Now I'm officially afraid of the government...
Not really, but with the latest Executive Order from the White House we all have more reason to start worrying. The latest incarnation of The National Defense Resources Preparedness EO makes some minor changes, mostly in responsibilities assigned to each cabinet position, and one, very worrying one. Previous versions of this order, going back to 1939, give the President the authority to take over some or all of our industrial capacity in order to allow for control of production during war time. Not exactly in accordance with the Constitution as written or intended by the men that wrote it, but I don't find Executive orders in that document either. This particular series of orders is (almost) understandable, during an emergency. The problem with the newest version is twofold. First, we have been in an official state of emergency since September 14, 2001. And second, the new version allows for the control to be taken during peacetime.
That's right, by executive fiat, the government can take over any business or private property, even if there is no war or other emergency. There is even a section that allows the head of the mentioned agencies to " to employ persons of outstanding experience and ability without
compensation and to employ experts, consultants, or organizations". Being forced to work for the government without compensation looks like it may violate the 13th amendment, you know, the one that outlawed slavery.
I don't know if the current administration has any intention of using this order, but given the general contempt shown for the Constitution, and the people of this nation in general, I wouldn't be surprised if they do. I am afraid that if they do try to implement this it will mean the start of the second American Revolution. I do not want this to happen, I sincerely hope it doesn't, but I also know which side of the battle I would be on.
This is, unfortunately, exactly the situation the Second amendment was written for, as a reset switch for a government gone bad. A reset switch the founders hoped we wouldn't ever need but put in place as a precaution. We, as law abiding citizens will not be the ones to start any battle, but I would hope there are enough patriots left to restart this country the way it was intended to be. Think on this, long and hard, and decide where your loyalties lie.
One mans look at how America is failing and how we can stop it.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Monday, March 12, 2012
Is gun control even feasible?
Gun control advocates would have us think that by outlawing firearms we will be safer as citizens. there are several problems with this line of thinking, not the least of which is human nature itself. There will always be those who would prefer to take from others that which they have not earned. There will also always be those who are psychopathic or otherwise unfit to interact with society. These people cannot be eliminated by legislating that law-abiding people be unable to defend against the predators. All that will do is give the predators easier prey to harm.
Has there ever been a successful implementation of gun control? By this, I mean a situation where the citizens benefited by being disarmed rather than the government benefiting by having a disarmed population. Every time it has been tried the government involved has eventually killed some segment of its population. What follows is a list of government sponsored genocides from the twentieth century (courtesy of JPFO.org):
Turkey 1915-1917 1.5 million (mostly Armenians)
Soviet Union 1929-1945 20 million (farmers, political opponents)
Nazi Germany 1933-1945 20 million (Jews, Gypsies, political opponents)
Nationalist China 1929-1949 10 million (political opponents, military conscripts)
Communist China 1949-1976 20-35 million (political opponents, rural, enemies of the state)
Guatemala 1960-1981 1-200,000 (Mayans, Indians, political enemies)
Uganda 1971-1979 300,000 (Christians, political enemies)
Cambodia 1974-1979 2 million (Educated people, political enemies)
Rwanda 1994 800,000 (Tutsi)
The similarity between all of these is that some form of gun control was implemented before the murders took place. The gun control ranged from permits to own (Illinois, Massachusetts) to registration (California, New York) to outright bans (Washington DC, since overturned). In every case the government started with small, so-called reasonable, laws and progressed to bans and them to punishing those who defied them. In every case in this country where there is strict gun control, there is also elevated violent crime rates when compared to areas with more liberal laws.
Now, I can't be certain that the cause of the higher crime rates is the disarmed population, but I do know that, in the animal kingdom, predators will avoid prey that can fight back, when at all possible. As most humans are smarter than most animals, I would assume the same holds true for them, the predators (criminals) will avoid the prey that can fight back (armed citizens). What holds the higher predators, those corrupted by power, at bay in society is the realization that, if pushed too far the citizens can (and will) fight back. By disarming the citizens those in power make it easier for for them to remain in power. Gun control is not at all about guns or making people safer nut entirely about controlling the masses to enable the ruling class (which we shouldn't have) to keep ruling.
Think about it. Keep this in mind when you vote this fall. Also, remember that most of those in Washington think that the Constitution is an outdated document which should be ignored when convenient. Those need to be fired by the people they work for, namely US.
Gun control advocates would have us think that by outlawing firearms we will be safer as citizens. there are several problems with this line of thinking, not the least of which is human nature itself. There will always be those who would prefer to take from others that which they have not earned. There will also always be those who are psychopathic or otherwise unfit to interact with society. These people cannot be eliminated by legislating that law-abiding people be unable to defend against the predators. All that will do is give the predators easier prey to harm.
Has there ever been a successful implementation of gun control? By this, I mean a situation where the citizens benefited by being disarmed rather than the government benefiting by having a disarmed population. Every time it has been tried the government involved has eventually killed some segment of its population. What follows is a list of government sponsored genocides from the twentieth century (courtesy of JPFO.org):
Turkey 1915-1917 1.5 million (mostly Armenians)
Soviet Union 1929-1945 20 million (farmers, political opponents)
Nazi Germany 1933-1945 20 million (Jews, Gypsies, political opponents)
Nationalist China 1929-1949 10 million (political opponents, military conscripts)
Communist China 1949-1976 20-35 million (political opponents, rural, enemies of the state)
Guatemala 1960-1981 1-200,000 (Mayans, Indians, political enemies)
Uganda 1971-1979 300,000 (Christians, political enemies)
Cambodia 1974-1979 2 million (Educated people, political enemies)
Rwanda 1994 800,000 (Tutsi)
The similarity between all of these is that some form of gun control was implemented before the murders took place. The gun control ranged from permits to own (Illinois, Massachusetts) to registration (California, New York) to outright bans (Washington DC, since overturned). In every case the government started with small, so-called reasonable, laws and progressed to bans and them to punishing those who defied them. In every case in this country where there is strict gun control, there is also elevated violent crime rates when compared to areas with more liberal laws.
Now, I can't be certain that the cause of the higher crime rates is the disarmed population, but I do know that, in the animal kingdom, predators will avoid prey that can fight back, when at all possible. As most humans are smarter than most animals, I would assume the same holds true for them, the predators (criminals) will avoid the prey that can fight back (armed citizens). What holds the higher predators, those corrupted by power, at bay in society is the realization that, if pushed too far the citizens can (and will) fight back. By disarming the citizens those in power make it easier for for them to remain in power. Gun control is not at all about guns or making people safer nut entirely about controlling the masses to enable the ruling class (which we shouldn't have) to keep ruling.
Think about it. Keep this in mind when you vote this fall. Also, remember that most of those in Washington think that the Constitution is an outdated document which should be ignored when convenient. Those need to be fired by the people they work for, namely US.
Sunday, March 11, 2012
They call this ethical..
Two people calling themselves bioethicists are proposing what they euphemistically call "after-birth abortion". What they mean by this is that if a child is born with a defect that would have caused the parents to abort the child before birth, they should have they right to kill the child after birth. I may be mistaken, but I thought this was called murder. I have a big enough problem with a normal abortion (if there is such a thing) but killing a child that has already drawn breath is just plain wrong.
Every child that comes into this world is special and all deserve the love and nurturing that we give the healthy one, no matter what problems they are born with. Some of the sweetest children I have ever met have been handicapped in one way or another, and would no more cause harm to anyone around them than I would. To deny them the chance to become everything they were sent here to be just because the don't fit the current definition of "perfect" is an abomination.
While I refuse to name the monsters who propose this, at least one of them is a doctor. I am not sure if the designation is for a medical degree or a Phd. but in either case the person has absolutely no human compassion.
If this is a good idea, where do we draw the line. Does a young child who gets disable due to injury or illness qualify for this procedure? How about a teenager that gets cancer and needs to have a limb amputated? Do we then extend it to adults who don't fit in? Where does it end?
Who gets to decide if a child is to be murdered after birth? Do the parents have all the responsibility or can the doctors override a decision to kill? With the current government interference in healthcare, would a bureaucrat tell the parents that there beautiful child wasn't worthy of spending money on? Or would the parents be able to override the bureaucrats decision? If there was a couple who were unable to have children would they be able to save a child sentenced to death for a defect?
These are the true ethical questions which need to be answered, not whether or not an intellectual in some ivory tower thinks we need to be able to murder children who don't fit their ideals. If we, as a society, allow something like this to proceed, then we have lost any last bit of humanity that we might have left, and deserve what ever befalls us. This can't be allowed to stand, and these monsters can't be allowed to influence any policy, anywhere, at any time, for anything which can affect decent people.
Two people calling themselves bioethicists are proposing what they euphemistically call "after-birth abortion". What they mean by this is that if a child is born with a defect that would have caused the parents to abort the child before birth, they should have they right to kill the child after birth. I may be mistaken, but I thought this was called murder. I have a big enough problem with a normal abortion (if there is such a thing) but killing a child that has already drawn breath is just plain wrong.
Every child that comes into this world is special and all deserve the love and nurturing that we give the healthy one, no matter what problems they are born with. Some of the sweetest children I have ever met have been handicapped in one way or another, and would no more cause harm to anyone around them than I would. To deny them the chance to become everything they were sent here to be just because the don't fit the current definition of "perfect" is an abomination.
While I refuse to name the monsters who propose this, at least one of them is a doctor. I am not sure if the designation is for a medical degree or a Phd. but in either case the person has absolutely no human compassion.
If this is a good idea, where do we draw the line. Does a young child who gets disable due to injury or illness qualify for this procedure? How about a teenager that gets cancer and needs to have a limb amputated? Do we then extend it to adults who don't fit in? Where does it end?
Who gets to decide if a child is to be murdered after birth? Do the parents have all the responsibility or can the doctors override a decision to kill? With the current government interference in healthcare, would a bureaucrat tell the parents that there beautiful child wasn't worthy of spending money on? Or would the parents be able to override the bureaucrats decision? If there was a couple who were unable to have children would they be able to save a child sentenced to death for a defect?
These are the true ethical questions which need to be answered, not whether or not an intellectual in some ivory tower thinks we need to be able to murder children who don't fit their ideals. If we, as a society, allow something like this to proceed, then we have lost any last bit of humanity that we might have left, and deserve what ever befalls us. This can't be allowed to stand, and these monsters can't be allowed to influence any policy, anywhere, at any time, for anything which can affect decent people.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
This is part of the problem with this country...
The news from Michigan boggles the mind. A woman, who owns two houses, one worth a million dollars, a new car and a winning lottery ticket worth another million, is receiving two hundred dollars a month in food assistance. This is not (yet) against the law, but why would a person with those assets even qualify for assistance in the first place. I know if that was me, before I even considered applying for assistance, the more expensive house would be sold (at a loss if necessary) and the new car would be traded for something used and economical. This woman, by comparison, feels she has a "right" to other peoples money so she can live in luxury.
The first problem with this is that the government is in the business of charity, rather than private or religious organizations. This was not the case before the first Great Depression, when the federal government started offering various assistance programs, such as food stamps, unemployment and help for single mothers. Now, I understand that almost everyone needs help at some time or another (I have myself), but the first choice should not be the federal government. Actually, the only way the government can get money for these programs is to take it, under threat of imprisonment, from others. We know this as taxation. Private and religious charities, on the other hand, are funded by voluntary contributions. They will not allow someone to live in luxury from the assistance given, but will allow them to get back on their feet. This is how it should be.
The second problem that I see is that it is legal for this type of abuse to occur at all. Many states use a needs based system for deciding if some is to get the assistance applied for. This is evidently not the case in Michigan, although that may change. If someone has these type of assets, those should be sold before assistance is given. I am not saying that she shouldn't own a house, but to own two, with a total value of over $1,000,000, should disqualify her. She should downsize to one house which is more within her means to maintain. If she then still needs help let her apply at that time. Similar tests should be applied to any valuable assets, such as investments or real property. Again, I am not saying that a person needs to be destitute to receive help, but there need to be limits to what can be kept.
The third problem in this case is that there is no requirement for the lottery commission to communicate with the welfare department. Indeed there is no way for them to do it without breaking privacy laws. But, since the names of lottery winners are public information, the welfare department can check the weekly (or semi-weekly) winners against their list of clients. It can be simply automated using a computer and once the search is set up will literally take no labor to get a preliminary list, which then could be quickly verified by hand.
I think the worst part of this case is the sense of entitlement the woman feels. This indicates a problem with the character of this country. Keep in mind that, depending on which data source you use, anywhere from 48% to 51% of the population of this country receive more from the government than they put in. What this means is that one half of the population is, in effect, supporting the other half, again under threat of imprisonment. I have witnessed multi-generational families where 3 or 4 generations live together on welfare, with no intention of working if it can be avoided. In some cases you may have a woman in her 50s being a great-grandmother, because her offspring have been taught (intentionally or not) that having kids means a check from the government. It is this mind-set that must be changed if we are to survive as a prosperous nation.
In the future I may get started on illegal immigrants collecting benefits, but not tonight. I think I have vented enough on you for now.
The news from Michigan boggles the mind. A woman, who owns two houses, one worth a million dollars, a new car and a winning lottery ticket worth another million, is receiving two hundred dollars a month in food assistance. This is not (yet) against the law, but why would a person with those assets even qualify for assistance in the first place. I know if that was me, before I even considered applying for assistance, the more expensive house would be sold (at a loss if necessary) and the new car would be traded for something used and economical. This woman, by comparison, feels she has a "right" to other peoples money so she can live in luxury.
The first problem with this is that the government is in the business of charity, rather than private or religious organizations. This was not the case before the first Great Depression, when the federal government started offering various assistance programs, such as food stamps, unemployment and help for single mothers. Now, I understand that almost everyone needs help at some time or another (I have myself), but the first choice should not be the federal government. Actually, the only way the government can get money for these programs is to take it, under threat of imprisonment, from others. We know this as taxation. Private and religious charities, on the other hand, are funded by voluntary contributions. They will not allow someone to live in luxury from the assistance given, but will allow them to get back on their feet. This is how it should be.
The second problem that I see is that it is legal for this type of abuse to occur at all. Many states use a needs based system for deciding if some is to get the assistance applied for. This is evidently not the case in Michigan, although that may change. If someone has these type of assets, those should be sold before assistance is given. I am not saying that she shouldn't own a house, but to own two, with a total value of over $1,000,000, should disqualify her. She should downsize to one house which is more within her means to maintain. If she then still needs help let her apply at that time. Similar tests should be applied to any valuable assets, such as investments or real property. Again, I am not saying that a person needs to be destitute to receive help, but there need to be limits to what can be kept.
The third problem in this case is that there is no requirement for the lottery commission to communicate with the welfare department. Indeed there is no way for them to do it without breaking privacy laws. But, since the names of lottery winners are public information, the welfare department can check the weekly (or semi-weekly) winners against their list of clients. It can be simply automated using a computer and once the search is set up will literally take no labor to get a preliminary list, which then could be quickly verified by hand.
I think the worst part of this case is the sense of entitlement the woman feels. This indicates a problem with the character of this country. Keep in mind that, depending on which data source you use, anywhere from 48% to 51% of the population of this country receive more from the government than they put in. What this means is that one half of the population is, in effect, supporting the other half, again under threat of imprisonment. I have witnessed multi-generational families where 3 or 4 generations live together on welfare, with no intention of working if it can be avoided. In some cases you may have a woman in her 50s being a great-grandmother, because her offspring have been taught (intentionally or not) that having kids means a check from the government. It is this mind-set that must be changed if we are to survive as a prosperous nation.
In the future I may get started on illegal immigrants collecting benefits, but not tonight. I think I have vented enough on you for now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)