Why do we tolerate evil by our government?

By Tom Rhodes, 8/27/2014

Political correctness is leading to the destruction of our society. It has become so pervasive and endemic, that it has twisted the very fiber of society. We are no longer allowed to honestly label that which is evil. In fact using the word evil isn’t even allowed in today’s vernacular.

First let me be clear when I say something is evil I want there to be no mistake about it. Evil is that which is morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked; malevolent; malicious; foul; sinful, etc. The news of the past month has covered what is clearly evil but cannot nor will not mention it, and beyond that is attacking those who would point out that which is evil.

In Ferguson, a young man of very large stature, committed a strong armed robbery, they walked down the middle of the road obstructing other people, got belligerent with a cop who told him to move to the sidewalk, and in the ensuing scuffle the cop got a fractured eye socket, and the young man was killed. The entire episode would have been avoided if the young man simply respected other people and respected legitimate authority and obeyed the cop. The young man’s actions were evil, and he paid the ultimate price for his actions.

On the side of a California freeway, an officer is seen punching a woman on the ground more than 11 times in the face, the video is clear she is not physically resisting. This cops actions were evil.

An on-duty Los Angeles police officer beat a man with a baton as the victim was on his knees with his hands on his head, and it was captured on security video. This cops actions were evil.

Last May, police in Habersham County, Ga., broke into a house in the middle of the night, looking for a meth dealer who no longer lived there. While attacking the house, the SWAT team tossed a flashbang grenade into a crib, severely burning a 19-month-old boy. The action of this SWAT team was evil, as were the actions of the government in creating an environment where using a SWAT team for a military style pre-dawn raid including throwing flasbangs into a house just to issue a search warrant for a non-violent crime is evil.

Two FDNY EMTs who had to intervene to stop four police officers beating a handcuffed patient on a stretcher. FDNY documents show that the cops only stopped when the EMTs bodily intervened. The action of these cops was evil.

SWAT teams routinely use excessive violence resulting in innocent deaths, or far disproportionate force for non-violent crimes, it’s now so routine it doesn’t make the evening news. Internal investigations in almost all cases say the police were justified.

We as a society have perverted what is good and evil so that we are no longer allowed to identify it. We see those who are supposed to protect and serve repeatedly do evil with no consequences. The result is that the people have had enough. When a cop does do the right thing and does stop evil, as in Ferguson, it assumption is that it was the cop who did evil. The reason is so many people assume it was the cops who did evil, is that they so often do evil, and abuse their authority that police doing evil is expected. The natural result is a lack of respect and loss of any moral obligation to obey authority. In fact the very legitimacy of police authority is questionable.

The police have so abused their authority, and when caught so often close ranks and protect their own, that they are losing their ability to legitimately enforce our laws. Our court system is so perverted that unless you are rich and can afford a very expensive lawyer, your screwed. Even with video evidence of government wrong doing, you lose. In the case of the woman on the side of the freeway being repeatedly beaten, the internal investigation says it was justified and not an excessive use of force. No rational person could watch that video and think the cop was justified.

The legitimacy of government police is now in question. The overabundance of evidence that clearly demonstrates that rather than serve the people to protect every individual’s natural rights to life, liberty and property, the police now exist to control the populace, search out petty infractions to raise revenue, and serve the ruling class. The laws are now such that no rational or reasonable person can even travel across town and not violate some law, that can be used as a pretext by police to ticket, search, and otherwise relieve the citizens of their money and liberty.

Brown is dead, he was a young man who did evil and was shot by police. He’s dead because as a society we refuse to call evil what it is – evil. He had no respect nor trust in “legitimate” authority. The people of Ferguson, rioted because of evil. They didn’t denounce the evil actions of Brown because compared to the evil of “legitimate” authority, they were nothing. Accepting the routine cover up by police protecting the thin blue line and the now common place position that internal investigations justify police abusing power is evil.

When the people have no choice but to accept the abuse by police, and no means to meaningfully address grievances against the government using force; watch our leaders in DC ignore the rule of law; watch the rich and powerful get off of crimes that the government uses to destroy the lives of the common man, when we watch our leaders make themselves exempt from the same laws they use force to make the common man obey; we know as a society that evil reigns, and the legitimacy of our government is an illusion.

Looking at what evidence available, Brown’s death was probably a morally and legally justified shooting by the police, and the riots in Ferguson are disproportionate to that specific event. But. . . . . because of the overall evil actions of police, and disproportionate use of force that is now routine by police, and the abuse of power by police, and overwhelming laws making it virtually impossible to exist without braking some law, and laws enforced unevenly by police playing favoritism, the riots are a rational response to a government that is becoming increasingly tyrannical.

The Ferguson riots are the tip of an iceberg, they urban equivalent to the rural Bundy standoff. The people of this country will not tolerate a tyrannical government. Contrary to what the statists in Washington want to believe, and want the people to believe, the people of this country can and will stand up to the government. If the police all across this nation don’t start respecting the people, don’t try to act more like Barney Fife than GI Joe, what little hold they have left on being the “legitimate” authority with the people will die. They will just be considered another violent gang and will be treated as such. Feared and paid deference while necessary, and obliterated by their rivals when caught alone, or outside their territory. Accepting evil and refusing to label evil as evil, even when done in the name of “legitimate” authority, has destroyed our society. Why do we tolerate evil by our government?

Libertarianism, Religion, and the DH

By Tom Rhodes, 8/20/2014

Libertarians are a tolerant lot, except when it comes to religion. For some reason many, not all, and not even a majority, but many, are under the delusion that expressing and practicing and having your political actions influenced by any religion other than atheism is somehow not libertarian. Many libertarians actually support “Freedom From Religion.”

We really need to give everybody some Big-Boy pants, and teach the whiners to learn to focus their efforts on something productive. The anti-religion crowd needs to go back and read the constitution, and re-read, over and over again, the First Amendment. The First amendment guarantees freedom of religion, and prohibits the government from establishing a religion. It does not protect atheists from exposure to other religion. In fact any elected official, or government official, or employee, so long as they are not forcing others to believe as they do have a right to exercise their freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and express religious viewpoints even at government events.

At some point those whose religion is atheism, atheists, must come to an understanding that they must abide by the same rules they attempt to use to control others. Atheism is a religion. A Religion is defined as a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects. Atheism like Christianity, Islam, or the belief in the Greek Gods of Old, or the Norse God Oden, has a position on the existence of the divine or the afterlife. It’s not like baseball and having the righteous belief that the designated hitter is an abomination before all that is true, good, and honorable in baseball (a belief all morally righteous, intelligent, and fair thinking people share). Because atheism has a set of generally agreed upon beliefs by a number of persons concerning the existence of a divine or the afterlife it must rationally be considered a religion or sect of some kind.

The right to say there is no god or supernatural has no precedence nor priority over the right to say there is only one God, or many gods. Even among elected or government employed people. Unless they force you to believe as they do, or make your belief a basis of how you are treated under the law, rules, regulations, etc. Everybody is free to express their religion, even atheists, as they see fit. It is only when religion is used to determine how a law, rule, regulation, or something the government does, is there a problem.

Our country is being torn apart and destroyed by the continuous broadening of the idea and scope of “infringement” on the rights of others. Catering to atheists is destroying the country. We need to return to the American philosophy of "live and let live." Endowing hypersensitive crybabies with the power to censor those who don’t share their religion is upsetting the equilibrium that liberty and justice for all created, and has proven to work extremely well for an long time.

The Libertarian Party of Florida is not a religion, it has no specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon concerning the existence of a divine or the afterlife. The basic beliefs of the LPF are irrelevant to the existence or not of a divine being. Like all political parties the LP is an organization that exists to gain political power. The LP welcome people of any and all beliefs so long as you do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force or use of fraud to achieve social or political goals.

Now if you believe that there should be different rules, laws, regulations, or courts for people of different religions you clearly don’t share the beliefs and goals of the LP and should consider another political party. If you’re an atheist who wants to eliminate religious expression in public, eliminate evangelism, censor or silence those who don’t share your beliefs, and are willing to institute laws and use the force of government to be “free from religion” you probably shouldn’t be in the LP. You do not have a right to be free from exposure to other people’s religions. If you believe government schools should be able to censor graduation speeches so that valedictorians don’t “offend” people with their “Ode to Oden” or praise for Christ, for getting them through high school, you probably don’t belong in the LP, that is clearly the exercise of rights the government is restrained from infringing upon.

The LPF exists to gain political power in order to establish a society based on personal liberty and responsibility—a society in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives. The LPF believes the most desirable method of organizing society is the natural order that arises when the unalienable rights of individuals to life, liberty and property ownership are respected and protected. If your religion doesn’t share that belief you probably shouldn’t be in the LPF. The LPF believes that people have the right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and pursue happiness in whatever manner they choose so long as they do not forcibly or fraudulently interfere with the equal rights of others. Libertarians welcome the peace, prosperity, and diversity that freedom brings.

__________________________

Oh on a side note, if you believe the DH is a good rule, you are clearly a statist pig who has disavowed even pretense of holding libertarian beliefs, hate equality under the rules, and trust in evil egalitarianism. The idea that because a pitcher is notoriously bad at hitting the ball, they deserve to be exempt from the rules other players must abide; allowing some other person to play in their place is clearly unequal treatment that offers special treatment for some players and not others. The DH is like having somebody else take the math part of your ACT, because your good in english but bad in math.The DH is almost as evil as water cooling on a Harley. The DH is an abomination to baseball, libertarianism, freedom, truth, the American Way, and all that is good and right in the world. Society tolerating the DH is the canary in the bird cage, showing we are headed to totalitarianism. Although religion should not be a litmus test against being in the LPF, maybe we should add a platform plank to disqualify all people who believe in the DH not only from the LPF but from the voter rolls as well.

Of course my opinion on baseball might be a tad extreme, even for Libertarians, but unlike politics, baseball is important.

Libertarianism and Islam

By Tom Rhodes, 8/12/2014

There are not many but some in the Libertarian party who are ardent supporters of Islam. The LP is about liberty and freedom, and has very minimal standards. Basically agree with the non-aggression principle and can be a libertarian. There are millions of people who are Muslims but not radical Islamists. Most are nominally Muslim by birth or social construct, but are not practicing. Just like liberal pro-gay rights Christians, they aren’t really Christians as they must and do reject the clear teachings of the Bible. Most Muslims aren’t don’t really believe in Islamists and the Koran, as they reject many of its clear teachings. The clear teachings of the Islamic Holy writs, the Koran and Hadith, are incompatible with libertarianism.

As such I have some questions for any Muslim who claims to be a libertarian and claim to uphold the Five Pillars of Islam and believe in the divine inspiration of the Koran and the reliability of the Hadith, I’d love to hear your responses to these questions.

We often hear horror stories of little girls being married to older men, genital mutilation, and honor killings of women who allegedly brought disrepute on their families. Do you categorically and without qualification denounce the practices of child brides, clitorectomies, and honor killings?

It is undeniable that non-Muslims living in some Muslim countries have been reduced to severe second-class citizen status (dhimmitude, in full) and forced to pay the oppressive jizya tax. In some Muslim countries, they can be jailed or killed simply if someone accuses them of blaspheming Muhammad. Do you categorically and without qualification denounce these practices and endorce non-Muslims to live as complete equals in both our and other countries?

Do you unqualified and without reservation support freedom of speech, even speech that might be considered blasphemous to Mohamad?

Will you defend the right of others to speech that which you consider Blasphemous?

Do you categorically and without qualification denounce all calls to execute so called blasphemers of Mohamad, like Wilder and Rushdie?

This year the Muslim Association of Malawi (MAM) called for homosexual people in the
country to be given the death penalty. Do you categorically and without qualification denounce all calls to punish people for being homosexual?

In quite a few Muslim countries, conversion is forbidden under penalty of death. Do you categorically and without qualification denounce this practice and support the 1st Amendment that guarantees free and open religious interaction, denouncing all punishments of any kind for conversion?

The Islamic State has demanded that non-Muslims convert or die. ISIS is carrying out Christian executions and even crucifixions right now. Do you categorically and without qualification denounce the practice of forced conversions?

All radical Muslim groups want to enforce Sharia Law. Do you categorically and without qualification stand against the implementation of Sharia?

“The Hour [of Resurrection] will not come until you fight the Jews. The Jew will hide behind stones or trees. Then the stones or trees will call: ‘Oh Muslim, servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.’” is a famous Hadith. Do you categorically and without qualification state that Israel and the Jews have a right to exist?

I would love to get some direct answers from Muslims in the LP. The little dealing I’ve had with them is clear, they want different rules for Muslims than non-Muslims, they hem-haw and obfuscate supporting equal rights for everybody equally. We must consider a problem with answers by a person who claims to uphold the Five Pillars of Islam and believe in the divine inspiration of the Koran and the reliability of the Hadith. Islamic holy writs are pretty clear and grant Muslims the right and duty to lie to non-Muslims if it will further the cause of Islam.

So rather than simply accept the word, we must look at the actions of “moderate Muslims.” First and foremost I don’t expect honest, direct, answers to these questions. They will be qualified, or attacks on the questioner, or otherwise obfuscated and redirect with indirect answers. History is dotted with the likes of Mahmoud Abbas, who repeated the notorious actions the late Yasser Arafat who in English to Western/Israeli audiences routinely make lots of grand statements on peace but in Arabic to Muslim audiences routinely called for the eradication of Israel.

A vocal Muslim Libertarian argues that there should be separate court with separate rules for Islamists, and contracts Muslims enter should be treated differently and adjudicated differently than are contracts and laws for non-Muslims. Until and unless Muslims who claim to be Libertarian, openly and without qualification, call for all laws and all courts to treat everybody equally regardless of religion, sex, race, etc. their claims to be libertarian must be suspect. Unless we see moderate Muslims who claim to be Libertarian, openly and without qualification, publically denouncing the totalitarian and non-libertarian words, deeds, and actions of Islamists both here and abroad, their words must be suspect.

Right now it would be nice just to get clear unqualified answers to the above questions, that would be a start.

New Definition of Racism.

By Tom Rhodes, 8/11/2014

Let’s say you want to go visit a city, and have never been there before, and don’t have friends there to show you around. If you prepare and want to have a safe fun trip, you are a racist. Yes indeed, actually wanting to be safe is now the definition of racism. According to many articles in the MSM, like this one at Gawker. here is a list of desires that make you racist:

Wanting to avoid wandering into high crime areas.

Wanting to know where it is safe to go out and grab a cab.

Wanting to know if the good hotel deal on Priceline or Hotwire is in a safe area.

Wanting to avoid dimly lit sections of town with scant law enforcement coverage.

Wanting to report areas where cops are known to harass you because of your color.

You see there is a new app you can get for your smart phone called SketchFactor that maps out “sketchy” neighborhoods.

Although there is a place in the app to report racial profiling by cops, if you look at the app, there is no place to report “this is a black neighborhood,” or “lots of hispanics live here” but according to the news stories, because it was created by white guys, and reports on the relative safety of specific neighborhoods, it’s a racist app. < sarcasm font on > You see wanting safety while walking is a city is racist concept. How dare white people create an application that notes unsafe “sketchy” neighborhoods, don’t they understand that they need to be tolerant of other cultures where street violence is the norm. It’s prejudice to expect lawful behavior and actually inform your fellow citizens where they may not be safe. Desiring a safe neighborhood is racist. < sarcasm font off >

Of course the rant at Gawker does pose the question; “Is there any way to keep white people from using computers, before this whole planet is ruined?” Yep if the people who want to know where it’s safe are white, they are racist, and those people using computers to communicate that certain neighborhoods aren’t safe are ruining the whole planet.

What is painfully obviously, cries of “racism” are no longer an epithet to be feared and avoided. When wanting to be safe, and know what places are not safe is called “racist” that moniker no longer carries any weight. Cries of racism by progressives today, have totally “jumped the shark”, “nuked the fridge,” and are to be considered “totally bogus.” But I guess using such colloquialisms is I itself racist. Damn! I really need a sarcasm font

“Truth’s nakedness is not concerned with whom it strikes - painfully, or with pleasure; responding appropriately to its ingenuous temperament, however, rewards perceptions of unbiased transparency.” ~ T.F. Hodge, From Within I Rise: Spiritual Triumph Over Death and Conscious Encounters with "The Divine Presence"

RCA of Southern Border Invasion

By Tom Rhodes, 8/11/2014

RCA, common acronym for Root Cause Analysis. We are suffering an invasion of children on our southern border. This invasion is mostly young men, men just ready to enter the labor market, and not children, but even if you accept the MSM propaganda and call them children, it is still an invasion. This invasion is the cause of the President of the United States acting outside his constitutional authority and legislating from the oval office. President Obama brought on this invasion the United States by legislating through executive order in 2012, declaring that he would stop deporting young illegal immigrants. Obama sent the clear, unmistakable, unequivocal signal that children entering the nation illegally would receive amnesty. Knowing existing laws require unaccompanied minors to be sheltered, fed, educated, and taken care of, there is no doubt the driving factor in the current invasion was Obama’s declaration, that he would forsake his oath of office, and usurp unconstitutional authority, and purposely fail to execute the law of the land and protect the constitution.

For the last few DECADES the Democrats promise to cooperate and enforce the border, but routinely and steadfastly obstruct all efforts to do so. The Republicans play lip service, their actions also clearly indicate that they are unwilling to actually secure the border. The reason is clear, corporations want to depress US wages, and an oversupply of cheap labor from the third world, results in lowered labor costs. We don’t need a minimum wage law, there are not jobs Americans won’t do. There are jobs Americans won’t do for the wages corporations want to pay, and lots of third world people who will do those jobs, because even $5/hr paid in cash living as an illegal in the USA is better than anything they have in their third world country. Need to see a doctor, and all you have to do is show up at any emergency room in the USA, they cannot turn you away, and you don’t have to pay them. Compared to medicine and living standards in most of the third world, this is a good deal.

Corporate America isn’t really interested in keeping low or no skill labor cheap. They want to keep skilled labor cheap. The law of supply and demand regulates labor just as it does everything else. If there is a glut, surplus, that exceeds demand, the value of what that surplus is traded is less. So if there is a shortage of unskilled labor, the cost to hire goes up, this dramatically increases the cost of skilled labor. If there is a labor shortage, and to keep a good hard working maid or stockboy you have to pay $15/hr. Then, the semi-skilled oil/tire change tech who was making $15/hr says why should I have to have the responsibility and do the training etc, if I don’t make more than the stockboy. So the semi-skilled wages increase proportionally to $17/hr. Then the certified auto technician who was making $38K per year doing tune-ups, brakes, etc. says, why should I study hard and pay to get and keep my certifications when I can change tires and earn just about as much with less responsibility and cost, so the skilled and certified tech wages increase to over $20/hr, etc. When there is a huge surplus of unskilled labor willing to work without benefits, etc. Then corporate America can tell the maid or stockboy who asks for a raise to pound sand, they can be replaced for cheap, this is trickle up economics, and it results in depressed wages for not just minimum wage jobs, but for all jobs.

Because Obama declared that the USA would not deport children, and the USA has laws guaranteeing unaccompanied minors shelter, food, education, the parents in corrupt third world hell holes are sending their children to the USA. All parents want better for their children than they have themselves, and life as an illegal alien child in the USA is better than anything their parents can offer them in their home countries. You don’t see these law breaking criminal immigrants coming from the well to do of the third world, they are from the poor, oppressed, and hopeless.

Obama has made it clear, his idea of compromise on the border issue is for Republicans to give him whatever he wants. He has made it clear that he won’t accept any suggestions or modifications from what he wants. That is not compromise, not bipartisanship, not leadership, that’s acting like a 4 year old who doesn’t get his way, so takes the ball and goes home. The problem is it’s not even Obama’s ball, it’s congresses ball, not only has Obama thrown a childish temper tantrum, but stolen authority that isn’t his. Obama and his unconstitutional usurpation of legislative authority is the sole cause of the invasion from the third world across our southern border. PERIOD. I wonder what corporations are pulling Obama’s strings to not only keep US labor wages stagnant, but actually depress those wages.

Impeach Obama – NOT!

By Tom Rhodes, 8/5/2014

The whole Impeach Obama drive is drivel and a waste of time and effort from productive activities. First to impeach Obama you will have to prove to 2/3rds of the Democrat majority senate he’s guilty of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. At least according to the constitution. Obama is daring congress to try. The reason he is playing that gambit is not just because the senate is controlled by Democrats, but he has clearly Obama has not committed an impeachable offense.

What he has done is violate his oath of office, he is changing laws, and not enforcing laws, or selectively enforcing other laws at his whim. Currently there are no laws nor constitutional method for congress to hold the president accountable, if the president says to congress screw you and acts like a dictator. All congress can do directly is withhold money. That’s it.

Creating and changing laws is a power reserved to Congress, Obama has routinely changed law to suit his whims. Obama’s executive orders and actions may be unconstitutional but they are not illegal. Because Obamas actions are a mere violation of his Oath but not illegal they are not a high crimes or misdemeanors, nor are such actions treasonous, nor can his actions be proven to be bribery. Hence there is no constitutional grounds to impeach him.

It is unconstitutional for congress to pass any law infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It is not illegal for congress to pass unconstitutional laws. Congress as a whole, nor congressmen individually cannot be charged with treason, bribery, or a high crime or misdemeanor for creating unconstitutional laws. The same principle applies to the president, unconstitutional actions by the president are not constitutional grounds for impeachment. Oops that is a giant whole in our constitution. Our forefathers never considered an elected official so devoid of character that he would willfully and purposefully violate his Oath of Office, and abuse his power as Obama has.

There is no constitutional means of dealing with elected officials who violate their oath of office. There are no laws to punish elected officials who violate their oath of office. The presidential oath of office, doesn’t carry any legal nor constitutional ramifications. It can be ignored at will. Congress has passed clearly unconstitutional laws since repeatedly since 1787, many but not all get overturned when/if somebody sues the government.

Refusing to enforce certain laws, selectively enforcing others, and inventing new laws, are clearly violations of his oath of office. His actions clearly show distain for both the rule of law, and equal protection. As much as I hate litigation, the GOP may have accidentally come across the only way to hold a president who violates his oath of office accountable, sue him. If they can prove to the courts that they have standing, then action might be possible, maybe.

The big question is can congress show damages caused by Obama violating his oath. If they can then litigation against the president may succeed. But congress must show both standing and damages or the case will rightly get tossed out. I believe showing they have standing will be relatively easy. In as much as there is no legal requirement nor logical requirement that a president must do what congress dictates, I don’t believe they will be able to show damages.

In any case, there are clearly not grounds for impeachment. Failure to enforce a law is clearly not treason, bribery, nor a crime. Changing the law to suit his whims is also not a crime, unconstitutional and a usurpation of power but not a crime. To hold the president accountable law must be created to make it a high crime for a president to willfully and knowingly change legislation by executive order. Such a law would of course be vetoed, so to create such a law will require 2/3’s of congress to support it. Good luck with that.

I hope the suit succeeds as the alternative is that the Obama presidency has set precedent that we elect a despot with no legislative limits to his authority. I’m just as afraid that extreme republican will abuse that power as Obama has proven an extreme Democrat will.

Radical Idea to Reduce Cronyism

By Tom Rhodes, 8/4/2014

Federally elected officials receive essentially upper middleclass wages. The also get pension that guarantee they live upper middle class or better lives for life with just a few years of service. They get to vote for their own pay raises. Not one or two but a disproportionate number of federal officials become millionaires, within a short time. Usually like Reid, who sold his energy stock and purchased healthcare stock, just as congress created laws crippling the energy sector and granting healthcare a massive increase in customers who will be punished by law if they don’t buy healthcare. If only the rest of us could force customers to purchase in what we just invested.

Being elected to federal office is supposed to be a “public service.” It is of course a fast way to the 1% club, through power and cronyism not hard work and providing a better service or product to your fellow man. You should note that as regulations that make it harder to start a business and compete with the current corporations that pay off government cronies, we see more Pelosi’s, Reid’s, and Bush’s in power. We hear the Clintons whining about being poor (with multi-million dollar contracts pending), etc.

Being elected to congress or the presidency pays well, and the retirement benefits are awesome, and should remain as such. But the perverse incentives to screw the American people and greed associated with being allowed to create rules that make such elected officials richer and more powerful than their station as public servants rightly deserve must be ended.

Here’s a radical idea to take away special interest and money’s control over federally elected officials. Create law that says once elected to any federal office you (and your spouse) must sell ALL your stocks, bonds, and investment properties, and invest ALL such money in US Savings Bonds. In fact not even have an interest bearing savings account at a bank, ALL savings must be in US Savings Bonds. While elected you may not have any other investments other than US Savings bonds, and may not hold any other employment, even self-employment, not even get paid for speaking engagements. And after leaving office for a period of time equal to the time served in office all investments must be in US Savings bonds, nor for that same time may you be employed by, consult for, or receive monies from any company or individual who was affected by your office.

Think about it, the only investment federal officials should be allowed to have is in the country. Currently congress is exempt from insider trading laws. Why, you ask. Because that is exactly how lobbyists and big business payoff elected officials for the favors they get. Corporate Cronyism is rampant, it is only so rampant because large corporations own federally elected officials.

This idea of limiting government officials to only investing in the government, would take away the ability to buy off federal officials. It would make many think twice about running for office as being elected would limit you to an upper middleclass life style, yes you would have a cushy pension and pretty much be set for life, but you would be giving up being in the 1%. Think about former VP’s Al Gore Jr. and Dick Cheney, Gore made himself wealthy on carbon trading and environmentalism, Cheney on the military industrial complex, the massive fortune both made was because they manipulated the system in ways illegal for the rest of us. If laws limiting investment and employment by federally elected officials were in play, both Gore and Cheney’s extremes would be limited.

This rule should of course include non-elected bureaucrats, cabinet members, etc. Those positions are public servants and should not be in positions where rich individuals and companies can have undue influence. Unlike the private sector, government jobs still come with fixed benefit pensions, part of accepting such a benefits, should be the removal of outside money to influence government bureaucrats. That’s right if you work for the Food and Drug Adminstration, you should not be able to invest in anything other than US Savings Bonds, and not work for Monsanto, Pfizer, etc. after leaving your job for a period equal to that of the years you’ve served. It’s not like anybody could imagine that the head of the FDA would be influenced by big pharmaceuticals or agribusiness if he/she knew there was a huge multi-million dollar gig waiting when they left “public service.” Limit all investment by government employees who have decision making authority, to savings bonds, and their employment by companies affected by their public service.

Of course it is a pipe dream expecting such a law to be enacted. Thinking the powerful, or those who seek power to give up guaranteed excess and being part of the 1% to serve their fellow Americans is a pipe dream. You have to know big business favors big regulations, it keeps the little guy from competing and gives them power in the industry.

Just compare income inequality with volume of government regulation and interference. Obviously more government means more money and power for the 1%. You want to do away with income inequality, you want to do away with abusive government, you want to take the money out of politics. It’s easy, limit politicians ability to profit from their actions in office, not limit what people not in office can do. Make it a simple choice, choose “public service” and you are choosing to only invest in US Savings Bonds, and giving up a chance at being in the 1%. If that were the choice you’d have less Dick Cheney’s and Harry Reid’s who’ve literally become millionaires with jobs that pay upper middle class wages.

Think about it, income inequality has dramatically increased in proportion to increase in government power. That is no accident.