is redundant and not necessary. The government's sole role should be to protect individuals from those who would fraudulent claim to have qualifications they don't, not to require individuals to use "certified" individuals for services. Although I may want to use an ASCE certified mechanic, there isn't nor should be a law requiring I use one to repair my auto. If I want to hire the neighborhood shade tree mechanic, that should be between me and him, so long as doesn't dishonestly lie about his credentials.
This should apply to Doctors, Lawyers, Barbers, etc. private board certifications should be recommended, but so long as people are honest about their qualifications, people should be free to trade goods and services without government interference. Why shouldn't a marine corpsman with years of experience doing battle field wound care, stitching up soldiers in the field and treating emergency wounds of all types, not be allowed to offer those services to the public when he returns and is discharged from the military. I'd just as soon pay a veteran corpsman to sew up my arm after a home accident, than pay outrageous hospital ER prices. Provided he's honest about his training and experience, he should be allowed to compete with other health care providers, letting the consumer of health care services make the choice between AMA certified doctor or experienced US Marine corpsman or local witchdoctor. This of course would end the AMA monopoly, and put a severe ding in the monopoly on health care that has proven to drive prices through the roof. All occupational licenses are just scheme's to protect entrenched guilds, not truly protect the consumer. Imagine having to have a license to tell somebody what lamp or color would look best in your house, an interior design license, but that is exactly what the existing entrenched interior designers want, protection from the completion of startup designers. Corporate cronyism, not real consumer protection, is what licensing is about. H&R Block wants the IRS tax preparer license, because it protects their business, and will allow them to charge more.
Constitutionally we have a system of checks and balances that separates government power designed to make it difficult for the federal government to enact laws restricting the liberty of the people, and specifically designating what powers the federal government has, and what powers each branch of government has. Obama has made it clear that he does not like the constitutional restrictions which limit his ability to get laws he wants. Laws do not come from one single man in the President, they must come from the legislature, and revenue generating laws must originate in the House. IRS licenses will generate revenue for the IRS, thus laws granting that authority must originate in the House of Representatives, not the IRS bureaucracy. What constitutional authority does the federal government have to institute occupational licenses? From Doctors to CPA's to Lawyers, to Barbers, all occupational licensing has always been thepurview of the States. Clearly the federal government has no constitutional authority to create a law licensing tax preparers, and bypassing congress to create such a "rule" is clearly unconstitutional on many grounds.
The Obama administration unmistakably considers the rule of law and any constitutional limits on the power of the Executive branch to be passé, defunct, outdated, outmoded, null and void. Lucky for Obama the people of the USA have become a passive nation of cowards unwilling to stand up to tyranny. Unlucky for Obama is the fact that the morals of the people are also vanishing, and we are seeing and soon will see even more massive amounts of people just ignoring the law. Once the government has shown that it is not obligated to follow the rules set forth in the constitution, the people are no longer obligated to follow the "rules" set forth by such a government. This year despite the new IRS "rule," my friend is still preparing taxes for seniors without official approval by the government, he just does so illegally using internet based tax programs from a computer at public library as if he were the senior preparing their own taxes, and instead of declaring that income on his taxes is insisting on cash. Any moral obligation to follow the law is no longer valid because the government has publicly and officially said that it is no longer under any obligation to do the same. The prima facie moral obligation to follow the IRS "rule" is superseded by the right of all individuals to work and be compensated for their labor. You don't nor should you ever, have to gain permission from some lord or master to work for yourself or another.
RIP: Rule of Law, slain by B.H. Obama 2012.
Monday, March 12, 2012
Programmer under oath in open court admits computers rig elections
Programmer under oath in open court admits computers rig elections
Why isn't this all over the Main Stream Media?
Why isn't this all over the Main Stream Media?
Pro-Choice - Clearly not a libertarian Principle
By Tom Rhodes, 2/12/2012
Medical ethicists have confirmed that the Pro-Choice position on abortion is clearly not libertarian. Recently the Journal of Medical Ethics published an article which the authors concluded that there is no difference between abortion and killing a newborn. They re-term infanticide as "after birth abortion." These academics, associated with Oxford, argued that "The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual" saying "Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a 'person' in the sense of 'subject of a moral right to life'."
To redefine a person to "mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her." There is one thing that is in agreement with these "ethicists" and the pro-life argument; there is no moral difference between a newborn infant and a fetus. They differ in that the pro-live argument believes that all people regardless of what stage in their live they are, have a right to life.
Libertarians firmly believe that rights are natural, pre-exist our government, and are universal. Clearly and unambiguously stated in our Declaration of independence to being the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (sometimes termed property). Our Bill of rights, further established that our government is restricted from infringing upon natural rights. The basic libertarian ideology is that everybody has the liberty keep what they earn, acquire property, and to do as they please so long as their actions do not infringe upon another's right to do the same. We believe that rights are not granted by governments but unalienable. We established a government to protect all individuals equally from force or fraud of others. As Libertarians we believe that you are entitled to do even stupid stuff, but that nobody is obligated to bail you out when your choices prove to be foolish. Although in some ways libertarianism is harsh, the actual results of liberty when enacted and protected resulted in the highest standard of living for more people in the world's history. Libertarians believe that people are free to choose but accept that choices have consequences. The consequences of choices freely made are the individuals, whether or not the individual takes pleasure in the consequences.
The right to life: now some medical ethics authors conclude that that right doesn't exist until a person is "capable of attributing to their own existence some basic value". This is the same as saying if you can't take care of yourself you have no right to live. This concept should be a vile, gross, disgusting, and repugnant idea to any rational caring person.
"In truth, the right to life does not arise from these authors' convoluted notions, but from the facts of reality and the observable requirements of life. Human life is distinct from that of plants and animals in that it requires the application of reason in order to be sustained. Liberty to act upon one's own judgment is necessary in order for reason to be applied. Taking action to deprive another of the capacity to act upon their judgment - either by barring them physically, stealing from them, defrauding them, or harming their person - is an assault upon their life. Acknowledging these facts presents us with a moral obligation to refrain from assaulting others." ~ Walter Hudson
Pro-choice advocates attempt to make persons who not developmentally capable of taking care of themselves less than actual people. They refuse to accept that choices have consequences, and that rational people are accountable for their choices. What liberals, specifically feminist pro-choice liberals want is the ability to make choices to pursue happiness and not have suffer the consequences of those choices if the results are not as desired. This is the same thinking that bails out banks when they make bad investments or gives kids in school passing grades for substandard performance.
The ugly objective truth that pro-choice proponents do not want to acknowledge, and hate to discuss is that a child is the completely knowable and predictable outcome of the choice to engage in sexual intercourse. Sex is a gamble. Like betting on the Bucs, it's a safe bet to expect them to lose, but if you make that bet and they win, you have to pay the bookie. It is not right nor should you expect anybody else make that sacrifice. When people have sex, they implicitly accept the responsibility for the consequences of that choice. The consequences include the responsibility to a new life, a child, until it reaches maturity and can take care of itself (regardless of the legality that usually that takes around 21 years). Whether or not the people involved wanted or intended to create a new person and have a child does not matter, people are responsible for the choices they make.
The notion that the baby is a burden and infringes upon the mother's rights is a clearly bogus claim. The baby took no action, nor did anything to infringe upon anybody. The choice to exist was solely made by its mother and father when they choose to engage in an activity that is known to create life. Hence the parents are responsible for all the consequences of that choice. Birth is not the threshold for life, or for an individual's identity; birth is simply a point in the life cycle of an individual which goes from conception to death. A newborn is no less needy than a fetus and will die if not cared for, but compared to a toddler, pooping, jumping, crawling, climbing, running, and screaming, the burden of a fetus or newborn is far less. Addressing and taking care of the "burden" a new life brings is the clearly know consequence of making one of life's many choices. A new life did not and could not initiate any force against her mother, hence her mother has no right exact the death penalty.
The morally valid choice for a person who does not want, or for some reason can't, take responsibility for the consequences of their actions which resulted in the creation of a new person, is adoption; where they voluntarily transfer the responsibility to another who is willing to voluntarily take that responsibility. The death penalty for a child because parents don't want to accept responsibility for their choices is neither principled, nor morally acceptable.
Libertarianism is based on the moral principle that it is wrong to use force or fraud against others. Abortion is clearly not libertarian, because it is both force and fraud. Abortion is the legally allowable murder of a unique individual based the fraud that declares that an individual who is not yet developed to some arbitrary stage in life is not a person. Medical "ethicists" are now actively promoting the idea that infanticide is the moral equivalent of abortion. This, of course, is true. This is an ancient idea, we do not need to go back to the days of ancient Rome, where parents had the right to kill their children or sell them into slavery. Using pro-choice logic, selling a newborn or a fetus for body parts is acceptable because they are not people. Just like the newly born, the yet to be born, deserve to have their right to life protected. Protecting life is after all one of the foundational reasons we established the United States of America.
Libertarians are pro-liberty but shouldn't be pro-choice. Everybody has the choice to have whatever kind of consenting sexual relations they want, but the idea that people are free to choose to kill persons that result from the consequences of the choice to engage in behavior that is known to create new people is neither libertarian nor morally justifiable. If the Libertarian Party is the Party of Principle, and not just a pack of amoral adolescent anarchists, then minimally (as in the LPF platform) we should remove all abortion planks from our national platform, but to be true to our principles we should recognize the fact that abortion is force against another based on the fraud that that an individual must reach some arbitrary stage of development in order to have the right to life. We should hold to the principle that our government was established to protect unalienable rights, including with the right to life.
Medical ethicists have confirmed that the Pro-Choice position on abortion is clearly not libertarian. Recently the Journal of Medical Ethics published an article which the authors concluded that there is no difference between abortion and killing a newborn. They re-term infanticide as "after birth abortion." These academics, associated with Oxford, argued that "The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual" saying "Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a 'person' in the sense of 'subject of a moral right to life'."
To redefine a person to "mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her." There is one thing that is in agreement with these "ethicists" and the pro-life argument; there is no moral difference between a newborn infant and a fetus. They differ in that the pro-live argument believes that all people regardless of what stage in their live they are, have a right to life.
Libertarians firmly believe that rights are natural, pre-exist our government, and are universal. Clearly and unambiguously stated in our Declaration of independence to being the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (sometimes termed property). Our Bill of rights, further established that our government is restricted from infringing upon natural rights. The basic libertarian ideology is that everybody has the liberty keep what they earn, acquire property, and to do as they please so long as their actions do not infringe upon another's right to do the same. We believe that rights are not granted by governments but unalienable. We established a government to protect all individuals equally from force or fraud of others. As Libertarians we believe that you are entitled to do even stupid stuff, but that nobody is obligated to bail you out when your choices prove to be foolish. Although in some ways libertarianism is harsh, the actual results of liberty when enacted and protected resulted in the highest standard of living for more people in the world's history. Libertarians believe that people are free to choose but accept that choices have consequences. The consequences of choices freely made are the individuals, whether or not the individual takes pleasure in the consequences.
The right to life: now some medical ethics authors conclude that that right doesn't exist until a person is "capable of attributing to their own existence some basic value". This is the same as saying if you can't take care of yourself you have no right to live. This concept should be a vile, gross, disgusting, and repugnant idea to any rational caring person.
"In truth, the right to life does not arise from these authors' convoluted notions, but from the facts of reality and the observable requirements of life. Human life is distinct from that of plants and animals in that it requires the application of reason in order to be sustained. Liberty to act upon one's own judgment is necessary in order for reason to be applied. Taking action to deprive another of the capacity to act upon their judgment - either by barring them physically, stealing from them, defrauding them, or harming their person - is an assault upon their life. Acknowledging these facts presents us with a moral obligation to refrain from assaulting others." ~ Walter Hudson
Pro-choice advocates attempt to make persons who not developmentally capable of taking care of themselves less than actual people. They refuse to accept that choices have consequences, and that rational people are accountable for their choices. What liberals, specifically feminist pro-choice liberals want is the ability to make choices to pursue happiness and not have suffer the consequences of those choices if the results are not as desired. This is the same thinking that bails out banks when they make bad investments or gives kids in school passing grades for substandard performance.
The ugly objective truth that pro-choice proponents do not want to acknowledge, and hate to discuss is that a child is the completely knowable and predictable outcome of the choice to engage in sexual intercourse. Sex is a gamble. Like betting on the Bucs, it's a safe bet to expect them to lose, but if you make that bet and they win, you have to pay the bookie. It is not right nor should you expect anybody else make that sacrifice. When people have sex, they implicitly accept the responsibility for the consequences of that choice. The consequences include the responsibility to a new life, a child, until it reaches maturity and can take care of itself (regardless of the legality that usually that takes around 21 years). Whether or not the people involved wanted or intended to create a new person and have a child does not matter, people are responsible for the choices they make.
The notion that the baby is a burden and infringes upon the mother's rights is a clearly bogus claim. The baby took no action, nor did anything to infringe upon anybody. The choice to exist was solely made by its mother and father when they choose to engage in an activity that is known to create life. Hence the parents are responsible for all the consequences of that choice. Birth is not the threshold for life, or for an individual's identity; birth is simply a point in the life cycle of an individual which goes from conception to death. A newborn is no less needy than a fetus and will die if not cared for, but compared to a toddler, pooping, jumping, crawling, climbing, running, and screaming, the burden of a fetus or newborn is far less. Addressing and taking care of the "burden" a new life brings is the clearly know consequence of making one of life's many choices. A new life did not and could not initiate any force against her mother, hence her mother has no right exact the death penalty.
The morally valid choice for a person who does not want, or for some reason can't, take responsibility for the consequences of their actions which resulted in the creation of a new person, is adoption; where they voluntarily transfer the responsibility to another who is willing to voluntarily take that responsibility. The death penalty for a child because parents don't want to accept responsibility for their choices is neither principled, nor morally acceptable.
Libertarianism is based on the moral principle that it is wrong to use force or fraud against others. Abortion is clearly not libertarian, because it is both force and fraud. Abortion is the legally allowable murder of a unique individual based the fraud that declares that an individual who is not yet developed to some arbitrary stage in life is not a person. Medical "ethicists" are now actively promoting the idea that infanticide is the moral equivalent of abortion. This, of course, is true. This is an ancient idea, we do not need to go back to the days of ancient Rome, where parents had the right to kill their children or sell them into slavery. Using pro-choice logic, selling a newborn or a fetus for body parts is acceptable because they are not people. Just like the newly born, the yet to be born, deserve to have their right to life protected. Protecting life is after all one of the foundational reasons we established the United States of America.
Libertarians are pro-liberty but shouldn't be pro-choice. Everybody has the choice to have whatever kind of consenting sexual relations they want, but the idea that people are free to choose to kill persons that result from the consequences of the choice to engage in behavior that is known to create new people is neither libertarian nor morally justifiable. If the Libertarian Party is the Party of Principle, and not just a pack of amoral adolescent anarchists, then minimally (as in the LPF platform) we should remove all abortion planks from our national platform, but to be true to our principles we should recognize the fact that abortion is force against another based on the fraud that that an individual must reach some arbitrary stage of development in order to have the right to life. We should hold to the principle that our government was established to protect unalienable rights, including with the right to life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
