Conventional collectivist created authority is a deception in consciousness. You are your own Authority!

Monday, July 27, 2015

Hillary World

When Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton isn’t involved in the process of scheming, lying, or hiding something about her nefarious activities, she’s thinking about the best ways to pander to the socialist element of her party.

During the 1990’s, as first lady for example, she came up with “HillaryCare,” her own failed version of socialized medicine for America. Of course, she didn’t know the first thing about the health care industry. She just thought it was her role as a statist functionary of the government to tinker with it for the “common good.”

Today she has her sights set on the financial markets. Of course, once again, she doesn’t know the first thing about the financial markets. She just thinks it’s her role as a statist politician to tinker with it for the “common good.”

So she declared this week as part of her campaign for President that if elected she would essentially double the tax rate on short term capital gains. She doesn’t like the idea of what she calls “activist” investors and traders in the financial markets buying and selling securities for short term profits. 

That concept offends her socialist sensibilities. Never-mind that it is those very activities that allows the markets to run efficiently. Never-mind that it’s the short term trader that creates the markets for buyers to find sellers and sellers to find buyers.

She also doesn’t like the idea of what she calls “quarterly capitalism.” The fact that some American corporations try to generate profits quarterly for the purpose of pleasing shareholders every three months offends her socialist sensibilities. "American business needs to break free from the tyranny of today’s earning report,” she croaked,   “so they can do what they do best: innovate, invest and build tomorrow’s prosperity... It’s time to start measuring value in terms of years -- or the next decade -- not just next quarter."

In short, she thinks it’s her business as a statist politician, who knows nothing whatsoever about business, to tell business how to run their businesses.  Hillary Clinton doesn’t believe that corporations are in business to generate profits for shareholders. She thinks that all businesses should be in business exclusively for the benefit of the “common good,” that shareholders may be damned.

So if Hillary has her way, investors would be required to buy and hold an investment for at least six years in order to qualify for the existing 20% short term capital gains tax rate. If an investor wanted to sell before the six years were up, any profit would be taxed as ordinary income or roughly double the existing rate.

And if Hillary has her way, the national minimum wage would be $15 per hour. On top of that, corporations would be discouraged from engaging in stock buybacks for the benefit of shareholders. She contends that the money spent on buybacks “might be better spent on research and development.”

How about that? This woman has the unmitigated nerve to tell American businesses that she knows better than they do about how to manage the growth and prosperity of their enterprises.

And why not?

If elected President she would preside over Hillary World. 

Friday, July 24, 2015

Statist idiocy in Iowa

Some statist idiots in Iowa, including police officers, the state Attorney General’s office, prosecutors, and a District Judge, got it into their deluded minds that the front porch of a person’s private home is actually a public place.

Your front porch is a public place because it is “plainly accessible and visible to any passers-by,” they reasoned. So they prosecuted a woman for public intoxication, i.e., the “crime” of being intoxicated on her own front porch.  

Police responded to a domestic dispute at the home, questioned the lady as she stood on her front steps, and insisted that she take a breathalyzer test which indicated that she was drunk.  So they arrested and charged her with being drunk in a public place together with domestic assault, (a count which was later dropped), and hauled her off to the jail.

The prosecutor’s office brought her to trial for her “crime” and a district judge convicted her despite her contention that her front porch cannot reasonably be construed to be a public place for the purpose of charging her with public intoxication.  

On appeal, the Iowa Supreme Court agreed with the obvious. The lady enjoyed a right to be drunk on the front porch of her own private home. She should never have been arrested, charged, brought to trial and convicted of this dubious “crime.”

"If the front stairs of a single-family residence are always a public place, it would be a crime to sit there calmly on a breezy summer day and sip a mojito, celebrate a professional achievement with a mixed drink of choice, or even baste meat on the grill with a bourbon-infused barbeque sauce — unless one first obtained a liquor license. We do not think the legislature intended Iowa law to be so heavy-handed," said the court, thus putting to a merciful end this ridiculous episode of... statist idiocy in Iowa.


Tuesday, July 21, 2015

Separation Anxiety

GOP presidential candidate, Rick Santorum, suffers with separation anxiety.

It’s a common kind of pathological neurosis afflicting ultra right wing religious extremists in the Republican Party, including several of the other 2016 presidential candidates. They pretend that the United States Constitution doesn’t mandate a separation between church and state. They think that Christian prayers should be recited daily to American children in the public schools and that the teaching of evolution be prohibited.
“Well, I was just thinking,” Santorum declared during a conference call with a group of religious social conservatives, “that the words ‘separation of church and state’ is not in the U.S. Constitution, but it was in the constitution of the former Soviet Union. That’s where it very, very comfortably sat, not in ours.”
In other words, Santorum believes that the concept of separation between church and state is an un-American communist idea. In fact, when he was a presidential candidate during the 2012 campaign he proudly stated that he “almost threw up” when reading John F. Kennedy’s 1960 speech in which the future Catholic president proclaimed his belief in an “absolute” separation of church and state in America.
Knowledgeable Americans know that Thomas Jefferson originally coined the phrase “separation between church and state” in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Church explaining the meaning of the First Amendment Establishment Clause in the Bill of Rights, stating in part:
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”
Rick Santorum claims that, irrespective of the Establishment Clause, church and state is not separate in the United States because the phrase “separation between church and state” does not appear verbatim anywhere in the Constitution.
Of course, there is no language in our Constitution expressly permitting Americans to be Catholics either. Does that mean that the federal government can deny Mr. Santorum his right to be a Catholic? 
Surely he must understand that the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause must be interpreted to allow him the right to be a Catholic just as the Establishment Clause has been interpreted for more than two centuries to mandate a wall of separation between church and state.
But Rick Santorum isn’t listening.
He’s suffering with separation anxiety.

Saturday, July 4, 2015

Defending The Donald

In an ideal world there would be no borders. As a Libertarian I believe that people everywhere should be free to go anywhere, live anywhere, earn a living anywhere, anytime on this planet. Passports, visas and personal identification should not be necessary. No authority should be empowered to ask to “see your papers.” The world belongs to everyone and should be free.

But this is not and never has been an ideal world. Perhaps a time will come when the entire world will be free, and all people will be privileged to go and stay wherever they like. There would be no such thing as an “illegal immigrant.” But for now, that concept is a pipe dream. There are far too many people amongst us who would abuse that privilege – criminals, takers, terrorists and such.

That’s what I think Donald Trump was talking about during his presidential candidate announcement speech when he told his audience the simple truth about the necessity to keep bad people from Mexico and other places crossing the US border without our permission.

“The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else’s problems,” said Trump. “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you, (pointing to the crowd). They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people... But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting. And it only makes common sense. It only makes common sense. They’re sending us not the right people.”

“It’s coming from more than Mexico. It’s coming from all over South and Latin America, and it’s coming probably — probably — from the Middle East. But we don’t know. Because we have no protection and we have no competence, we don’t know what’s happening. And it’s got to stop and it’s got to stop fast,” he concluded.  

He’s right. His comments have caused a huge uproar with all the pandering politicians, left, right and in-between. The Latino segments of Americans are offended. The many who are offended won’t be inclined to vote for him. That’s too bad, because statistics prove he’s right. Trump is not afraid to offend the politically correct morons with the truth; the facts; the reality of the matter. The guy has his faults, but I admire him for that.

Immigrants and other visitors to the USA should be required to follow the rules. Anyone who doesn’t – who crosses our border without permission – is technically a criminal no matter how good a person they are otherwise. The facts are that if they are inclined to ignore the rules in that instance, chances are they’ll be just as inclined to violate our laws in other instances. Trump is merely stating the obvious that we as a nation have a responsibility to enforce the law.

Personally, I know what it’s like to follow immigration requirements. I’ve been living in Thailand for the last eight years. I like it here. It’s a refreshing cultural and standard of living change from the United States of America. But Thailand will never allow me to become a citizen. I can’t be employed in Thailand without permission from the government. I’m considered a guest, and even to enjoy that privilege I must have permission.

First, I must maintain a US passport. Next, I was obliged to apply for a non-immigrant retirement visa for permission to enter and stay in the country for more than 90 days at a time. Every 90 days I’m required to report personally to a Thai Immigration office to report my address and submit proof that I’m living there. If I fail in any of these requirements the immigration officials will track me down, arrest me, and promptly boot me out of Thailand. If I commit any crime here they’ll treat me the same.

Every year, I must re-apply in person at the immigration office and submit a boat load of documentation in order to extend my visa for another year. I must prove I have a substantial sum of money in a Thai bank and otherwise have sufficient income from the US with which to support myself.

The only reason they allow me here in the first place is because I’m going to spend money from my home country which will help the Thai economy. The Thai’s don’t want any foreigner in their country who will be a burden to the Thai people. They don’t allow criminals, takers, terrorists and such to stay here.

They won’t have me unless I can prove I’m a good person every 90 days. They strictly enforce their immigration laws. It’s inconvenient; a pain in the ass, but I’m willing to do it because I want to stay in Thailand. If I can do it, why can’t visitors to the USA do it?

Reasonable Americans, including Donald Trump, are not asking that much of foreigners who want to stay in the USA. In the USA immigrants can become citizens. They can work, earn a living, and eventually enjoy all the benefits of being an American. All reasonable Americans ask of foreigners is that they follow the rules.

That’s why I’m inclined in this instance to defend The Donald.










Thursday, July 2, 2015

The Pendulum Swings


Evangelical Christian hardliners all over America are screaming to high heaven today over the recent SCOTUS decision recognizing constitutional equal protection rights to gays. They’ve enjoyed government support, endorsement and sponsorship for their religion and religious intolerance for hundreds of years.

Now they think the sky is falling.

The tide has turned.

The pendulum swings.

Just like the nation’s racist hardliners thought the sky was falling when SCOTUS began to recognize constitutional equal protection rights to blacks during the civil rights era, the religious fanatics are in mortal fear over their loss of institutionalized government discrimination against gays.

Baptist minister and former Arkansas Gov., Mike Huckabee, declared for example, that “Gay Marriage Could Criminalize Christianity.” The legalization of same-sex marriage would be a “very dangerous place” for America to go and could lead to civil disobedience, says Huckabee.

In a letter to fellow Christians he vowed to “fight to defend religious liberty at all costs... I refuse to sit silently as politically driven interest groups threaten the foundation of religious liberty, criminalize Christianity, and demand that Americans abandon Biblical principles of natural marriage.” 

“If you lack the backbone to reject judicial tyranny and fight for religious liberty, you have no business serving our nation as President of the United States,” Huckabee warned all the other GOP candidates. “This is not just about marriage... “This is about whether or not a government can begin to put limitations on the conscious and convictions of people who have faith.”
“We will see people of faith lose their jobs, pastors will be sued, churches will lose their tax exempt status,” cried Penny Nance, president of Concerned Women for AmericaShe predicts that the legalization of gay marriage would lead to greater attacks on Christian Americans. "Now is the time for us to speak up. We must obey God. We are not willing to bend one knee to man.

Of course, all of that is pure nonsense. No one is going to criminalize Christianity. Religious liberty is not in any danger. The sky is not falling. The First Amendment is still intact.
The fact that gays now have equal protection rights under the law in no way diminishes the constitutional rights of religious bigots. But the bigots may no longer enforce their intolerance and bigotry with the assistance of the government like they have done for so many years.
Never mind that.  They’re already planning to defy the US Supreme Court. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal announced today that government officials in his state will be allowed to deny marriage licenses to gays on religious grounds.
North Carolina lawmakers overrode GOP Gov. Pat McCrory’s veto of a law permitting state officials to refuse performing their constitutional duties when it comes to gay marriages.  
It’s the same kind of government defiance of the Constitution that former Alabama Gov. George Wallace did when he stood in front of a school house door to prevent racial integration in that State. It’s like allowing government officials to refuse to perform interracial marriages.
No pastor of any church in America will ever be forced by law to perform gay marriages. But if that pastor is a government official charged with the constitutional and lawful duty to perform marriages, he will have to perform gay marriages or resign his government job. There’s a big difference between government sponsored as opposed to private discrimination.  
The tide is turning.
The pendulum swings. 

Saturday, June 27, 2015

The Law is not what it says: (again!)

SCOTUS Chief Justice, John Roberts, did it again this week. He proved my point (again) when I posted here last April the fact that The Law is Not What it Says. That’s right. He just wrote the 6-3 majority opinion in King v. Burwell, (the ObamaCare case) confirming that the law is not what it says -- it’s what he says. 

This makes it twice now – two times in a row – Justice Roberts has confirmed that, when it comes to the ObamaCare law, that law is not what it says – it’s what he says.

The first time around, Roberts decided that what Congress had intended and expressly stated in the law was a “penalty” wasn’t a penalty – it was a “tax.” Now he’s decided that what Congress intended and expressly stated that only policy holders in a state created insurance exchange may qualify to receive federal premium subsidies, means that policy holders in federally created insurance exchanges can qualify for subsidies too.

Let me see if I understand Justice Roberts correctly:

The text of the ObamaCare law passed by Congress stated plainly and unequivocally that individuals and businesses that refused to buy the insurance coverage would be subjected to a financial “penalty” every year. The proponents of the law maintained consistently during the congressional debates that it would be a “penalty” – not a “tax.” That’s because the proponents knew full well that the law would never be passed if it contained a new tax. So the plain intent of Congress then was that this would be a “penalty.”

When the issue found its way to SCOTUS the lawyers on both sides of the case insisted again and again that the law created a “penalty” – not a “tax.” That’s what they argued in their court briefs. That’s what they maintained consistently during oral arguments before the Court. Indeed, that’s what the law plainly provided. Everyone knew that.

The problem for the proponents of ObamaCare was that, if the Court were to agree with them that Congress intended, and the law plainly provided, that it was a “penalty” and not a “tax,” then the Court would have been obliged to strike down the law as unconstitutional because the government may not force individuals to buy something by penalizing them for failure to do so. On the other hand Congress does have constitutional powers to tax individuals as a means to finance laws and other regulatory schemes. 

Justice Roberts and the four other left leaning justices on the Court, fully cognizant of these facts, simply disregarded the plain text of the ObamaCare law; the plainly expressed intent of the Congress; as well as the positions of counsel. They just wanted to uphold the constitutionality of ObamaCare no matter what so they decided that the “penalty” was not really a penalty but a tax. That’s the only reason why ObamaCare is the law of the land today. The law is not what it says – it’s what SCOTUS says it says.

Now, Justice Roberts, the four lefties, and Justice Kennedy have ignored once again what the law says because they just don’t want ObamaCare to come unraveled. Knowing full well the congressional history of the law and the clearly expressed intent of its drafters that policy holders in federally created insurances exchanges would not be eligible for premium subsidies, (Congress wanted a strong incentive for all the states to create their own exchanges); they simply disregarded the facts and the plain text of the law.     

When Congress said “state exchanges,” they meant federal exchanges too, despite their intent to the contrary, held the 6-3 majority...

Because the law is not what Congress intended; the law is not what it says: (again!) 

Thursday, June 25, 2015

N-word Hysteria

During a radio interview last week President Obama used the so-called “N-word” in a purely historical context while discussing the topic of race relations in America:

"Racism, we are not cured of it. And it's not just a matter of it not being polite to say nigger in public," said the President. “That's not the measure of whether racism still exists or not. It's not just a matter of overt discrimination. Societies don't, overnight, completely erase everything that happened 200 to 300 years prior."

Judging by the public outcry from all directions immediately afterward, one would have thought he had committed a murder. That’s because in America today there exists a very large segment of the population terminally afflicted with a sickness in consciousness I call “N-word” hysteria.

These pitiful anal retentive neurotic souls simply do not tolerate any usage of that term by anyone anytime no matter what the context, historical or otherwise. Such use is strictly forbidden by the present day cultural word police. The mere utterance of that word sets their hair on fire. It renders them into a sorry state of irrational foaming at the mouth apoplexy.

The White House released a statement saying that this is not the first time the President has used the N-word. "Truth is he uses the term about a dozen times in Dreams from my Father," said White House Deputy Press Secretary Eric Schultz.

Why shouldn’t he? That word is part of our history.

Now, I’ll be one of the first to admit that the “N-word” has long ago been considered a pejorative term; a word most often used by racists as a derogatory label referring to blacks. At a minimum its use is impolite in the same way that words like “wetback,” “spic,” “chink,” or “kike,” are considered impolite; and downright racist if the speaker is employing them as a derogatory label intended to identify a specific person or group of people.

There are lots of impolite words in the English language. Yet no mere word is worthy of generating hysteria regardless of how or why it is used. After all, they are just words. Words alone cannot cause harm. When I say “N-word” everyone knows exactly what it means. No one becomes upset when “N-word” is said. But some people go ballistic when “n*****” is said; it’s irrational; it’s ridiculous.

The “N-word” originated in history a neutral term referring to black people. It was simply a colloquial derivation of the word Negro, which was a derivation of the Latin adjective “niger” meaning the color black. Just like the term “critter” is a colloquial derivation of the word “creature,” the N-word began as totally benign and non-pejorative.

The great British and American authors of the 19th century, Charles Dickens and Mark Twain, for example, both created characters in books that used the colloquial “N-word” referring to blacks as it was commonly used then with no derogatory or pejorative intent whatsoever. Many blacks, even to this today, use the “N-word” to refer to each other with no offense intended.

When I was growing up during the late 1940’s and 1950’s, the “N-word” had become out of fashion largely because by this time it was mostly used by racists as a derogatory label referring to blacks.  Racism was still quite prevalent in America then.

Polite folks used the words “Negro” and “colored” to refer to blacks. Blacks preferred those terms then. The late Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, the greatest American civil rights leader of all time, used those terms liberally in every speech right up until the day he was assassinated. “Negro” and “colored” had absolutely no pejorative or derogatory connotation then.  All the civil rights leaders used those words to refer to their people.

Eventually, during the 1960’s, the terms “Negro” and “colored” were considered offensive by some blacks. They preferred the term “blacks.” Today most blacks are offended by “Negro” and “colored.” In fact, most black people today would rather be referred to as “African American” than “black.”

The evolution of the “N-word” to “African American” is factually absurd. Why, for example aren’t white people referred to as European Americans? Why can’t we just all be Americans without any regard to color or ethnicity?

I can confidently predict that one day, perhaps sooner than later, even the term “African American” will be considered pejorative and derogatory by polite society. 

Yes, soon we’ll be witnessing “A-word” hysteria in America just like we have “N-word hysteria now.