31 March 2009

A GREAT Question

I spend a lot of time pointing out what's wrong with what's going on.

I don't generally spend a lot of time explaining the background of my thoughts, or even necessarily the full context.

But a recent commenter, "It's Just Me," said this in part of her comment on my last post:
I would love to hear what you would recommend to fix this mess...
And you know, I think having to put my thoughts into words is a great idea. So here's my reply:

Like she said in her comment, there's quite a bit of blame to go around - including every person who keeps voting the corrupt ones back into office. Fire every single career Congressman and Senator - and why allow two terms? Make it one! Minimize the potential for damage, and maximize opportunity and participation.

Dismiss every single "aye" voter on the Bailout or the nationalization that's happened since. Also every cabinet member and nominee who thinks any law supersedes the Constitution or who can't figure out how to file their taxes. Also every single individual ANYWHERE in government who does not acknowledge the Constitution as the supreme law of our land. I mean, you swore an OATH, people!!!

I have ideas for appropriate "corrective action," starting with expulsion and a swift kick in the rear, or wherever; but since that last part would constitute assault, I'll have to content myself with expulsion from anything related to government and being stripped of voting privileges.

My idea for fixing the mess is to LET. IT. FAIL.

Let the banks fail.

Let the businesses fail.

In other words, let it reset. Get us back to a REAL market instead of a paper one.

Let the bureaucracy fail. Get us back to a REAL understanding of the Constitution, because its founding principles and balances will save us.

Let people fall into each other's arms - REAL arms - instead of discouraging private charitable donations in order to force the helpless into the illusory, seductive, suffocating embrace of "government charity."

Let the market system - which has been squeezed into the ever-tighter corset of federal manipulation since the 1910s - breathe. That's the ONLY way that it will truly correct, and the BEST way that we can keep at least some of our personal and local resources intact for recovery.

Let people keep what they produce instead of confiscating it toward greater bureaucratic waste. Let them put it to use in their lives to help themselves and their neighbors get through this.

Stop spending money we don't have.

Stop devaluing our currency (not that the damage is reversible).

Stop subjugating future generations to foreign fuel and financiers.

Those are a few ideas off the top of my head for how to start to fix things. I don't think most people want to hear those ideas, though, which is why they voted for people who promised to "help" them instead.

Together, though, we CAN get through this failing mess. I can help those around me, and others can help those around them.

But it's going to be a heck of a lot harder if our increasingly ravenous government keeps reinforcing a culture of dependency by confiscating more of our resources and putting a lien on our future.

30 March 2009

Not Exactly, President.

Here's a snippet from Obama's speech about taking over GM (h/t: Drudge):
Only then can we ask American taxpayers who have already put up so much of their hard-earned money to once more invest in a revitalized auto industry.
No, WE TAXPAYERS have NOT put up our hard-earned money.

You, working with a corrupt Congress, IGNORED OUR CALLS AND LETTERS OF PROTEST and put it up FOR US. And for our children. And for their children.

Against our wishes.

Quit making this sound like consensual nationalization, Mr. President. It isn't.

25 March 2009

Beware of Mob Rule *updated* *again*

There's a very long story behind the thought, but it boils down to this:

Since we can't afford to spend all our time defending our lives and our property from ne'er-do-wells, we have a government set up to protect our essential rights.

There's a fine line between too much federal power and too little; to see that, just look at the US Constitution - it wasn't the first draft of government after the American colonists had thrown off monarchy. They instinctively swung (and erred) on the side of too little government - one that was not sufficiently strong to protect their freedom and other rights.

Our Constitution navigates that fine line by providing for a government strong enough to protect rights while not strong enough - properly executed - to usurp and abuse them. That's why it's so important, so revolutionary, and so worthy of our respect and protection.


As we are doing what we can to preserve that delicate balancing act and keep our government from growing too powerful, we MUST be wary of the opposite temptation: mob rule.

It's happening in the UK.

It's happening in the US. Here, here, and here.

[Update 26Mar2009/11:56 - It's also happening in France! Boss-napping, h/t: Glenn Beck.]
[Update 30Mar2009/15:37 - Here's an interview about the wonders of past mob-ruled systems.]

We need to be careful how far we let our anger take us. Protest if you feel it is appropriate; demonstrate if you feel it is necessary; but be very, very careful of groupthink.

Anger and frustration do not justify threats, and in the meantime, they will only empower what we're struggling to fight.

Eloquence at Work - and Not Just Because He's English

Just replace any references to Gordon Brown with "Pres. Obama and the Executive branch," "Members of Congress, the Legislative branch," or "Corporate Dependents, the Leeches;" and you'll have what a lot of us would love to say: (h/t: Connor Boyack)

It's a beautiful thing.

18 March 2009

Erm, About Those CFLs...

You remember - the toxic ones?

Well, it turns out that - on top of everything else - they're bad for your skin. (Their new selling point: "Not just killing your mood anymore!")

Here's a snippet:
Particularly for people with skin conditions such as lupus, eczema and psoriasis, it causes a lot of problem with burning.
I just have to say, no disrespect intended to people with skin conditions, but this is SO illustrative of big-government "solutions." (And yes, before the "it was GE, not the government!!!" cries start, GE is perhaps the most pervasive, behind-the-scenes-successful special corporate-machinery interest group in the country; who *makes* the light bulbs we all have to buy? And as a founding member of the United States Climate Action Partnership, they're far from apolitical.)

At any rate, I have sensitive skin. Hubby's skin is even more sensitive. And Kiddo's skin is uber-pale and uber-sensitive; he also has mild eczema, the poor little guy.

So... in the interest of saving everyone money in our upcoming utilitarian universal healthcare model (not to be confused with any Unitarian Universalist churches), I'm refusing to use CFLs.

Sure, I was already refusing, but now I have a legitimate health concern. And a ready-made excuse as soon as waivers are available.

I'll even fill it out in triplicate.

17 March 2009

Presidential Pretention

According to this Military.com article, Obama is "considering deploying National Guard troops to the border."


He "doesn't want to 'militarize' the border," BUT...

Well, what would you call it when you have military forces on the border? What's wrong with "militarizing" it?

I'm all for militarizing the border to keep cartel violence out, (though preferably by arming citizens), but it seems to me that the President is missing a step in the chain of command.

He doesn't order Guard troops anywhere.

He asks the governor of a state if he (or she) would be willing to allow the feds to temporarily mobilize some of that state's Guard forces.

As a Guard family, (and there's a big reason I like being state-level), I find this mingling of federal and state powers rather troubling - especially given the Arizona's governor's angling to make sure her state's Guard is mobilized under federal authority.

Am I just way off-base here? Does this happen all the time? Or am I right to be bothered by it?


"Well taken."

That's the term that, I believe, describes whether a legislator agrees with a statement. (I'd say, "acknowledges the validity of a statement," but, Heaven help us, that would incriminate a majority of Senators!)

At any rate, this term has been used recently in the Senate over the assertion that what they did in granting Washington, DC its own House representation was unconstitutional. Here's the run-down:
Point of order that the measure violates the Constitution raised in Senate.
By a decision of the Senate the point of order that the measure violates the Constitution was not well taken by Yea-Nay Vote. 36 - 62. Record Vote Number: 67.
In other words, they didn't want to hear it.

What this tells me is that 36 Senators can read, and 62 can't.

There's also a remote possibility that the suggestion actually stung what's left of 62 itty-bitty consciences. (Sen. Hatch, you're a bought man.)

The phrase they use is "Notwithstanding any other provision of law," yadda, yadda, let's give DC a voting seat in the House.

The problem with that phrase is that the "law" they're "notwithstanding"-ing is the United States Constitution.

And when the text of the Constitution is "not well taken," the People just get taken.

Now for some late-night editorializing: if we had to choose anywhere in the country to have a vote in Congress, that currently doesn't, would DC really be our choice? I mean, I think American Samoa would be a much better choice, provided we could get the chiefs to consent to mingle with Congress; and as long as we're disregarding Constitutional requirements, why not allow US nationals to serve as Representatives? So discriminatory! Plus, it sounds a bit elitist to me to say that DC can vote in the House, but it's not going to be voting in the Senate... why not, Senators???

16 March 2009

Our Immoral Obligation

... immoral both inherently and in its effect on future generations.

I'm talking about the devaluation of our currency.

There's a great video from Glenn Beck about it - here.

This currency devaluation and its consequences are why it's our moral obligation to do what we can to stop what the oligarchs subverting our constitutional government (the Fed, Congress, the White House) are doing.

An immoral act does not become moral simply by acting through a government instead of individually.

In fact, I'd venture to state that the act has greater odds of becoming immoral that way.

12 March 2009

Thought for the Day

As we watch things happen so rapidly right now - whatever our feelings on those things - we should write down what we're thinking & feeling.

Someday somebody might care. :-)

11 March 2009

As He Signs, a Warning

Pres. Obama will sign that Omnibus spending bill.

Here's a very interesting set of sentences from that article:
"I am signing an imperfect omnibus bill because it's necessary for the ongoing functions of government," Obama declared. "But I also view this as a departure point for more far-reaching change."

In a sign of his discomfort with the bill, Obama planned to sign the bill quietly rather than in public. He declined to answer a shouted reporters' question about why.

"More far-reaching change?"

That's a pretty clear statement. I wonder how many will be able to hear it for its promise; if we've been paying attention, we should have a pretty good idea of what he's planning a more far-reaching "departure" from.

10 March 2009

Bastiat Quote: Ignorance Leads to Greater Taxation

Particularly pertinent, given the votes before Congress right now:
"In a country where no law may be voted and no tax may be levied save with the consent of those whom the law is to govern and upon whom the tax is to fall, the public can be robbed only if it is first deceived.

Our ignorance is the raw material of every extortion that is practiced upon us, and we may be certain beforehand that every sophism is the precursor of an act of plunder.

My friends, when you detect a sophism in a petition, get a good grip on your wallet, for you may be sure that this is what the petitioners are aiming at." (quoted in Frederic Bastiat: A Man Alone)
... Discuss, if you feel so inclined. :-)

Also, what are your thoughts on having a regular quote "feature" here?

03 March 2009

Good, Plain Talk

This video touches a lot of subjects; the part I find essential is the socialism part.

The more eyes we open to the evils of socialism, the better off we will be.

Where talking heads have stereotyped anyone with a conservative viewpoint (and Rush Limbaugh, specifically) as being "Hitler," they're becoming Hitler. This guy loses me around 6:45, but pointing out political, societal hypocrisy and misdirection as directly as he does is very gutsy. (huuuuuge h/t: Alfonzo Rachel at Big Hollywood)