Here's my response to a bill sponsored by house democrats to put an end to the so-called Threat of Anti-Government Extremists in 1996. The Blue text is the original text of the bill. Red text is my version. I started with my tongue in my cheek, but after I got going I almost bit it off.
To put it in context, Clinton was just re-elected and the Senate was just taken back by the Democrats. The Feds had already barbecued the men, women, and children at Waco, murdered Randy Weavers' wife and kids, and Militia groups were on the rise as a REACTION to the ever-expanding and far-reaching influence of the Government. And so the Democrats in the House tried to pass this resolution condemning the rise of Militias and vowing even greater resources toward killing the movement.
I had just bought my first gun (Glock 9mm, first of many) and had discovered internet newsgroups (alt.conspiracy) and was in my most fiery, idealistic phase of my life (so far). So this is me taking on the U.S House Of Representatives in a one-sided, point-for-point debate that I totally won (in my own head). Heheheh
(Side note: I actually found this after googling myself and discovered this guy, Nizkor, who is compiling a list of people he thinks are anti-Semites. I had made a few posts questioning the prudence of Clinton giving Steven Speilberg a few million taxpayer dollars for him to build the National Holocaust Museum. I was promptly called a racist anti-Semite by about a hundred people and ended up on Nizkors list. So thanks, Nizkor! Without you I would have forgotten that I wrote this!)
(just skip to where it says "Whereas...")
FILE hc206.ih HCON 206 IH 104th CONGRESS 2d Session H. CON. RES. 206
Expressing the sense of Congress with respect to the threat to the
security of American citizens and the United States Government posed by
armed militia and other paramilitary groups and organizations.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES August 1, 1996
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas (for herself, Mr. CONYERS, Ms. NORTON, Mr.
FRAZER, Mr. FLAKE, Mrs. LOWEY, Mr. RANGEL, Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, Ms.
MILLENDER-MCDONALD, Ms. DELAURO, Mr. CLYBURN, Mr. HILLIARD, Mr. WYNN, Mr.
LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey, Mrs. CLAYTON, Mr. OWENS, Mr.
FIELDS of Louisiana, Mr. CUMMINGS, Miss COLLINS of Michigan, Mr. SCHUMER,
Mr. SCOTT, Mr.PASTOR, Mrs. MEEK of Florida, Ms. BROWN of Florida, Ms.
MCKINNEY, Mr. FOGLIETTA, Mr. RICHARDSON, Mr. COLEMAN, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE
JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. JACKSON of Illinois, Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois, Mr.
ENGEL, Mrs. SCHROEDER, Mrs. MALONEY, Ms. VELAZQUEZ, Mr. GUTIERREZ, Mr.
CARDIN, Mr. SERRANO, Mr. BECERRA, Mr. GIBBONS, Mr. NADLER, Mr. KENNEDY of
Rhode Island, Mr. CLAY, and Ms. LOFGREN) submitted the following
concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the
Judiciary CONCURRENT RESOLUTION expressing the sense of Congress with
respect to the threat to the security of American citizens and the United
States Government posed by armed militia and other paramilitary groups
and organizations.
(here)
Whereas the Government of the United States and its agencies are
democratic institutions, created by and for the people of the United
States;
Whereas the various agencies of the United States Government derive their
purpose and their character from the expressed will of the American
people, and may be altered from time to time by peaceful means;
Whereas the Government of the United States and its agencies have
constantly and consistently subverted the will of the people they purport to
represent and, in a fashion to be expected of lawyers, turned a *simple* and
*clear* statement of purpose (the Constitution ) into a grey and meaningless
napkin.
Whereas 168 American men, women and children were killed in the terrorist
bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in April 1995;
Whereas, the ends justifying the means, you blew up your own building, in the
spirit of Freidrich Hegel, in order to blame it on the Militias and pass
further Gun Control legislation. ( Ok, maybe not. But many reputable people
smell a fish on this one)
Whereas Federal law enforcement officials were threatened and held at bay
for 81 days in a Montana town by a group of so-called `Freemen' while
trying to exercise their duty to uphold the law, at a cost of millions of
dollars to American taxpayers;
Whereas the Freemen, indulging in the same questionable financial practices
the Federal Reserve is guilty of and threatening the monopoly the Fed has on
corruption and deceit, broke some laws that protect only the International
Bankers' monopoly on usury, you saw it necessary to spend additional millions
of Taxpayer money to arrest them instead of using the funds for the
*worthless* National Endowment for the Arts or giving it to Steven
Speilberg for his Holocaust project.
Whereas various spokespersons for self-described militia and paramilitary
organizations and groups have repeatedly denounced the legitimacy of the
United States Government;
Whereas the legitimacy of the current United States Government is called into question
by it's own Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Whereas several members of an Arizona militia group were recently
arrested in possession of heavy armaments, deadly bombs and explosive
devices, and charged with conspiring to use explosives to destroy
buildings housing Federal agencies;
Whereas the several agencies of the Government are in possession of heavy
armaments, deadly bombs and explosive devices, and are charged with conspiring
to use any and all means to put the clampdown on citizens holding the opinion that
the Government has over-stepped its bounds outlined in the constitution.
Whereas experts have estimated that extremist anti-Government militia
groups and organizations in the United States may number as many as 800,
existing in more than 40 States;
Whereas experts have estimated that the government employs MILLIONS
of cops etc. in 50 States and territories who cannot be trusted
to obey the Oath they've taken to protect and serve the American People and
seem to be confused as to *who* the enemy is and instead of looking to the
many and varied accounts of the will of our founding fathers, will instead believe
the opinion their *direct* employers who are interested in their own job rather
than the future of the Children of America.
Whereas the democratic institutions of the United States and the American
people are protected from both foreign and domestic enemies by a well
trained military and multiple layers of legitimate State and local police
organizations; and
Whereas the foreign enemies are well handled by *OUR* Brothers and Sisters in
the best equipped Military in the world, and our Domestic enemies *ARE* the
State and local police organizations that would deliver the people into the
hands of slavery for a few pieces of silver.
Whereas the actions of some militia and paramilitary groups and
organizations specifically promoting violence constitute a grave danger
to American citizens and the institutions of American democracy, and
threaten the very foundation of freedom and democracy in America: Now,
therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the
Senate concurring), that it is the sense of Congress that--
(1) armed conspiracies against the Government of the United States or any
of its agencies and personnel should be aggressively identified,
dissolved, and their perpetrators brought to justice by the federal
authorities of law enforcement with the greatest dispatch possible;
(2) the illegal possession of firearms, explosives, or any substances or
devices of destruction by any individual or group should be prosecuted to
the full extent of all applicable laws by the Department of Justice; and
(3) those legally possessing firearms, explosives, or any substance or
device of destruction, and involved in any conspiracy to harm or destroy
any agency or property of the United States Government, or any official
of the United States Government, or any person, should be promptly
prosecuted to the full extent of all applicable laws by the Department of
Justice, including those designed to protect the United States Government
against treason and subversion.
Whereas the actions of Government Agencies and Representatives of
the People practicing revision and subversion of the very *idea* of Freedom
and Liberty and Justice constitute a grave danger
to American citizens and the institutions of American democracy, and
threaten the very foundation of freedom and democracy in America, and the
American people, having a history of stubborn resistance to tyranny to the
point of violence : Now, therefore, in the interest of preventing further
violence, be it Resolved by the People of the United States of
America, (our Represtntatives *better* concur!) That it is the
sense of the People that--
(1) The Constitution of the United States of America and its accompanying
Bill of Rights be hereby RE-INSTITUTED in accordance with the
well-documented will of it's founders, the constitutionality of the later
amendments to be debated and re-written if necessary.
(2) The Budget will be balanced NOW, and, in the fashion of a Father who, upon
finding his kids fighting over a toy, takes it away from both, all
entitlements, welfare and other freebies will be dis-continued. Government
spending will be indexed to the GDP, and Income ( taxes) will be determined
accordingly. The poor and needy will be left in the hands of the agency best
suited for their care; the PEOPLE.
(3) The rise of our Brothers and Sisters in the Militia Movement is to be seen
as a wake-up call to the people who unknowingly took part in the perversion,
subversion, diversion, inversion, conversion and aversion of the REAL version
of America. The people who *knowingly* took part better run!
Wouldn't that be nice! I know, it's a dream. It'll probably have to come to
war, and the people are drastically lacking in firepower although superior in
numbers. As long as our purpose in demanding these reforms is clearly stated,
I firmly believe we have friends and allies in the Military and Police and the
Government for that matter that, when the time comes, will know which side of
the line to jump on. I bet this post will piss off many people and get me on
some black list of " dangerous gun freaks". If I come up dead sometime soon
with an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound in my head ( with the gun still
in my hand, no blood anywhere, in the park with no grass on my shoes ;-) )
then chalk me up as another casualty in the war for the soul of America.
Steve Casas
Hahah! That last sentence was in reference to Vincent Foster, a Clinton advisor
and partner-in-crime in the Whitewater fiasco who was found dead in a park
one hundred yards across the grass from the sidewalk with NO GRASS ON HIS SHOES.
Try to walk 10 feet on grass and see what happens. And shoot yourself in the head
sometime (actually, don't) and see what happens to the gun...it goes flying at
least a few feet. But Clinton's Park Police called it a suicide and the Whitewater
investigation fizzled. Look it up!
Steve Casas
Friday, September 18, 2009
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Democracy and Negative Feedback loops
Sorry, but I love electronics, and I often find analogies in Electronics and Physics to other areas of life. So, bear with me, because this applies... I promise.
Guitar amplifiers are made to amplify weak signals from a guitar and make them audible through a speaker. In order to keep them from running away and amplifying the crap out of any other signal they can receive, including television signals, static, magnetic inductance and even cosmic radiation from distant galaxies, as well as amplifying signals that it creates itself, engineers use what they call "feedback loops." A feedback loop is when you basically take some of the end product and add it back at the beginning to stabilize the amp. Negative feedback is when you take some of the end product and invert it so that as the amp tries to go crazy, the load on it becomes heavier and it fixes itself. Genius eh? I thought so.
So this got me thinking about our Democratic Republic, which has mechanisms that allow the people to basically HANG THEMSELVES. Or shoot themselves in the foot, or to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory. However you want to put it, that is what voting for more welfare, healthcare, bank bailouts, pork-barrel projects, farm subsidies, artist endowments, etc. is. You are hanging yourselves! An ancient Greek philosopher once said, “A democracy is doomed once the people discover they can vote themselves funds from the public coffers.” Like I said in my other blog: You cannot vote for it to always be Friday!
So here is what I propose: we pass a new Constitutional Amendment that says that any time our yearly budget exceeds our yearly tax revenue, voting gets restricted to only those owning their primary residence and paying property taxes. See how this is negative feedback? When we start to exceed our means, the ability to keep voting for more is diminished. Property owners in general are people with a vested interest in the economic health of the country and usually vote economically Conservative out of self-preservation. There are other ways of doing the same thing, such as tying total congressional compensation to GDP. They only get paid if the country is doing good and growing. I would even make it so that their pension gets docked if we go into recession. I also had a great idea where CEO salaries (including perqs, allowances, stock options, etc.) could only be, say, 20 times what the lowest employee in the company makes. So if Bill gates wants to make $1 million/ year, he has to pay the janitor $50 thousand. And we all know he makes way more than a million per year. A great idea, but socialist in nature. I guess you could make it a requirement for a business license? Hmmmm.
Anyway, feedback is how we can get an idea of the consequences of our actions, especially when those consequences mean life-or-death to real people and are sooooo far in the future. And using that feedback to temper our decisions in the present is only rational. And being rational with the future happiness and well-being of our children is our moral duty.
Steve Casas
PS: Incidentally, today I gave a bid of $5/ SqFt to frame a patio cover. That's half price for general framing, and a fair price for my talent and my tools. The guy choked on it and I told him if he wants it done for less he'd better learn to speak Spanish and go pick up some guys down at Home Depot who are getting food stamps and welfare checks and whose families are clogging our emergency rooms to get free health care and are paying no taxes. I told him if he added all that up it would probably be cheaper to hire me. Besides, it would be done right, by a guy with a great reputation. But he'll probably get it done by Julio and Sancho and it will look like Tijuana, right next to a $200,000 pool! But you see... he's shooting himself in the foot and enticing more illegal aliens into the country and he's gonna pay for it anyway, one way or another!
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Random thoughts over the years about some of the lies taught to me in college.
It kills me to think about how many people, friends and family of mine included, have been purposefully MIS-EDUCATED by the colleges and universities they have paid, in time and money, to attend. Even worse, that most of them don't even know it...
Government cannot "create" jobs. It can only take money from you (or your children and grandchildren, etc.) and spend it making jobs doing what is in the governments best interest. This is not "creating" jobs, it is re-directing them. Make no mistake: the money the government takes from you now, and your grandchildren in the future, would have created better, healthier, and more productive jobs than anything the government could dream up.
Keynesian Economics is the philosophy of the drug addict who says he will definitely, for sure, no doubt about it, you can take that to the bank, positively quit next week.
The New Deal did not end the Great Depression, it made it last longer.
The Vietnam War was about communist expansion and Russian Imperialism. America has NEVER been an Imperialist nation. If we were, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, etc. would all be American states by now. Who could have stopped us? Certainly not Russia had we bombed them right after the Japanese.
The Nazi's did not emanate from the political "Right." They were Socialists, and all socialism comes from the Left. The political spectrum is, or should be, defined by greater control over individual action(less freedom) on the left end, and less control (more freedom) on the right. Where do you think National Socialism (Nazism) falls on that line?
Inflation is not caused by, and a fault of, the Free Market. It can only be caused by Government printing of money with no backing. Demand-pull Inflation, rising prices due to a shortage of supply, is temporary and a sign of a healthy market. Socialists try to blame all inflation on the Free Market because they hate it.
Recessions and Depressions are not a fault of a Free Market. They are caused by government tinkering and control of a Free Market. A controlled economy is not a Free Market. America hasn't had a Free Market for over 100 years now.
Social Security isn't a retirement plan, it's a Ponzi Scheme, and, like all other forms of Insurance, a bad bet. Why would you bet your car Insurance company that you WILL get in an accident? The only way you can win the bet is if you destroy your property (and that of others) and hurt people.
The only reason Liberals think inflation is bad is because they define it as the Free market adjusting itself to Federal intervention in the capitalist system. Liberals think it is evil for someone to raise the price of the goods they produce as a reaction to the Government watering down the value of the dollars they must accept as payment. They call it inflation when real people react accordingly to the government printing money whenever it needs it. The absurdity is that inflation means artificial inflation of the money supply... that is the only definition that makes sense. It would be too obvious that this is like a car-jacker being outraged that more people are carrying guns, so they have to change the definition of the word "inflation." How *dare* you protect yourself from me!
Steve Casas
Government cannot "create" jobs. It can only take money from you (or your children and grandchildren, etc.) and spend it making jobs doing what is in the governments best interest. This is not "creating" jobs, it is re-directing them. Make no mistake: the money the government takes from you now, and your grandchildren in the future, would have created better, healthier, and more productive jobs than anything the government could dream up.
Keynesian Economics is the philosophy of the drug addict who says he will definitely, for sure, no doubt about it, you can take that to the bank, positively quit next week.
The New Deal did not end the Great Depression, it made it last longer.
The Vietnam War was about communist expansion and Russian Imperialism. America has NEVER been an Imperialist nation. If we were, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, etc. would all be American states by now. Who could have stopped us? Certainly not Russia had we bombed them right after the Japanese.
The Nazi's did not emanate from the political "Right." They were Socialists, and all socialism comes from the Left. The political spectrum is, or should be, defined by greater control over individual action(less freedom) on the left end, and less control (more freedom) on the right. Where do you think National Socialism (Nazism) falls on that line?
Inflation is not caused by, and a fault of, the Free Market. It can only be caused by Government printing of money with no backing. Demand-pull Inflation, rising prices due to a shortage of supply, is temporary and a sign of a healthy market. Socialists try to blame all inflation on the Free Market because they hate it.
Recessions and Depressions are not a fault of a Free Market. They are caused by government tinkering and control of a Free Market. A controlled economy is not a Free Market. America hasn't had a Free Market for over 100 years now.
Social Security isn't a retirement plan, it's a Ponzi Scheme, and, like all other forms of Insurance, a bad bet. Why would you bet your car Insurance company that you WILL get in an accident? The only way you can win the bet is if you destroy your property (and that of others) and hurt people.
The only reason Liberals think inflation is bad is because they define it as the Free market adjusting itself to Federal intervention in the capitalist system. Liberals think it is evil for someone to raise the price of the goods they produce as a reaction to the Government watering down the value of the dollars they must accept as payment. They call it inflation when real people react accordingly to the government printing money whenever it needs it. The absurdity is that inflation means artificial inflation of the money supply... that is the only definition that makes sense. It would be too obvious that this is like a car-jacker being outraged that more people are carrying guns, so they have to change the definition of the word "inflation." How *dare* you protect yourself from me!
Steve Casas
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Answer to a stoopid Liberal chain-letter
This was sent to me right before the election last November. I posted it on My$pace back then, and am re-posting it now just because... I don't need a reason! You're not the boss of me!
His words begin with a >. Mine follow.
His letter begins:
> I am ready to start building a wall.
What, like the Iron Curtain? It will be a wall to keep you peasants in, not free people out.
> Dear Red States:
>If you manage to steal this election, too, we've decided we're leaving. We
>intend to form our own country and we are taking the other Blue States with
>us. In case you aren't aware, this includes California, Hawaii, Oregon,
>Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois and the entire
>Northeast. We believe this split will be beneficial to the nation and,
>especially, to the people of the new country of New California.
I emphatically support your decision to form your own country, however, WHERE you are able to do it is not up to you. How do you intend to "take" other blue states with you? How can you believe you can "Take" anything when you all have given up on the Second Amendment and have no weapons or the skills to use them? And just because all of Californias 55 electoral votes will go to the winner of the popular vote, probably Obama, does not mean all of California supports Obama or any of his crazy leftist ideas. I estimate a full 45% of California voters will support McCain. What are you going to do with them? Kill them, like Ayers and his buddies wanted to do? Bring it on...Unlike you, we *have* guns, and we know how to use them, and using them in that manner will be EXACTLY what the Founding Fathers had in mind.
> To sum up briefly: You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the former slave
>States. We get stem cell research and the best beaches. We get the Statue
>of Liberty. You get Dollywood.
You have stem cell research now. What you don't have is tax-payer funded EMBRYONIC stem cell research. If there was ANY hope of embryonic stem cells having scientific benefits the free market would be all over it. As it is, it is a dead end and most researchers have moved on to more-hopeful umbilical, nasal, adult, etc. stem cell research. The only reason to spend taxpayer money on embryonic stem cell research is so you can de-sensitize Americans about harvesting human embryos, fertilized zygotes, and therefore HUMAN BEINGS! And what good will the Statue of Liberty do for a society that has eradicated individual Liberty? You'll just have to melt it down so no-one gets reminded how good they had it before they tried to vote themselves into prosperity.
> We get Intel and Microsoft. You get WorldCom.
What makes you think these businesses will stay in your communist Utopia? Bill Gates wants a country that has one foot in capitalism and one foot in socialism. He would chooses capitalism every time, if he had to choose one or the other. So would 99% of other businesses.
> We get Harvard. You get Ol' Miss.
You can have Harvard...Nobody learns anything of value there anyway.
> We get 85% of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs. You get Alabama.
Again...venture capital will abandon you so fast the giant sucking sound will blow out your incense.
> We get two-thirds of the tax revenue. You get to make the Red States pay their fair share.
What tax revenue? No-one will be working.
Who would bother what with all the free health care, student tuition, government cheese, and tax credits you are promising them?
> Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22% lower than the Christian
>Coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of single moms.
Huh? Source, please?
> Please be aware that Nuevo California will be pro-choice and anti-war.
>We're going to want all of our citizens back from Iraq, at once. If you need
>people to fight, ask your Evangelicals. They have kids they're apparently
>willing to send to their deaths for no purpose and they don't care if you don't
>show pictures of their children's caskets coming home. We do wish you
>success in Iraq and hope that the WMDs turn up. We're not willing to spend
>our resources in Bush's quagmire.
Good luck keeping all those Mexicans/Guatemalans/Nicaraguans/etc. happy. They will take California from you faster than you can say AZTLAN.
> With the Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80% of the
>country's fresh water, more than 90% of the pineapple and lettuce, 92% of
>the nation's fresh fruit, 95% of America's quality wines, 90% of all cheese,
>90% of the high tech industry, 95% of the corn and soybean crop (thanks Iowa!),
> most of the U.S low-sulfur coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and
>condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools, plus Stanford, Cal, UCLA, Cal
>Tech and MIT.
What good will all that be for you unless you start FORCING PEOPLE to harvest it all.
Do you think your new Socialist Utopian government will allow you all to just hang out at coffee bars and be students-for-life and such? You will be put to work. Just like in Russia, Cuba, and China. Harvesting food, shoveling shit, making Soylent Green, etc.
> With the Red States, on the other hand, you will have to cope with 88% of
>all obese Americans (and their projected health care costs), 92% of all U.S.
>mosquitoes, nearly 100% of the tornadoes, 90% of the hurricanes, 99% of
>all Southern Baptists, virtually 100% of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh,
>Bob Jones University, Clemson and the University of Georgia.
Blah, blah, blah...
>We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you.
You can have Hollywood. Yosemite will burn down because you won't allow reasonable forest management in your "pristine" environment.
> Additionally, 38% of those in the Red States believe Jonah was actually
>swallowed by a whale, 62% believe life is sacred, unless we're discussing
>the war, the death penalty or gun laws, 44% say that evolution is only a
>theory, 53% that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and 61% of you crazy
>bastards believe you are people with higher morals than us Lefties.
Blah, blah,blah, evolution *is* a theory, The war was declared on "terror" not on the perpetrators of 911, blah, blah, with no foundation for the idea of morality, it's just a word, and as such able to be re-defined to mean whatever you want it to mean. Which is to say, without belief in god, there can be no morality.
> Finally, we're taking the good pot, too. You can have that dirt weed they
>grow in Mexico.
I'll grow my own.
> Go to hell you inbred fearmongers,
> The blue states
First of all, you don't believe in hell. Secondly, if there is a hell, I don't want you to go there. Just leave me alone. Again, why the hostility? Why the vengefulness? Why does my desire to have the government be less intrusive cause you soooooooooo much anxiety? I want you to be able to pursue your own happiness as lax or rugged as you desire. You want me to go to hell because I don't want you to take my money (taxes) to pay for your hare-brained schemes. Where's the hate? On your side...
Note all the work that you people do to try to measure who gets what.
Why are Liberals always so concerned with who gets what? Could it be because their entire philosophy is based on envy? The idea of parting company has been brought up many times, beginning with Ayn Rand back in the 1950's. Freestateproject. org is in the process of doing this right now in New Hampshire. The difference is, NO ONE at the free state project has spent one second talking about "hahah, look at what we got and look at what you got!" We just want to be left alone. That's it. No envy, no jealousy, no vindictiveness, no venegence.
Now, I know this was probably some sort of attempt to bring levity at the last minute, but for humor to work, there must be an element of truth; every comedian will tell you this. All this does is illustrate how badly thought-out liberalism is as a whole. It's bat-shit crazy at best and downright evil at it's worst.
And now I'm even madder because it's forcing me to do something I said I wouldn't do: Vote for John McCain as the lesser of two evils.
Steve Casas
--
He who would give up essential Liberty for temporary Security deserves neither.
His words begin with a >. Mine follow.
His letter begins:
> I am ready to start building a wall.
What, like the Iron Curtain? It will be a wall to keep you peasants in, not free people out.
> Dear Red States:
>If you manage to steal this election, too, we've decided we're leaving. We
>intend to form our own country and we are taking the other Blue States with
>us. In case you aren't aware, this includes California, Hawaii, Oregon,
>Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois and the entire
>Northeast. We believe this split will be beneficial to the nation and,
>especially, to the people of the new country of New California.
I emphatically support your decision to form your own country, however, WHERE you are able to do it is not up to you. How do you intend to "take" other blue states with you? How can you believe you can "Take" anything when you all have given up on the Second Amendment and have no weapons or the skills to use them? And just because all of Californias 55 electoral votes will go to the winner of the popular vote, probably Obama, does not mean all of California supports Obama or any of his crazy leftist ideas. I estimate a full 45% of California voters will support McCain. What are you going to do with them? Kill them, like Ayers and his buddies wanted to do? Bring it on...Unlike you, we *have* guns, and we know how to use them, and using them in that manner will be EXACTLY what the Founding Fathers had in mind.
> To sum up briefly: You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the former slave
>States. We get stem cell research and the best beaches. We get the Statue
>of Liberty. You get Dollywood.
You have stem cell research now. What you don't have is tax-payer funded EMBRYONIC stem cell research. If there was ANY hope of embryonic stem cells having scientific benefits the free market would be all over it. As it is, it is a dead end and most researchers have moved on to more-hopeful umbilical, nasal, adult, etc. stem cell research. The only reason to spend taxpayer money on embryonic stem cell research is so you can de-sensitize Americans about harvesting human embryos, fertilized zygotes, and therefore HUMAN BEINGS! And what good will the Statue of Liberty do for a society that has eradicated individual Liberty? You'll just have to melt it down so no-one gets reminded how good they had it before they tried to vote themselves into prosperity.
> We get Intel and Microsoft. You get WorldCom.
What makes you think these businesses will stay in your communist Utopia? Bill Gates wants a country that has one foot in capitalism and one foot in socialism. He would chooses capitalism every time, if he had to choose one or the other. So would 99% of other businesses.
> We get Harvard. You get Ol' Miss.
You can have Harvard...Nobody learns anything of value there anyway.
> We get 85% of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs. You get Alabama.
Again...venture capital will abandon you so fast the giant sucking sound will blow out your incense.
> We get two-thirds of the tax revenue. You get to make the Red States pay their fair share.
What tax revenue? No-one will be working.
Who would bother what with all the free health care, student tuition, government cheese, and tax credits you are promising them?
> Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22% lower than the Christian
>Coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of single moms.
Huh? Source, please?
> Please be aware that Nuevo California will be pro-choice and anti-war.
>We're going to want all of our citizens back from Iraq, at once. If you need
>people to fight, ask your Evangelicals. They have kids they're apparently
>willing to send to their deaths for no purpose and they don't care if you don't
>show pictures of their children's caskets coming home. We do wish you
>success in Iraq and hope that the WMDs turn up. We're not willing to spend
>our resources in Bush's quagmire.
Good luck keeping all those Mexicans/Guatemalans/Nicaraguans/etc. happy. They will take California from you faster than you can say AZTLAN.
> With the Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80% of the
>country's fresh water, more than 90% of the pineapple and lettuce, 92% of
>the nation's fresh fruit, 95% of America's quality wines, 90% of all cheese,
>90% of the high tech industry, 95% of the corn and soybean crop (thanks Iowa!),
> most of the U.S low-sulfur coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and
>condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools, plus Stanford, Cal, UCLA, Cal
>Tech and MIT.
What good will all that be for you unless you start FORCING PEOPLE to harvest it all.
Do you think your new Socialist Utopian government will allow you all to just hang out at coffee bars and be students-for-life and such? You will be put to work. Just like in Russia, Cuba, and China. Harvesting food, shoveling shit, making Soylent Green, etc.
> With the Red States, on the other hand, you will have to cope with 88% of
>all obese Americans (and their projected health care costs), 92% of all U.S.
>mosquitoes, nearly 100% of the tornadoes, 90% of the hurricanes, 99% of
>all Southern Baptists, virtually 100% of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh,
>Bob Jones University, Clemson and the University of Georgia.
Blah, blah, blah...
>We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you.
You can have Hollywood. Yosemite will burn down because you won't allow reasonable forest management in your "pristine" environment.
> Additionally, 38% of those in the Red States believe Jonah was actually
>swallowed by a whale, 62% believe life is sacred, unless we're discussing
>the war, the death penalty or gun laws, 44% say that evolution is only a
>theory, 53% that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and 61% of you crazy
>bastards believe you are people with higher morals than us Lefties.
Blah, blah,blah, evolution *is* a theory, The war was declared on "terror" not on the perpetrators of 911, blah, blah, with no foundation for the idea of morality, it's just a word, and as such able to be re-defined to mean whatever you want it to mean. Which is to say, without belief in god, there can be no morality.
> Finally, we're taking the good pot, too. You can have that dirt weed they
>grow in Mexico.
I'll grow my own.
> Go to hell you inbred fearmongers,
> The blue states
First of all, you don't believe in hell. Secondly, if there is a hell, I don't want you to go there. Just leave me alone. Again, why the hostility? Why the vengefulness? Why does my desire to have the government be less intrusive cause you soooooooooo much anxiety? I want you to be able to pursue your own happiness as lax or rugged as you desire. You want me to go to hell because I don't want you to take my money (taxes) to pay for your hare-brained schemes. Where's the hate? On your side...
Note all the work that you people do to try to measure who gets what.
Why are Liberals always so concerned with who gets what? Could it be because their entire philosophy is based on envy? The idea of parting company has been brought up many times, beginning with Ayn Rand back in the 1950's. Freestateproject. org is in the process of doing this right now in New Hampshire. The difference is, NO ONE at the free state project has spent one second talking about "hahah, look at what we got and look at what you got!" We just want to be left alone. That's it. No envy, no jealousy, no vindictiveness, no venegence.
Now, I know this was probably some sort of attempt to bring levity at the last minute, but for humor to work, there must be an element of truth; every comedian will tell you this. All this does is illustrate how badly thought-out liberalism is as a whole. It's bat-shit crazy at best and downright evil at it's worst.
And now I'm even madder because it's forcing me to do something I said I wouldn't do: Vote for John McCain as the lesser of two evils.
Steve Casas
--
He who would give up essential Liberty for temporary Security deserves neither.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
He asked for it!
Ok... so an old friend just emailed me a question. I have never been one to tip-toe about and sugarcoat ANYTHING, so he got the hook, line, and sinker...
*******************************************
Here was his original question:
*******************************************
Tell me how this balances out in your view. Some days I can make 2000 a day- for example working a 12 hour day. Some times as much as 3000 or more if I really use every billable service possible in a day sometimes less like 1500. I don't work physically as hard as you do using your brain additionally to measure add ect, I use report writing, counseling, heavy court work ect, have a two year degree, almost a 4. Business is good due to a GOVERNMENT grant serving American Indians.
In a Socialists view, there would be a redistribution of wealth. Is not everyone deserving of their basic needs being met? Why shouldn't I pay more to help balance what others get less of working as hard as I do? Honestly I struggle with charging 150 and hour for a service and paying someone 15 - 30 an hour to provide it. I am about to hire, but haven't. I realize I have overhead, and there is a trickle down notion, but still! I am making more money than i ever thought imaginable when i started. What are your thoughts? With your wisdom and experience, I bet you could open your own business!
*******************************************
So here was my reply:
*******************************************
Well, I have no idea exactly what it is that you do... but I'm gonna assume... something to do with social welfare of Indians and Eskimo's... maybe health billing, civil law, counseling, etc...
And I'll bet that the $2000-$3000 per day that you make comes from money that these poor, needy, people get from the government. Couldn't you live well with $400 per day? Why don't you charge less? Those poor people could definitely use the money elsewhere! Why don't you give most of it to charity? Why do you want the government to take more of it from you when you could give it freely wherever YOU thought it would do the most good? And why is the government giving MY money to Indians? What did I ever do to them? My kids need shoes but the government just took $160 out of my $1500 two-week paycheck! And what do I get for it? Secure borders and membership in a PONZI scheme (Social Security)?
So...if this is true...in my view, there is an imbalance going on here, and government is the problem. The money you are making is due to the government redistributing wealth to Indians and Eskimo's...remember, the government has no money of it's own except what it can take from taxpayers. So I say that what you are doing is a DRAIN on the system because you produce nothing except helping the government spend what they have taken from productive citizens like me, and getting paid more than me in the process.
Everyone is NOT deserving of having their basic needs met! Where does it say that? I can meet my own needs, thank you, as long as the government doesn't stand in the way. I also have the option of helping my fellow man if I feel like it.... charity is and has always been better at helping the unfortunate than government. And those Indians/Eskimo's would have been better off if we hadn't enabled their apathetic decline into moral and economic poverty by feeding them at the trough of welfare and getting them addicted to it for a hundred years.
You say, " Why shouldn't I pay more to help balance what others get less of working as hard as I do?" I say you shouldn't be getting *any* money to do what you do... you should be providing a real service to people; making shoes, baking bread, building homes, managing property, running a restaurant, etc. Government jobs (and all the secondary jobs that support them) created by government spending of productive taxpayer money is exactly what has to get cut. California just yesterday refused to let the governor try to squeeze any more money from taxpayers, now or in the future, and now all he is left with is a scalpel to start cutting his budget. And it is jobs like yours that will wither and die in this state. And economic health will be the result.
(edit: Unemployed state workers, and all of their fellow leeches will drag down the economy and prolong the recovery until they finally are forced to start producing like the rest of us. And of course they'll piss and moan the whole time about how capitalism failed and more government intervention is needed. Why does government only grow and never shrink? Even under Reagan it grew!)
If I am wrong about what you do...sorry. Consider it a rant at someone else who does do that. But if I am right... you are one of many ticks on a dog and at some point, with too many ticks, the dog will die. Then where will you be? I, and many other Americans like me, are like the insecticide. We only want the dog to be healthy and you gotta go.
You asked... at a real bad time, too. I'm in a foul mood....
*******************************************
Then... later I sent him this:
*******************************************
Also... I'm going to post this...including your question. I will edit out a few things so no-one will know it was you who asked, ok? Also, I will not tell anyone who may ask who it was... I realize that I came off angry and that I assumed a lot. But I just looked at your info page and I think I was close enough.
There is half a nation of people like me here and we thrive without government; you and the other half will starve without it. My only advice to you is to find a job that gives people service for value. Anything else is wasteful and cancerous and cannot survive the coming revolution.
*******************************************
Here was his original question:
*******************************************
Tell me how this balances out in your view. Some days I can make 2000 a day- for example working a 12 hour day. Some times as much as 3000 or more if I really use every billable service possible in a day sometimes less like 1500. I don't work physically as hard as you do using your brain additionally to measure add ect, I use report writing, counseling, heavy court work ect, have a two year degree, almost a 4. Business is good due to a GOVERNMENT grant serving American Indians.
In a Socialists view, there would be a redistribution of wealth. Is not everyone deserving of their basic needs being met? Why shouldn't I pay more to help balance what others get less of working as hard as I do? Honestly I struggle with charging 150 and hour for a service and paying someone 15 - 30 an hour to provide it. I am about to hire, but haven't. I realize I have overhead, and there is a trickle down notion, but still! I am making more money than i ever thought imaginable when i started. What are your thoughts? With your wisdom and experience, I bet you could open your own business!
*******************************************
So here was my reply:
*******************************************
Well, I have no idea exactly what it is that you do... but I'm gonna assume... something to do with social welfare of Indians and Eskimo's... maybe health billing, civil law, counseling, etc...
And I'll bet that the $2000-$3000 per day that you make comes from money that these poor, needy, people get from the government. Couldn't you live well with $400 per day? Why don't you charge less? Those poor people could definitely use the money elsewhere! Why don't you give most of it to charity? Why do you want the government to take more of it from you when you could give it freely wherever YOU thought it would do the most good? And why is the government giving MY money to Indians? What did I ever do to them? My kids need shoes but the government just took $160 out of my $1500 two-week paycheck! And what do I get for it? Secure borders and membership in a PONZI scheme (Social Security)?
So...if this is true...in my view, there is an imbalance going on here, and government is the problem. The money you are making is due to the government redistributing wealth to Indians and Eskimo's...remember, the government has no money of it's own except what it can take from taxpayers. So I say that what you are doing is a DRAIN on the system because you produce nothing except helping the government spend what they have taken from productive citizens like me, and getting paid more than me in the process.
Everyone is NOT deserving of having their basic needs met! Where does it say that? I can meet my own needs, thank you, as long as the government doesn't stand in the way. I also have the option of helping my fellow man if I feel like it.... charity is and has always been better at helping the unfortunate than government. And those Indians/Eskimo's would have been better off if we hadn't enabled their apathetic decline into moral and economic poverty by feeding them at the trough of welfare and getting them addicted to it for a hundred years.
You say, " Why shouldn't I pay more to help balance what others get less of working as hard as I do?" I say you shouldn't be getting *any* money to do what you do... you should be providing a real service to people; making shoes, baking bread, building homes, managing property, running a restaurant, etc. Government jobs (and all the secondary jobs that support them) created by government spending of productive taxpayer money is exactly what has to get cut. California just yesterday refused to let the governor try to squeeze any more money from taxpayers, now or in the future, and now all he is left with is a scalpel to start cutting his budget. And it is jobs like yours that will wither and die in this state. And economic health will be the result.
(edit: Unemployed state workers, and all of their fellow leeches will drag down the economy and prolong the recovery until they finally are forced to start producing like the rest of us. And of course they'll piss and moan the whole time about how capitalism failed and more government intervention is needed. Why does government only grow and never shrink? Even under Reagan it grew!)
If I am wrong about what you do...sorry. Consider it a rant at someone else who does do that. But if I am right... you are one of many ticks on a dog and at some point, with too many ticks, the dog will die. Then where will you be? I, and many other Americans like me, are like the insecticide. We only want the dog to be healthy and you gotta go.
You asked... at a real bad time, too. I'm in a foul mood....
*******************************************
Then... later I sent him this:
*******************************************
Also... I'm going to post this...including your question. I will edit out a few things so no-one will know it was you who asked, ok? Also, I will not tell anyone who may ask who it was... I realize that I came off angry and that I assumed a lot. But I just looked at your info page and I think I was close enough.
There is half a nation of people like me here and we thrive without government; you and the other half will starve without it. My only advice to you is to find a job that gives people service for value. Anything else is wasteful and cancerous and cannot survive the coming revolution.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Friday's, inexperienced leaders, and the general balance of the Universe
Being educated and experienced in electronics, I have often used my understanding of Electricity and the forces of Nature in making analogies to everyday behavior/politics and general societal motion. See, Generating electricity is really just using physical force to knock electrons loose from the atoms they were bound to. Most people think it is these electrons we are putting to use, however this is not the case. It is the atom from which we have enticed the electron that is the key to electricity. This atom, and all others in the Universe, was forged in the million-degree fires of the hottest stars and supernovae explosions, with all its constituent parts in the quantity and order required to make it stable. Knock a piece off and it will take what it needs from the next atom, which leaves that atom in need and the process repeats until the Universe is able to re-balance itself. It is this desperate "need" that the atom experiences, a need which didn't exist before, that enables it, gives it the power, to steal what it needs from an adjacent atom that was previously in perfect balance. And it is these atoms in a state of "need" that we enslave and make to do all sorts of demeaning tasks before they are finally fulfilled and become at one with the Universe again, in their natural state.
This happens in nature a lot, all by itself. But the Universe always re-balances. Different densities of air rushing past each other (wind) knock electrons loose. Lightning is just the result of the Universe balancing itself out. We have discovered ways of enhancing this natural action and putting it to use. If you collect enough of these ionized atoms and store them where they are prevented from re-combining, you can later cause a controlled re-combination in your flashlight.
There is, as of yet, no negative consequences to our enslavement of these ionized atoms, because we always allow them to re-balance. It is un-natural that we force an imbalance, but it is natural for the Universe to bring about balance.
Which brings me to the point: People in need can also be enslaved and made to do all kinds of demeaning things. They can be made to do positive things, too, I suppose, but only if you believe the end justifies the means. I say that anything accomplished by means of enslavement and force can never be positive. When I look at the pyramids in Egypt, I see hundreds of thousands of people forced to work their entire lives for the self-aggrandizement of one man. It doesn't matter that they built something so awesome that it still inspires wonder some 4500 years later.
Sure, having more high school graduates (positive end) may be achieved by lowering the standards of commencement (means), but that only sends a person out into the world thinking he/she is smarter than they really are and essentially sets them up for heartbreaking failure!
Yes, more people can own homes (positive end) if you lower the requirements of obtaining a loan (a means risky to banking structure), but does that justify putting the entire WORLD at the brink of economic collapse? (For the record, the democrats said it was worth the risk and the Republicans said it was not. Look it up; Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, etc.)
True, living in a society that is free from racial discrimination (positive ends) might be realized if there were more black college grads and CEO's and even presidents (by means of affirmative action, admissions quotas, and mainstream media dereliction of duty during election '08) but again it's un-natural and risky to put the lives and fortunes of a whole nation in the palms of any but the best, brightest, most capable and tested hands.
It is natural for people to trade goods and to decide on rules in the marketplace. It is un-natural to use force to fudge those rules in order to influence trade based on some imaginary ideal.
It is natural for the best and brightest to succeed. It is un-natural to not have any "best" or "brightest" because someone might feel bad if they don't qualify. We are not all equal. Get over it.
It is natural to elect leaders based on personal experience and capability, and trustworthiness. It is un-natural to fake experience, capability and trustworthiness in order to elect a certain leader because if you do, you will feel "hopeful" and the world will be "changed." You have set him up for failure. There are consequences. You cannot vote for it to always be Friday.
There is a natural order to the Universe. We humans have always tried to understand it so that we may be at one with it. Many popular philosophies through the years have arisen, some fighting it, some flowing with it. Libertarianism seeks to accept it at face value. It seems to me that Liberalism (Socialism) refuses to accept it and will fight it to the death. Socialism is force; Libertarianism is freedom from force.
It all makes me wonder if the Liberals are telling us what their real goal is. Is it equality or do they really just want to tear the world apart because its' natural order is repugnant to them. Because that is exactly what they are doing; tearing the world apart. And when it re-balances itself, they will still have the audacity to reject the order. This means they have put themselves in a state of perpetual conflict with the Universe.
It's a good thing the Universe doesn't take it personal that we have been knocking its' atoms about, willy-nilly, for about 200 years now. Or does it?
Liberal Self-Conflict or Subterfuge?
Liberal Self-Conflict or Subterfuge?
Here’s just three examples of liberal self-conflict I referred to in my last post.
Stem-cell research and baby bottles:
Not one federally-funded study, and there has been many, has shown BPA to be harmful in the doses relevant to baby/water bottles. But still they protest. David Fenton, George Soros, and the trial lawyers (big democrat donators) are foaming at the mouth trying to get it banned and legislation passed. However...when it comes to embryonic stem-cell research, those same people will say that federally funded studies are needed because the private research that is, and had for years, been ongoing has gradually moved on to more promising stem cells not harvested from living human embryos. Do they trust federally funded research in the second case but not in the first? Or is there something more devious going on?
Here's the subterfuge: in the first case, they are protecting trial lawyers' ability to rake in multi-million dollar settlements from bottle manufacturers, and in the second case they really just want to destroy Judeo-Christian morality regarding the sanctity of human life.
The whole issue regarding stem cell research is that the government won’t (and shouldn’t) provide taxpayer dollars for research on live embryos because many, myself included, believe those are human beings by definition and we don’t, and shouldn’t, experiment on them. That doesn’t mean that research isn’t being done on them. It is. All over the place by privately funded corporations. But most researchers have moved on to other types of stem cells that don’t require destroying human life because embryonic stem cells are unstable. Dumb liberals believe that the government is discriminating and catering to the right-to-life movement and that Superman could have walked again. Smart liberals know that really it is an attempt to prepare society for organ harvesting, euthanasia, population control (forced abortions) and general SLAVERY! Smart liberals love dumb liberals.
Darwinism:
Darwin theorized that those species whose actions/instincts/mutations gave them advantage naturally thrived and those species whose actions/instincts/mutations were disadvantageous became extinct. Thus we, and all other extant species, are the survivors. I don't have a problem with that. But I am the one who included ACTIONS and INSTINCTS along with mutations above. And I say that actions, meaning acquired/learned behavior, becoming instinct in later generations, is a much more important factor in survival than radical genetic mutation (macro-evolution) which hasn't even been proven to have happened. Yes, the sea otter couldn't have learned to use rocks to smash open oysters without first evolving opposable thumbs, but did the otter evolve opposable thumbs? Again...not proven.
So this brings us to the hypocrisy: Humans that have evolved actions/instincts/mutations that are disadvantageous to their survival should be allowed to become extinct. I include homosexuals, drug abusers, promiscuous sex abusers, murderers, and people that think the planet is over-populated. All these groups have or should have made decisions that make them less able to pro-create and therefore survive, some by their own self-exclusion/destruction and others by violating the laws of society. Allowing their extinction isn't mean or callous, it's their choice. So who is it that fights against it? Liberals...every time. They want homosexuals to have kids, adopt, marry so they can have a legitimate legacy, etc. They want to give drug users clean needles and therefore prolong their self-destruction. They repeatedly stand in the way of societal cleansing of people with un-natural sexual desires (rapists, pedophiles, zoophiles, etc.), murderers, traitors, etc. Liberals want poor people to have fewer kids but still vote for liberals, so they give them welfare, free abortions and ban DDT so more of their children will die (The U.N. says malaria kills one child every 30 seconds) but at least vultures will thrive! (link) If you think the world is over-populated, then don’t have kids! There are people that don’t think so; let them be. Only narrow-minded city folk (who voted for Obama by wide margins) think the world is overpopulated.
This doesn't mean I don't want these humans that have chosen unhealthy lifestyles to be cared for. I do. There are people that want to care for them. The free market will provide. Charitable organizations will provide. Oh, wait; Obama’s taking away their livelihood, too. There are also people that don't want to be cared for. But don't pretend that your choices haven't reduced your ability to survive. This is what Judeo-Christian morality has given the human race: a things-to-do list to increase your survivability. And what is the result? After some 3500 years of implementation, the greatest society on the face of the earth...ever! An entire nation of free people. Free to pursue their own happiness, by their own definition. Free to sink or swim. Free to succeed or fail, languish or thrive, dally or hustle. Perish or survive.
Home ownership:
Anyone in the business of loaning money will tell you that someone who isn’t able to obtain gainful employment AND save money is a risky prospect. Anyone involved in risky prospects better be ready to lose it all. Who the HELL wants to live wondering if he’s going to lose it all tomorrow? This is why banks require sizable down-payments; so they know that you are able to save and that you are “in it” with the bank and that your life is on the line too. It makes the bank feel better about loaning you money and might get you a better interest rate. The current credit system is a way of discerning who is and is not able to save and make payments.
Owning a home is the single best thing one can do to ensure financial well-being and future happiness for one’s family. So, increasing the percentage of home-ownership would be a good thing, right? Wrong! This is putting the cart before the horse. What needs to happen is to encourage SAVING. Hard work and saving your money. These are laws of human behavior that are as obvious to an uneducated man today as they were 4000 years ago! But again, liberals want to re-write basic human behavior by forcing banks to loan money to risky borrowers by telling lenders that the government will bail them out if the loans are defaulted on. How does this make a person more able to make house payments? And what happens when they default by the millions when there’s a hiccup in the economic health of the country? We all suffer. All of us.
Another case of liberals being mad about the fact that Wednesday comes after Tuesday. We don’t write the Laws of Human Behavior; we just discover them. Liberals want to change them. Not their own behavior, just that of others. They are in conflict with basic human nature.
Ways to encourage saving:
· Get rid of the Capital gains tax. Any time you make more than just what you need to survive (wages) the government taxes it at a higher rate. What was it that you were going to save if not the money you earned above and beyond that which you needed to survive?
· Cut income taxes or, even better, switch to a national sales tax. Stop taking so much of our discretionary money and we will at least have the option to save. With a national sales tax, the less you consume, the more discretionary dollars you will have and maybe you’ll save some or pay down your mortgage (which is a form of saving in itself).
Ways to discourage saving:
· Inflating the money supply artificially (by deficit spending, which is the same as just printing more money) discourages saving by making the money you save worth less than it was when you earned it. This has been going on for thousands of years, however never at the rate it is now with Obama at the helm. John Maynard Keynes was WRONG and his economic theories were just a devious means of enslaving an entire nation to debt! Look it up.
· Raise Capital gains taxes. No-brainer.
· Give hope for the future. If the future looks awesome, who wouldn’t want to be there? When the government continues to pursue economic policies that are clearly poisonous to the educated and give rise to uncertainty among the un-educated, why would anyone suffer now by saving when the future promises even more suffering? The policies I speak of are social security (ponzi scheme that must implode under its own weight), skyrocketing national debt, and erosion of basic human rights; free speech, self defense (2nd amendment), right to life, rights of parents, property rights, etc.
So next election remember who encourages saving and who discourages it.
Also, it is said that a neurotic believes that 2+2=5. A psychotic knows that 2+2=4, but he's mad about it. Anyone living in conflict with basic human nature is either psychotic or trying to pull the wool over your eyes. Neither should be elected to any kind of office.
More examples of liberal self-conflict to come. Happy Easter! And remember, today is the day that God led by example to teach us that we should sacrifice and save; not for this world, but the next.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
