By Tom Rhodes, 4/11/12
Over my expressed liberal views I’ve been accused of being heartless, uncaring, hateful, stupid, and even evil. Yes liberal views, but today they must be named libertarian views, because statists, communists, socialists, progressives, and leftists of all sorts have so distorted the definition of liberal that it no longer means what it once did. The reason statists, those who believe government is the solution to economic and social problems, so hate libertarians, is that they believe libertarians are evil. The reason they do so is based on very emotional criteria not based on anything factual. The reason they so hate those who don’t agree with them is that they have nothing but the best of good intentions in their hearts. The trouble is that the old cliché is true; The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions.
Statists of all type, especially American Democrats, have nothing but the best intentions. They want the best for everybody. They firmly believe that if the people would simply allow the ruling elite, to put the right centrally controlled policies in place that they could alleviate suffering, and everybody would have good shelter, food, healthcare, education, and a quality life. Because in their hearts they know that what they want is good, they believe that anybody who disagrees with must be evil. With no basis in fact, they vilify and disparage those who oppose their methods. Obama has nothing but the best intentions for America at heart; however he is more than willing to use socialistic and fascist methods to achieve what he thinks is best for America.
American Democrats at heart hate those who oppose them to such an extent that they cannot and will not engage in reasoned conversations. Consider Van Jones recent rant claiming that Libertarians hate "the brown folk, and the gays, and the lesbians, the people with all these piercings." He obviously hasn’t been to PorcFest. No political party has been more supportive of the LGBT community than the Libertarians. His diatribe is not based on actual evidence of bigotry, it is based simply on the fact that he feels in his heart that his intentions are good, and the libertarians managed to cost him his job under Obama, and since his intentions are good the Libertarians must be evil.
The Pilgrims who first settled North America at Plymouth Rock had the best of intentions, setting up a community where everybody was equal and everybody had equal access to all that the community produced. Despite their good intentions, the actual result was starvation and massive death. After experiencing the failure of communal property, the colony established private property rights, and everybody was allowed to keep all the product of their labor and land, abundance followed and we celebrate it every year with our national holiday, Thanksgiving. With the best of intentions the first pilgrims implementing the idea, that everybody should have equal access to the assets of the community and that everybody receive what they “needed” regardless of their effort or status in the community. The results of the actual implementation were the near annihilation of the first colony at Plymouth. Protecting private property rights, and allowing every individual (or family) to work for their own best interests lead to abundance and charity which could provide for those unable to provide for themselves.
Evidence of the implementation of central planned economies failure including the massive millions of people killed by their own governments, deprivation, and overall poor quality of life available to those living in communist countries, like the failed USSR, or Cuba are proof that the good intentions of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” in reality do not work. Libertarians look at the historic reality of implementing the rule of law, equal protection under the law, and protection of private property rights. This historic evidence is clear; those societies which protect economic freedom have the overall highest standards of living for more people than other societies. Although not as emotionally satisfying as taking care of everybody, the results of free enterprise with individual responsibility to provide for yourself or suffer the consequences is a better quality of life for everybody, just compare economic freedom to standard of living and the evidence is overwhelming.
It is with the best of intentions that libertarians want individual freedom, and liberty. Although it may appear cruel to hold individuals responsible for their own well being, and allow them to suffer the consequences of making bad life choices, the results are far from cruel. When individuals are allowed to prosper or perish based on the decisions they make in life, and when government is established to protect each individuals rights from force of fraud of others, overall more people have a better quality of life. The results are manifest and self evident. Tribalism, feudalism, communism, socialism, and fascism, regardless of the intentions of those who implement those policies all have the same results, results that have been the historic norm for mankind throughout all of history; relative richness and luxury for the ruling elite, and poverty and toil and oppression for the masses.
How about this, for every law created include a sunset clause based on time and actual results of all laws compared to their intended purpose. This way whether the law is liberal or libertarian if it fails to achieve the desired results it is automatically ended. Let’s say we create a federal law that makes texting while driving illegal, but we include a provision that says if after 5 years the number of auto accidents hasn’t decreased by 5% then we accept this law limiting peoples voluntary action did not achieve the desired results so is null and void. This way laws could be enacted with the caveat that if they failed to reach the intended results would be automatically rescinded. This would allow easier passage of many laws and would clearly reduce laws and regulations that prove to be ineffective.
Apply this logic to Obamacare. The good intentions of Obamacare are that nobody be destroyed financially because of a medical problem, and that all people have the ability to pay for quality medical care. These are good and noble intentions. How would you feel if the following were added to the Obamacare legislation? “If after 10 years, the number of uninsured people in the USA has not been reduced by 50% and overall health care costs have not been reduced by 5% the Affordable Patient Care Act will not have reached its minimum desired results and proven to be ineffective legislation thus is null and void.” If the statists and Obama are right and Obamacare is good legislation, then the results would prove its efficacy, and it would remain law. However if Obamacare proves to be ineffective, this would require Congress to then look at what worked and didn’t work in Obamacare and either craft new legislation or abandon it, both of which would be good things if Obamacare fails to reach its stated and desired results. This would allow the good intentions of Obamacare to be considered, and if proven effective retained, but dismissed if the actual results are not realized.
Let’s back-fit this idea to an older law, specifically handgun law in Washington DC. If in 1976 when handgun ownership in DC was made effectively illegal, the following provision was included, “The purpose of this law is to reduce violent crime associated with handguns. If after 7 years the murder rate and violent crime committed with hand guns hasn’t been reduced by 25% this law will have shown not to reach its intended results and is therefore null and void.” in 1983 the DC handgun ban would have automatically been rescinded, and there would have been no reason for the Heller case to even exist. Now whether liberals like it or not, there is Supreme Court precedence that clearly states that owning a handgun for self defense is a constitutionally protected individual right. The ability of the left to pass “reasonable” handgun legislation is now seriously curtailed. If automatic sunset provisions that retire all laws, including firearm laws, were enacted based on achieving actual results, both sides of the isle would have an easier time passing laws, and the people would more readily accept laws as those which are proven ineffective would automatically go away.
If the true intentions of statists are as they claim, and they believe that the laws they want will work, then this idea should pose no problem and have no opposition. If however the goal is not as they claim, but the goal is to expand government increase central control over all people, then they will fight this idea.
Statists and the left, cannot accept that those who oppose them have good intentions. They however refuse to look at actual results, to them intentions and emotions trump facts. Results not intentions should be the measure of what is acceptable, especially when it comes to laws. Libertarians want economic and social freedom with the best of intentions, the difference is that we look at and consider actual results not just the emotional feeling of doing something good. Claiming those that oppose you are filled with hate, or have evil, bad, or greedy intentions only shows that someone is narrow minded and closed to reasoned debate.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Hubris thy name is Obama
By Tom Rhodes 4/10/12
Obama care was passed by the slimmest of margins, with unprecedented increase in government power. After the SCOTUS oral arguments on Obamacare, President Obama shot across the bow of the Justices:
"I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."
The vote was 219-214 in the House, and 60-39 in the Senate. Not what you can truthfully call a strong majority, especially when you consider that the senate would have been filibustered if it weren’t for the fact that 4 of the democrat senators that voted for Obamacare were not democratically elected but were in fact appointed replacements to the senate for Obama and other senators who are joined his cabinet. Former Democrat, Illinois Governor, Rod Blagojevich is going to prison for corruption related to selling off Obama’s Senate seat. Any reasonable person would have to conclude that saying that Obamacare passed with “a strong majority of a democratically elected” senate is stretching the truth quite a bit. To even imply otherwise is an overt act of hubris.
Obama saying that it is “Judicial Activism” to overturn Obamacare on constitutional grounds, that it is thwarting the will of the people through their democratically elected Congress has to be disingenuous. As Ken Blackwell points out, another modern era law that survived judicial review, was passed by the Democrat controlled house 342-67 and Democrat controlled Senate 85-14, and signed into law by a Democrat President in 1984, Obama calls “Unconstitutional.” This law when put up to referendum, even in liberal California, passes with a huge majority. Clearly the Defense of Marriage Act is the will of the people. But somehow DOMA is “unconstitutional” while Obamacare is; polls show 2/3rds of the people want Obamacare repealed; a majority of States are suing the US Government over its implementation; and it grants unprecedented power with a requirement that all people take some affirmative action and purchase a commercial product just for being alive, and Obama scolds the Supreme Court of the United States over its constitutionality and Obamacare being the will of the people. Hubris, thy name is Obama.
Obama as a professor of constitutional law, clearly knows what is and isn’t constitutional, he quite simply doesn’t want or believe that the constitution should be the supreme law of the land. Obama appears to be actively working to create administrative tyranny to bypass the separation of powers and constitutional limits on the federal government. As he infamously said he has problems with the constitution, doesn’t like the limits, doesn’t like the fact that it doesn’t “obligate” the government to “do” certain things, and limits what he as president can “get done.” Hubris, thy name is Obama.
Obama’s hubris, and willingness to bypass the rule of law is self evident. Consider his almost routine use of the military in defiance of the War Powers Act, or his extortion of BP over the gulf oil spill with no legal authority. There is no question that BP should have been held accountable for the damages they caused in and around the Gulf of Mexico; we have laws for that sort of thing. What legal authority does the President have to capriciously order a private business to make restitution? We have bankruptcy laws, by what legal authority does the President have to capriciously order a private business and individuals to accept 30 cents on the dollar for secured credit which legally have precedence in bankruptcy, while giving unsecured creditors like the UAW far more generous terms? Hubris thy name is Obama.
Obama and statists, who think like him, have the hubris to think that they know what is best for every person, and that they should have the power and authority to dictate how people should live. From what we eat, to what we are allowed to hear or watch on TV and Radio, to what medical services you are allowed to use, they want to regulate every aspect of every person’s life. Ignoring the repeated failures of socialism, from the first Pilgrims to the US to fall of the USSR, Obama and statists continue ignore the historical evidence that the rule of law and the protection of private property rights lead to the highest standard of living and most freedom and liberty for more people than any other economic system in the history of man. Obama exercise extreme hubris, thinking that he and his ilk know better and can centrally control an economy, can centrally control what technologies are developed and succeed, can centrally control what people learn, all through the redistribution of labor. Obama thinks that he can decide, and should have the power to dictate at exactly what point you have enough. Obama is typical of statists, regardless of what philosophy or rhetoric they use to describe their agenda, no matter where in the world they attempt to implement their agenda, their agenda is always the same, preempting the decisions of individuals and regimenting their lives. Hubris thy name is Obama.
Obama care was passed by the slimmest of margins, with unprecedented increase in government power. After the SCOTUS oral arguments on Obamacare, President Obama shot across the bow of the Justices:
"I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."
The vote was 219-214 in the House, and 60-39 in the Senate. Not what you can truthfully call a strong majority, especially when you consider that the senate would have been filibustered if it weren’t for the fact that 4 of the democrat senators that voted for Obamacare were not democratically elected but were in fact appointed replacements to the senate for Obama and other senators who are joined his cabinet. Former Democrat, Illinois Governor, Rod Blagojevich is going to prison for corruption related to selling off Obama’s Senate seat. Any reasonable person would have to conclude that saying that Obamacare passed with “a strong majority of a democratically elected” senate is stretching the truth quite a bit. To even imply otherwise is an overt act of hubris.
Obama saying that it is “Judicial Activism” to overturn Obamacare on constitutional grounds, that it is thwarting the will of the people through their democratically elected Congress has to be disingenuous. As Ken Blackwell points out, another modern era law that survived judicial review, was passed by the Democrat controlled house 342-67 and Democrat controlled Senate 85-14, and signed into law by a Democrat President in 1984, Obama calls “Unconstitutional.” This law when put up to referendum, even in liberal California, passes with a huge majority. Clearly the Defense of Marriage Act is the will of the people. But somehow DOMA is “unconstitutional” while Obamacare is; polls show 2/3rds of the people want Obamacare repealed; a majority of States are suing the US Government over its implementation; and it grants unprecedented power with a requirement that all people take some affirmative action and purchase a commercial product just for being alive, and Obama scolds the Supreme Court of the United States over its constitutionality and Obamacare being the will of the people. Hubris, thy name is Obama.
Obama as a professor of constitutional law, clearly knows what is and isn’t constitutional, he quite simply doesn’t want or believe that the constitution should be the supreme law of the land. Obama appears to be actively working to create administrative tyranny to bypass the separation of powers and constitutional limits on the federal government. As he infamously said he has problems with the constitution, doesn’t like the limits, doesn’t like the fact that it doesn’t “obligate” the government to “do” certain things, and limits what he as president can “get done.” Hubris, thy name is Obama.
Obama’s hubris, and willingness to bypass the rule of law is self evident. Consider his almost routine use of the military in defiance of the War Powers Act, or his extortion of BP over the gulf oil spill with no legal authority. There is no question that BP should have been held accountable for the damages they caused in and around the Gulf of Mexico; we have laws for that sort of thing. What legal authority does the President have to capriciously order a private business to make restitution? We have bankruptcy laws, by what legal authority does the President have to capriciously order a private business and individuals to accept 30 cents on the dollar for secured credit which legally have precedence in bankruptcy, while giving unsecured creditors like the UAW far more generous terms? Hubris thy name is Obama.
Obama and statists, who think like him, have the hubris to think that they know what is best for every person, and that they should have the power and authority to dictate how people should live. From what we eat, to what we are allowed to hear or watch on TV and Radio, to what medical services you are allowed to use, they want to regulate every aspect of every person’s life. Ignoring the repeated failures of socialism, from the first Pilgrims to the US to fall of the USSR, Obama and statists continue ignore the historical evidence that the rule of law and the protection of private property rights lead to the highest standard of living and most freedom and liberty for more people than any other economic system in the history of man. Obama exercise extreme hubris, thinking that he and his ilk know better and can centrally control an economy, can centrally control what technologies are developed and succeed, can centrally control what people learn, all through the redistribution of labor. Obama thinks that he can decide, and should have the power to dictate at exactly what point you have enough. Obama is typical of statists, regardless of what philosophy or rhetoric they use to describe their agenda, no matter where in the world they attempt to implement their agenda, their agenda is always the same, preempting the decisions of individuals and regimenting their lives. Hubris thy name is Obama.
Saturday, April 7, 2012
The Simple Difference
By Tom Rhodes 4/6/2012
When a libertarian hears something on the radio he doesn’t like, say an NPR Editorial or a Strasburg Waltz, he turns the channel; exercising free will and choosing not to listen to what they want without infringing on other peoples free choice to listen. When a Liberal rears something on the radio he doesn’t like, say a Rush Editorial or a Lee Greenwood moldy oldy they try to create a law like the “Fairness Doctrine” or take some other actions so that nobody has the choice to listen to what liberals don’t want to hear.
The difference is simple and clear. Liberals don’t want people to be allowed to exercise free will if people don’t exercise freedom in a way liberals don’t like.
This can be seen in a huge variety of liberal positions. Take education, liberals are against any programs that actually offer parents choices in how their children are educated. They are anti-voucher, anti-charter schools, and anti-homeschooling. They simply don’t want people to have the freedom to choose what they think is best for their children because they want control and allowing people freedom means that the government doesn’t have control.
Consider something as simple as housing. Liberals and totalitarians worldwide are trying to force “sustainable” development rules on the world. They want concentrations of people renting, they do not want “sprawl” it doesn’t matter what people freely want to choose for themselves. Private property, and the free choice of people to have and use private property as they see fit is not even a consideration of liberals. They don’t want to allow individuals to exercise free will, but instead want some ruling elite to determine what is best and dictate how to live. Freedom of individuals to live as they see fit isn’t even considered. In fact they have such disdain for individual that they routinely claim that “most” people aren’t smart enough to make decisions for themselves.
Those who believe in liberty, libertarians, also know that with the exercise of free will comes the responsibility to live with the results of your choices. This is why liberals hate liberty; it has associated responsibility. They don’t want themselves or others to be responsible for the consequences of free will. Health care is a perfect example, they do not want people to have to be responsible for their life choices, and want those who make responsible choices to have to pay and care for those who don’t. They call it wealth redistribution, but it is a simple matter of not wanting anybody to suffer the consequences of exercising free will. They think that somebody who smokes, over eats, and never exercises should have the same affordable health care as somebody who doesn’t smoke, exercises regularly, and is careful about what they eat.
This is also why they are generally anti-Christian. Christianity is at its heart the exercise of free will. Christians believe that there is only one way, and that everybody has free will to choose or not choose the path to salvation. Liberals hate the fact that the exercise of free will and making a bad choice means eternal damnation. They hate free will, because some people might not make the right choice. The ultimate expression of freedom is in Christianity, where a person can be free from the guilt and punishment of a lifetime of sins by simply exercising free will. Of course that acknowledges the responsibility for accepting the consequences of that decision. Exercising free will has consequences, liberals have some child like idea that nobody should suffer for anything, and that nobody should have to live with the consequences of making bad choices, hence they hate free will and liberty.
In Wyoming officials admitted that they infringed upon the first amendment rights of a Christian group. Their solution, rather than stop discriminating against one view point, is to silence all viewpoints. Rather than tolerate the exercise of expression that they don’t like, they choose to install rules that mean nobody is allowed to communicate any ideas. (LINK)
It is so bad that in the people’s republic of Massachusetts school officials went so far as to change the words of Lee Greenwood’s 1984 song “God Bless the USA,” that little kids would be singing. Once the outcry from the general public, and Greenwood exercised his copyrights telling them that they couldn’t take God out of his song because as he said, "it’s the most important part", the liberal government types in Massachusetts took the predicted mode and just canceling the entire concert.
The simple difference between liberals and libertarians is tolerance. Liberals do not and will not tolerate any ideas or even the expression of ideas they don’t like, their actions and words clearly reflect this. Go look at or join in some political discussion groups on Facebook, you will clearly see that it is liberals that call for the removal of those they don’t agree, or when liberal government types run a discussion group they are the first to remove people whose ideas they don’t like. The actual evidence is clear, liberal government types cannot stand and don’t tolerate ideas they don’t like, ideas like free will, and liberty.
Now do you want people whose actions repeatedly demonstrate that that believe that is preferable to silence everybody than allow expressions they don’t agree, making your laws? Voting for a liberal government type that is exactly what you get. Be the liberal government type named Obama, or Romney, voting for them is a vote to restrict your rights and a vote against tolerance.
When a libertarian hears something on the radio he doesn’t like, say an NPR Editorial or a Strasburg Waltz, he turns the channel; exercising free will and choosing not to listen to what they want without infringing on other peoples free choice to listen. When a Liberal rears something on the radio he doesn’t like, say a Rush Editorial or a Lee Greenwood moldy oldy they try to create a law like the “Fairness Doctrine” or take some other actions so that nobody has the choice to listen to what liberals don’t want to hear.
The difference is simple and clear. Liberals don’t want people to be allowed to exercise free will if people don’t exercise freedom in a way liberals don’t like.
This can be seen in a huge variety of liberal positions. Take education, liberals are against any programs that actually offer parents choices in how their children are educated. They are anti-voucher, anti-charter schools, and anti-homeschooling. They simply don’t want people to have the freedom to choose what they think is best for their children because they want control and allowing people freedom means that the government doesn’t have control.
Consider something as simple as housing. Liberals and totalitarians worldwide are trying to force “sustainable” development rules on the world. They want concentrations of people renting, they do not want “sprawl” it doesn’t matter what people freely want to choose for themselves. Private property, and the free choice of people to have and use private property as they see fit is not even a consideration of liberals. They don’t want to allow individuals to exercise free will, but instead want some ruling elite to determine what is best and dictate how to live. Freedom of individuals to live as they see fit isn’t even considered. In fact they have such disdain for individual that they routinely claim that “most” people aren’t smart enough to make decisions for themselves.
Those who believe in liberty, libertarians, also know that with the exercise of free will comes the responsibility to live with the results of your choices. This is why liberals hate liberty; it has associated responsibility. They don’t want themselves or others to be responsible for the consequences of free will. Health care is a perfect example, they do not want people to have to be responsible for their life choices, and want those who make responsible choices to have to pay and care for those who don’t. They call it wealth redistribution, but it is a simple matter of not wanting anybody to suffer the consequences of exercising free will. They think that somebody who smokes, over eats, and never exercises should have the same affordable health care as somebody who doesn’t smoke, exercises regularly, and is careful about what they eat.
This is also why they are generally anti-Christian. Christianity is at its heart the exercise of free will. Christians believe that there is only one way, and that everybody has free will to choose or not choose the path to salvation. Liberals hate the fact that the exercise of free will and making a bad choice means eternal damnation. They hate free will, because some people might not make the right choice. The ultimate expression of freedom is in Christianity, where a person can be free from the guilt and punishment of a lifetime of sins by simply exercising free will. Of course that acknowledges the responsibility for accepting the consequences of that decision. Exercising free will has consequences, liberals have some child like idea that nobody should suffer for anything, and that nobody should have to live with the consequences of making bad choices, hence they hate free will and liberty.
In Wyoming officials admitted that they infringed upon the first amendment rights of a Christian group. Their solution, rather than stop discriminating against one view point, is to silence all viewpoints. Rather than tolerate the exercise of expression that they don’t like, they choose to install rules that mean nobody is allowed to communicate any ideas. (LINK)
It is so bad that in the people’s republic of Massachusetts school officials went so far as to change the words of Lee Greenwood’s 1984 song “God Bless the USA,” that little kids would be singing. Once the outcry from the general public, and Greenwood exercised his copyrights telling them that they couldn’t take God out of his song because as he said, "it’s the most important part", the liberal government types in Massachusetts took the predicted mode and just canceling the entire concert.
The simple difference between liberals and libertarians is tolerance. Liberals do not and will not tolerate any ideas or even the expression of ideas they don’t like, their actions and words clearly reflect this. Go look at or join in some political discussion groups on Facebook, you will clearly see that it is liberals that call for the removal of those they don’t agree, or when liberal government types run a discussion group they are the first to remove people whose ideas they don’t like. The actual evidence is clear, liberal government types cannot stand and don’t tolerate ideas they don’t like, ideas like free will, and liberty.
Now do you want people whose actions repeatedly demonstrate that that believe that is preferable to silence everybody than allow expressions they don’t agree, making your laws? Voting for a liberal government type that is exactly what you get. Be the liberal government type named Obama, or Romney, voting for them is a vote to restrict your rights and a vote against tolerance.
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Scientific Skepticism, A Religious Experience
By Tom Rhodes 4/5/2012
Last week a study in the American Sociological Review by Gordon Gauchat claims there has been, in the past four decades, a dramatic decline in churchgoers’ faith in science since around 1970. Sociology as a science is notoriously soft, lacking in rigor, and has produced such failed ideas as eugenics. Be that as it may it does offer insight.
The modern scientific method was fundamentally codified by religious men (mostly Christians) in order to better understand God’s creation. Ever hear of the phrase “doubting Thomas?” It was coined because of nature of the disciple Thomas. Skepticism is definitely a Christian trait.
Consider Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), now renamed Climate Change. Over the past four decades, scientists have told us to prepare for an upcoming ice age and warned of catastrophic global warming. Many scientists and government types trying to use scares of dramatic climate change as a means to institute tyrannical government controls on the everyday lives of the average person. At the same time scientists like Professor Richard Linden of MIT, and thousands of others clearly say that there is no scientific evidence of man causing harmful climate change.
Mike Hulme is a high-ranking professor at the University of East Anglia who has done substantial work and is influential with the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This is of course the same University of East Anglia which is infamous for the Climate-gate emails, where “scientists” were exposed hiding and suppressing data, and colluding against any whose research didn’t support the pre-conceived conclusions that AGW is valid. These emails noted that it was more important to protect the message of AGW than expose the truth revealed by the science.
Professors Hulme explains from the concluding chapter his book, Why We Disagree about Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity: “The function of climate change I suggest, is not as a lower-case environmental phenomenon to be solved. Solving climate change should not be the focus of our efforts any more than we should be ‘solving’ the idea of human rights or liberal democracy. It really is not about stopping climate chaos. Instead, we need to see how we can use the idea of climate change – the matrix of ecological functions, power relationships, cultural discourses and materials flows that climate change reveals – to rethink how we take forward our political, social, economic and personal projects over the decades to come.”
People looking for honesty and abject truth are now skeptical of the “science” presented by proponents of Global Warming theory. Being caught in lies, and watching complete double standards as to who should and shouldn’t follow new draconian environmental laws have left many skeptical. This is a more common trait in people of faith in America. How dare people of faith, who believe that there is actual truth, be skeptical of scientists who openly claim that the idea of Climate Change being used as a method to achieve political, social, economic, and personal projects is more important than the science and problems to be solved.
This new attitude by scientists like Hulme of demanding the trust of the people without evidence, in the face of them hiding evidence, and in their own words saying the evidence, facts, and science isn’t as important as the political and social goals is a good reason that the religious are skeptic. Any good scientist should be a Doubting Thomas, why is that skepticism from outside the “scientific” community now seen as irrational.
Doubting Thomas is someone who will refuse to believe something without direct, physical, personal evidence; in other words, a skeptic. This phrase is coined based on based on the Biblical story of Christ’s Apostle, Thomas. Thomas, a disciple of Jesus, doubted Jesus' resurrection and demanded to feel Jesus' wounds before being convinced (John 20:24-29). Skepticism has a long tradition in Christianity, more importantly, scientific skepticism is rooted in a methodology for looking at what God crated, a methodology developed by great religious men of the past: The Scientific Method.
Roger Bacon (1214–1294), is credited with first documenting the scientific method, based on the writings of Muslim scientists, he described a repeating cycle of observation, hypothesis, experimentation, and verification. But it is Galileo (1564–1642) who is considered the father of the Scientific Method in modern culture. According to an old 1970 edition of The Encyclopedia Britannica, “Even while Bacon was philosophizing, the true method was being practiced by Galileo, who, with a combination of observation, hypothesis, mathematical deduction and confirmatory experiment founded the science of dynamics.”
Scientists are now asking for unqualified faith in their findings and recommendations, not skepticism facts, and truth. That sounds more like religion than science. Gauchat’s work seems to fly in the face of famous sociologist Robert K. Merton who wrote, “Most institutions demand unqualified faith; but the institution of science makes skepticism a virtue.”
Last week a study in the American Sociological Review by Gordon Gauchat claims there has been, in the past four decades, a dramatic decline in churchgoers’ faith in science since around 1970. Sociology as a science is notoriously soft, lacking in rigor, and has produced such failed ideas as eugenics. Be that as it may it does offer insight.
The modern scientific method was fundamentally codified by religious men (mostly Christians) in order to better understand God’s creation. Ever hear of the phrase “doubting Thomas?” It was coined because of nature of the disciple Thomas. Skepticism is definitely a Christian trait.
Consider Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), now renamed Climate Change. Over the past four decades, scientists have told us to prepare for an upcoming ice age and warned of catastrophic global warming. Many scientists and government types trying to use scares of dramatic climate change as a means to institute tyrannical government controls on the everyday lives of the average person. At the same time scientists like Professor Richard Linden of MIT, and thousands of others clearly say that there is no scientific evidence of man causing harmful climate change.
Mike Hulme is a high-ranking professor at the University of East Anglia who has done substantial work and is influential with the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This is of course the same University of East Anglia which is infamous for the Climate-gate emails, where “scientists” were exposed hiding and suppressing data, and colluding against any whose research didn’t support the pre-conceived conclusions that AGW is valid. These emails noted that it was more important to protect the message of AGW than expose the truth revealed by the science.
Professors Hulme explains from the concluding chapter his book, Why We Disagree about Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity: “The function of climate change I suggest, is not as a lower-case environmental phenomenon to be solved. Solving climate change should not be the focus of our efforts any more than we should be ‘solving’ the idea of human rights or liberal democracy. It really is not about stopping climate chaos. Instead, we need to see how we can use the idea of climate change – the matrix of ecological functions, power relationships, cultural discourses and materials flows that climate change reveals – to rethink how we take forward our political, social, economic and personal projects over the decades to come.”
People looking for honesty and abject truth are now skeptical of the “science” presented by proponents of Global Warming theory. Being caught in lies, and watching complete double standards as to who should and shouldn’t follow new draconian environmental laws have left many skeptical. This is a more common trait in people of faith in America. How dare people of faith, who believe that there is actual truth, be skeptical of scientists who openly claim that the idea of Climate Change being used as a method to achieve political, social, economic, and personal projects is more important than the science and problems to be solved.
This new attitude by scientists like Hulme of demanding the trust of the people without evidence, in the face of them hiding evidence, and in their own words saying the evidence, facts, and science isn’t as important as the political and social goals is a good reason that the religious are skeptic. Any good scientist should be a Doubting Thomas, why is that skepticism from outside the “scientific” community now seen as irrational.
Doubting Thomas is someone who will refuse to believe something without direct, physical, personal evidence; in other words, a skeptic. This phrase is coined based on based on the Biblical story of Christ’s Apostle, Thomas. Thomas, a disciple of Jesus, doubted Jesus' resurrection and demanded to feel Jesus' wounds before being convinced (John 20:24-29). Skepticism has a long tradition in Christianity, more importantly, scientific skepticism is rooted in a methodology for looking at what God crated, a methodology developed by great religious men of the past: The Scientific Method.
Roger Bacon (1214–1294), is credited with first documenting the scientific method, based on the writings of Muslim scientists, he described a repeating cycle of observation, hypothesis, experimentation, and verification. But it is Galileo (1564–1642) who is considered the father of the Scientific Method in modern culture. According to an old 1970 edition of The Encyclopedia Britannica, “Even while Bacon was philosophizing, the true method was being practiced by Galileo, who, with a combination of observation, hypothesis, mathematical deduction and confirmatory experiment founded the science of dynamics.”
Scientists are now asking for unqualified faith in their findings and recommendations, not skepticism facts, and truth. That sounds more like religion than science. Gauchat’s work seems to fly in the face of famous sociologist Robert K. Merton who wrote, “Most institutions demand unqualified faith; but the institution of science makes skepticism a virtue.”
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Home Brewed Racism
By Tom Rhodes, 4/4/20125
All the talk and accusations of racism concerning Trayvan, when it is now clear that to make this look like a racist event; a Hispanic man is labeled as white; reliance on what have now been confirmed as doctored both audio and video to publicly convict Zimmerman regardless of the facts (he may be guilty but the facts are not all out); Calls for inquiry and seeking the truth are labeled as racist; total disregard for any evidence that doesn’t meet pre-conceived conclusions; and what appears to be the total disregard for much more heinous racist hate crimes. This is a case of home brewed racism, not real organic racism.
Have you heard about Allen Coon, the 13-year-old white kid in Kansas City, soaked in gasoline and set on fire while the two young black men yelled, “You get what you deserve, white boy!”? Wasn’t a headline story on NPR, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, etc. Why no cry for Sharpton and Jackson to fly off to Kansas City and admonish the local community, and to insist on the Kansas City Police to arrest those clearly racist assailants? Why didn’t the President call for some soul searching as to why black teenagers would do this to a white boy? The sad evil truth that nobody is allowed to say is that a disproportionate amount of black/white hate crimes is not white’s attacking blacks, but blacks attacking whites. Worse yet is the sad fact is that young black men are murdered far more often than any other group in our country, not by whites but by other black men. Want some very scary but we can’t talk about information; if you exclude black on black murders, the US murder rate is not any higher than other industrialized western nations.
If you really want to address racism then we need to address two issues, the drug war and the fact that 3 of every 4 black babies is born to an unwed mother. The war on drugs is disproportionately applied to blacks, and once a person has a criminal record you can “legally” discriminate against them. It’s not racist to refuse to hire somebody with a “criminal” record. The racism was creating and maintaining laws which make certain activities illegal based on ancient cultural preferences. In America we’ve got home brewed racism based on old cultural preferences for brew over plants.
People use mind altering drugs, always have always will. There is no scientific ground to claim that alcohol is less dangerous than pot or coca leaves, and the concentration of either through processing like distillation makes both sources of mind altering substances far more dangerous. Although virtually all cultures use both, the generally preferred mind altering substance of whites is alcohol, of minorities it has been coca and pot. The reason is anthropologically sound, availability of mind altering substances in the ancient historic dwelling places lead to cultural preferences. European heritage lead to a preference for fermented fruits, grain, etc. because that is what was easiest to acquire. Asian, African, and western hemisphere natives have a preference for smoked or ingested plant leafs, because that is what was easiest to acquire. It is easy to conclude that making leaf and flower based mind alter substances illegal, while keeping fruit, berry, and grain fermentation products legal is a subtle but functional method to keep Eurocentric racism acceptable. The idea that it is criminal to use one natural based mind altering substance like pot, while it is socially acceptable (and expected in powerful social circles) to use other mind altering substances like wine, is patently absurd.
Being a single parent is less than ideal, it is not desirable, and not the best way to raise children. Right now 3 of every 4 black babies is born to an unwed mother; Why? The answer is easy and the same; the racist war on drugs. Black women don’t have a socially acceptable pool of black men to marry who are not criminals. The social standard to marry morally upright and “good” man is greatly hindered by the fact that a huge percentage of black males are “criminals.” Prohibition resulted in Al Capone, and massive gang warfare, police corruption, murder and made normal honest people criminals. The war on drugs does exactly the same thing, but because it is targeted to minorities it provides racists a socially acceptable method to discriminate, the result is massive numbers of young black men permanently labeled as criminals, making them unsuitable for other employment and diminishing their standing as marriage material. No woman wants to marry a man who spent his teens and 20’s in and out of jail rather than developing skills that would make him a good provider, father, and husband. End the war on drugs, and the result will be a significant decrease in unwed mothers in the communities it affects.
The fact is that racism, the real lynching murdering racism of the past in the USA is all but gone. There are very rare events where some racist slime murders those whom they hate, but it is very very rare and is not tolerated by anybody of any race. The reality is that real racist organizations like the KKK and the Black Panthers are pretty much powerless and a mostly good for late night joke material. The vast majority of Americans see people like Sharpton and Jackson as opportunist race baiters. The massive fraudulent communications by the press to try and make Trayvan/Zimmerman racist issue which as more evidence is exposed, it clearly isn’t, is only hurting race relations and not productive. Failure to recognize that our current laws which criminalize eon’s old behavior based on cultural preferences are racist in nature and need to be eliminated is a far bigger problem. Since the powers of big government have found that the war on drugs is profitable (for government), can be used to control a significant portion of the population, increases government power, and allows discrimination against “criminals,” don’t expect any real changes anytime soon.
This is Legal:
This is not:
Why?
The solution is simple, liberty. Drug laws are very anti-liberty, they imply that the government can and should control what kind of natural mind altering products you choose to use. The absurdity and double standard are appalling. My hobby, brewing, allows me to make up 200 gallons of primo-hooch every year. Being of European decent, I prefer hard apple cider to other drugs. My latest, “Drunken Moose Mead,” was brewed from local honey and store bought apple juice right in my kitchen, not only does it tastes great but with a 22% alcohol content, it produces a potent buzz. Why is this legal, socially and culturally acceptable, yet gardening plants in the back yard, or window box that when used produce a similar mind altering state a crime? The reason is that beer and wine making are a traditional European “Craft” and growing pot, coca or poppy plants is a third world criminal “enterprise.” That is just racist and sick. I don’t plan to stop brewing, but will work to make all kinds of gardening legal. Home brew is legal, home grown isn’t, that has to change.
President Obama Confirms He's a Liar
By Tom Rhodes, 4/4/2012
Following the oral arguments before the Supreme Court of the United States concerning Obama care, president Obama sent this shot across the bow of the Justices:
"I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."
Obviously, our judicial branch is taking Obama's words seriously. Appeals Court Judge Jerry Smith was very stern suggesting it wasn't clear whether the president believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law. Smith is hearing a different lawsuit against Obamacare by physician-owned hospitals. CBS reports that on Monday, this three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit has in direct response to the president's challenge, ordered the Justice Department to submit a three page paper by Thursday on whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law.
For over 200 years the SCOTUS has regularly overturned laws passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress. As a constitutional scholar that he claims to be and his education and teaching credentials indicate, there can only be one explanation for that quote from President Obama. Obama is a purposeful teller of falsehoods.
We'll hear backpedaling and trite explanations, but the foregone conclusion is Obama knowingly told complete falsehood. By simple definition he has quite simply confirmed a fact, he is a liar, and not trustworthy.
Following the oral arguments before the Supreme Court of the United States concerning Obama care, president Obama sent this shot across the bow of the Justices:
"I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."
Obviously, our judicial branch is taking Obama's words seriously. Appeals Court Judge Jerry Smith was very stern suggesting it wasn't clear whether the president believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law. Smith is hearing a different lawsuit against Obamacare by physician-owned hospitals. CBS reports that on Monday, this three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit has in direct response to the president's challenge, ordered the Justice Department to submit a three page paper by Thursday on whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law.
For over 200 years the SCOTUS has regularly overturned laws passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress. As a constitutional scholar that he claims to be and his education and teaching credentials indicate, there can only be one explanation for that quote from President Obama. Obama is a purposeful teller of falsehoods.
We'll hear backpedaling and trite explanations, but the foregone conclusion is Obama knowingly told complete falsehood. By simple definition he has quite simply confirmed a fact, he is a liar, and not trustworthy.
Monday, April 2, 2012
Why Obama Lawyers couldn’t answer Constitutional Questions
By Tom Rhodes 4/2/2012
Last week’s historic 3 day Supreme Court debate on Obamacare made one thing abundantly clear. The Obama administration is unable to answer basic constitutional questions and does not want nor consider the fact that there are limits on what the Government is allowed to do. Whether a liberal or conservative justice asked the basic question: If Congress can do this, what can't it do? Obama’s lawyers had no reasonable answer. Fundamentally, Obama and his administration, do not grasp liberty and freedom and the basis for the American experiment in self-rule.
Obama’s sole case was that because everybody might unexpectedly need healthcare the government has the right to force everybody to purchase insurance. When asked to compare that with a certainty, Justice Samuel Alito asked, "Everybody is going to be buried or cremated at some point. What's the difference?" The Obama lawyer stammered and tried to equivocate but offered no coherent retort.
Obama and the liberal left want the government to control the people, but our pesky constitution keep making it difficult. Little questions like since health care is regulated by the states, since you cannot purchase health insurance across state lines, and since patients and doctors services are exchanged within a state, how forcing all people to purchase health insurance is regulating interstate commerce? Is a question bounced around but not answered by Obama’s lawyers.
Obama said he wanted to fundamentally change America. That is exactly what he is trying to do, to grant government the authority and right to force the people to purchase services and take actions that the government deems prudent, regardless of the individual’s liberty.
Justice Kennedy said it very well, the fact is there is no government enforced “obligation to one another.” The fact is that there is not a legally “shared responsibility” for our fellow citizens. In a free society everybody is responsible for themselves. We do have a moral obligation to voluntarily take care of each other, this is charity. Charity is voluntary, with our own time and money give of our own volition. Liberals as repeated studies have demonstrated, give embarrassingly little to charity, but are quite fond of forcing others to provide charity.
Constitutionally there are limits to the federal government. That doesn’t sit well with liberal utopian fantasy. They have no answer when asked, “If the government can do that, what can it do?” They accept no limits to the government. The fundamental problem is far deeper. The culture of America is no longer based on any form of democratic control. The ruling elite simply choose to ignore the plain will of the people.
The traditions and intellectual rigor that created our constitution, a period of time know as the “Enlightenment,” resulted in such clear and succinct ideas as expressed in the Magna Carta, The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and our Bill of Rights. The idea that the people, not some ruling elite, can and should govern themselves lived for about a century. That idea is dead, there is not a liberal out there would be willing to let somebody make a life decision that government doesn’t approve and benefit or suffer the effects of that decision. Make a decision that earns wealth, and the government has a right to that wealth; make a decision that makes you poor, and the government will supply you with your needs. Self governing, self ownership, and individual responsibility are ideas that created the greatest nation the world ever saw, with the highest standard of living for more people than ever before. These concepts are foreign to Obama and his administration.
The writings of Locke, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, and even Newton, all added to the conditions that resulted a society like the world had never known. The result was rather than the historic norm for all of history, which a few ruling elite live in relative luxury and control the masses living in abject poverty but the establishment of what is now know as the middle class. Over the past 100 years, this tradition of self rule has been diluted to a point that most people don’t even understand it. For a while new Americans from Europe, Russia, and even Asia, appeared to assimilate into the self-governing culture of the USA. The addition of millions of people who come from cultures that don’t even have a word in their languages to describe such basic principles as earning completely diluted the very principles upon which the USA was built.
Although it has taken a century, the melting pot has proven to be a myth not a fact. Rather than take the responsibilities and risks that accompany freedom and liberty, the multi-cultural experiment has resulted in old feudal ( or possibly tribal) thinking supplanting the foundational basis for self-rule. The very idea that because some people won’t (or can’t) make good life choices, that some ruling elite must take care of everybody cradle to grave is the antithesis of the foundational principles of the USA. Masses of immigrants have ignored the founding principles of our former Republic, and imposed the traditions, mores and attitudes of their cultures on the USA.
When the concept that people earn, not win, are not granted, but earn property, based upon free trade of their labor and capital, is not accepted as a viable concept, it is plain that the USA is going the way of the Roman Empire and is destined to be frayed. The historically brief period of time where liberty and freedom was allowed to prosper is over. Libertarianism, or classic liberalism, has been killed by multiculturalism; it was inevitable as the “live and let live” attitude associated with libertarianism, the very freedom and liberty our society was based, lead to tolerance of other cultures regardless of their compatibility with self-rule.
The reason Obama’s lawyers couldn’t answer basic constitutional questions, is culturally the very idea of self-ownership, self-rule, and the associated responsibility that accompany liberty are such foreign concepts that the Obama administration doesn’t even understand the question.
Obama and his administration believe that the ruling elite have the authority to dictate to individuals what they must purchase, and do not accept that people are free to pursue life as they see fit. This is the fundamental change Obama promised and is attempting to enact. The very idea that government is limited, especially from doing “good,” is culturally beyond his and his administration’s understanding. Obama’s “Bitter, Clinging” comments and his often repeated frustration with the constitution, speak clearly that he does not understand a culture of self-rule, self-ownership, and liberty, and does not believe that people should be free.
The very fact that the individual mandate in Obamacare is being considered constitutional by any of our Supreme Courte Justices, is ample evidence that the ideas, culture, and thinking that created our nation are gone; no longer are all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and no longer do we consider the fact that our government was created to secure these rights, instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, instead the government is some ruling elite with the power and authority to mandate what actions individuals must take, as it assumes the responsibility for every person in exchange for their liberty.
Last week’s historic 3 day Supreme Court debate on Obamacare made one thing abundantly clear. The Obama administration is unable to answer basic constitutional questions and does not want nor consider the fact that there are limits on what the Government is allowed to do. Whether a liberal or conservative justice asked the basic question: If Congress can do this, what can't it do? Obama’s lawyers had no reasonable answer. Fundamentally, Obama and his administration, do not grasp liberty and freedom and the basis for the American experiment in self-rule.
Obama’s sole case was that because everybody might unexpectedly need healthcare the government has the right to force everybody to purchase insurance. When asked to compare that with a certainty, Justice Samuel Alito asked, "Everybody is going to be buried or cremated at some point. What's the difference?" The Obama lawyer stammered and tried to equivocate but offered no coherent retort.
Obama and the liberal left want the government to control the people, but our pesky constitution keep making it difficult. Little questions like since health care is regulated by the states, since you cannot purchase health insurance across state lines, and since patients and doctors services are exchanged within a state, how forcing all people to purchase health insurance is regulating interstate commerce? Is a question bounced around but not answered by Obama’s lawyers.
SOLICITOR GENERAL VERRILLI: “I agree, except, Mr. Chief Justice, that what the Court has said as I read the Court’s cases is that the way in which you ensure that the Federal Government stays in its sphere and the sphere reserved for the States is protected is by policing the boundary: Is the national government regulating economic activity with a substantial effect on interstate commerce?”
JUSTICE KENNEDY: “But the reason, the reason this is concerning, is because it requires the individual to do an affirmative act. In the law of torts our tradition, our law, has been that you don’t have the duty to rescue someone if that person is in danger. The blind man is walking in front of a car and you do not have a duty to stop him absent some relation between you. And there is some severe moral criticisms of that rule, but that’s generally the rule.
And here the government is saying that the Federal Government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act, and that is different from what we have in previous cases and that changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in the very fundamental way.”
Obama said he wanted to fundamentally change America. That is exactly what he is trying to do, to grant government the authority and right to force the people to purchase services and take actions that the government deems prudent, regardless of the individual’s liberty.
Justice Kennedy said it very well, the fact is there is no government enforced “obligation to one another.” The fact is that there is not a legally “shared responsibility” for our fellow citizens. In a free society everybody is responsible for themselves. We do have a moral obligation to voluntarily take care of each other, this is charity. Charity is voluntary, with our own time and money give of our own volition. Liberals as repeated studies have demonstrated, give embarrassingly little to charity, but are quite fond of forcing others to provide charity.
Constitutionally there are limits to the federal government. That doesn’t sit well with liberal utopian fantasy. They have no answer when asked, “If the government can do that, what can it do?” They accept no limits to the government. The fundamental problem is far deeper. The culture of America is no longer based on any form of democratic control. The ruling elite simply choose to ignore the plain will of the people.
The traditions and intellectual rigor that created our constitution, a period of time know as the “Enlightenment,” resulted in such clear and succinct ideas as expressed in the Magna Carta, The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and our Bill of Rights. The idea that the people, not some ruling elite, can and should govern themselves lived for about a century. That idea is dead, there is not a liberal out there would be willing to let somebody make a life decision that government doesn’t approve and benefit or suffer the effects of that decision. Make a decision that earns wealth, and the government has a right to that wealth; make a decision that makes you poor, and the government will supply you with your needs. Self governing, self ownership, and individual responsibility are ideas that created the greatest nation the world ever saw, with the highest standard of living for more people than ever before. These concepts are foreign to Obama and his administration.
The writings of Locke, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, and even Newton, all added to the conditions that resulted a society like the world had never known. The result was rather than the historic norm for all of history, which a few ruling elite live in relative luxury and control the masses living in abject poverty but the establishment of what is now know as the middle class. Over the past 100 years, this tradition of self rule has been diluted to a point that most people don’t even understand it. For a while new Americans from Europe, Russia, and even Asia, appeared to assimilate into the self-governing culture of the USA. The addition of millions of people who come from cultures that don’t even have a word in their languages to describe such basic principles as earning completely diluted the very principles upon which the USA was built.
Although it has taken a century, the melting pot has proven to be a myth not a fact. Rather than take the responsibilities and risks that accompany freedom and liberty, the multi-cultural experiment has resulted in old feudal ( or possibly tribal) thinking supplanting the foundational basis for self-rule. The very idea that because some people won’t (or can’t) make good life choices, that some ruling elite must take care of everybody cradle to grave is the antithesis of the foundational principles of the USA. Masses of immigrants have ignored the founding principles of our former Republic, and imposed the traditions, mores and attitudes of their cultures on the USA.
When the concept that people earn, not win, are not granted, but earn property, based upon free trade of their labor and capital, is not accepted as a viable concept, it is plain that the USA is going the way of the Roman Empire and is destined to be frayed. The historically brief period of time where liberty and freedom was allowed to prosper is over. Libertarianism, or classic liberalism, has been killed by multiculturalism; it was inevitable as the “live and let live” attitude associated with libertarianism, the very freedom and liberty our society was based, lead to tolerance of other cultures regardless of their compatibility with self-rule.
The reason Obama’s lawyers couldn’t answer basic constitutional questions, is culturally the very idea of self-ownership, self-rule, and the associated responsibility that accompany liberty are such foreign concepts that the Obama administration doesn’t even understand the question.
Obama and his administration believe that the ruling elite have the authority to dictate to individuals what they must purchase, and do not accept that people are free to pursue life as they see fit. This is the fundamental change Obama promised and is attempting to enact. The very idea that government is limited, especially from doing “good,” is culturally beyond his and his administration’s understanding. Obama’s “Bitter, Clinging” comments and his often repeated frustration with the constitution, speak clearly that he does not understand a culture of self-rule, self-ownership, and liberty, and does not believe that people should be free.
The very fact that the individual mandate in Obamacare is being considered constitutional by any of our Supreme Courte Justices, is ample evidence that the ideas, culture, and thinking that created our nation are gone; no longer are all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and no longer do we consider the fact that our government was created to secure these rights, instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, instead the government is some ruling elite with the power and authority to mandate what actions individuals must take, as it assumes the responsibility for every person in exchange for their liberty.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Should You Need a Photo ID to Exercise a Right?
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
