Libertarians release top 10 disasters of 2009 Obama administration
Note similarities to previous administration
Top 10 disasters of the 2009 Obama administration (in no particular order):
1. Cash for Clunkers
2. War escalation in Afghanistan
3. Giant government health care expansion bill
4. Post office loses money hand over fist
5. Stimulus package
6. Expansion of "state secrets" doctrine
7. Big increase in unemployment
8. "Bailout" Geithner as Treasury Secretary
9. Skyrocketing federal spending
10. Huge federal deficits
Top 10 disasters of the 2001-2008 Bush administration:
1. Cash for Car Companies
2. War in Iraq
3. Giant Medicare expansion bill
4. Post office loses money hand over fist
5. Stimulus "rebate" checks
6. PATRIOT Act
7. Big increase in unemployment
8. "Bailout" Paulson as Treasury Secretary
9. Skyrocketing federal spending
10. Huge federal deficits
Wes Benedict, Libertarian Party Executive Director, commented, "Republicans and Democrats keep expanding government and creating more and more problems. We're encouraging as many Libertarians as possible to run for Congress in 2010. In Texas, the state with the earliest filing deadline, Libertarians have already filed for 31 of 32 Congressional seats."
For more information, or to arrange an interview, call LP executive director Wes Benedict at 202-333-0008 ext. 222.
The LP is America's third-largest political party, founded in 1971. The Libertarian Party stands for free markets and civil liberties.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
I wonder if my little ol' blog will be included?
In truly Orwellian style, the BHO Bunch is now issuing subpoenas in an effort to discover the source of a couple bloggers. The bloggers, Chris Elliott and Steve Frischling, "leaked" the new so-called security procedures being put in place following yet another attempt to blow up an airplane. Why would this even be considered a "leak"? Folks are experiencing these new procedures every time they fly.
According to FoxNews:
"Frischling, who runs a travel Web site called "Flying with Fish" and published the directive minutes after Elliott, said in an interview today that he had given his computer to the two federal agents who came to his house on Tuesday night. Frischling said he complied with their request after they asserted that he was "not a journalist" and handed him a subpoena, telling him he had now been "served." They also said they would return the next morning to confiscate his computer and other communications equipment if he failed to cooperate... The subpoena also warns that failure to comply makes the recipient "subject to fines" and "imprisonment for not more than one year," or "both." "
===
My GOD! So Orwell would certainly be proud at his ability to predict, but I can't help myself when feeling he wrote 1984 wishing it would never come true.
According to FoxNews:
"Frischling, who runs a travel Web site called "Flying with Fish" and published the directive minutes after Elliott, said in an interview today that he had given his computer to the two federal agents who came to his house on Tuesday night. Frischling said he complied with their request after they asserted that he was "not a journalist" and handed him a subpoena, telling him he had now been "served." They also said they would return the next morning to confiscate his computer and other communications equipment if he failed to cooperate... The subpoena also warns that failure to comply makes the recipient "subject to fines" and "imprisonment for not more than one year," or "both." "
===
My GOD! So Orwell would certainly be proud at his ability to predict, but I can't help myself when feeling he wrote 1984 wishing it would never come true.
Wanna Stop Obama's Marxist Coup? Get Behind Scott Brown
This would nullify Harry Reid's 60-40 majority.
Game Changer
In the case of AmendedExecutive Order 124245 this could be a game changer in our lives as Americans
===
INTERPOL now can operate in the USA, with all the authority and immunity BHO could manage.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-amending-executive-order-12425
History will tell how R Reagan initially allowed INTERPOL into the USA for joint ops. The intent was for liaison and mutual training. He placed stern limits on their authorities to prevent exactly this that BHO has now authorized.
Commentary:
http://www.thefrontlineconservative.com/?p=151
History:
http://threatswatch.org/analysis/2009/12/wither-sovereignty/
Atlas Continues to Shrug
===
INTERPOL now can operate in the USA, with all the authority and immunity BHO could manage.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-amending-executive-order-12425
History will tell how R Reagan initially allowed INTERPOL into the USA for joint ops. The intent was for liaison and mutual training. He placed stern limits on their authorities to prevent exactly this that BHO has now authorized.
Commentary:
http://www.thefrontlineconservative.com/?p=151
History:
http://threatswatch.org/analysis/2009/12/wither-sovereignty/
Atlas Continues to Shrug
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Why carry a gun?
Recently, I was reading a short article on why that author carried a gun. In my opinion it was thought provoking, so I thought I would post it here for your comments. It is written by a gentleman named Marko Kloos and was originally entitled "Why the Gun IS Civilization".
"Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument or compelling me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or Force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as that might sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason to try and persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year-old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year-old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for an armed mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed, either by choice or by legislative fiat - it has no validity when most of the mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
There's an argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would "only" result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks and stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip, at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of a octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight-lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it weren't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I am afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act."
"Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument or compelling me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or Force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as that might sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason to try and persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year-old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year-old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for an armed mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed, either by choice or by legislative fiat - it has no validity when most of the mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
There's an argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would "only" result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks and stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip, at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of a octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight-lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it weren't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I am afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act."
Letter to the Editor
Tax help requested
I am interested in obtaining information on the Geithner/Daschle tax deferral, where apparently a portion of your income taxes are not due until you are being considered for an Obama administration appointment.
Since I am unlikely to ever be considered for such a position, this provision could save me a substantial amount of money. Unfortunately, the IRS publications that I have been able to find are silent on this tax shelter.
If anyone knows which IRS schedule or form I need to file to obtain this deferral, please write a response letter to the editor.
I am interested in obtaining information on the Geithner/Daschle tax deferral, where apparently a portion of your income taxes are not due until you are being considered for an Obama administration appointment.
Since I am unlikely to ever be considered for such a position, this provision could save me a substantial amount of money. Unfortunately, the IRS publications that I have been able to find are silent on this tax shelter.
If anyone knows which IRS schedule or form I need to file to obtain this deferral, please write a response letter to the editor.
2009 - A year of change
2009 has proven to be a very revealing year for me. For about 10 years now, I have been aware of the New World Order, as governed by the CFR, UN, Trilateral Commission, etc. This year, I had the opportunity to watch as the final stages of its implementation have been carried out.
I watched as the Republican Party Faithful have claimed that if only their party was in power, we would not be in this mess. I strained to understand how they can have apparently forgotten the Republicans' role in all this.
I watched as the Democrat Party Faithful went from a bunch of screaming zealots as GWB implemented the stepping stones, to a bunch of (in my best Alfred E. Neuman voice) "Problem? What problem?" people as BHO continued and/or expanded GWB's policies.
For the first time since I joined, I am ashamed to be a member of a Union. I have typically not looked at Unions through the eyes of a Republican, who would claim the unions were an un-natural influence on the market. No, I always looked at them as a PERFECTLY natural result of what the labor market was at the time of their birth. I admired the founders and pioneers of the unions, much as I admire soldiers, who fought, died, and sometimes killed to obtain better conditions for themselves. Make no mistake about it, the Democrats did not latch onto the unions out of a sense of shared ideology. The Democrats recognized a voting block. It was the unions themselves that sold out. They sold out the very sense of self-determination that created them as they supported measure after measure that eroded the freedoms their predecessors won for them.
I am ashamed to have ever called myself a Democrat. I am ashamed to have ever called myself a Republican. I base this shame not on the ideals that I felt, but on what both parties have now become. The parties of the Central Bankers. Both working towards the same ends, albeit from opposite directions.
What I am most scared of, is that if America becomes what now seems inevitable, I will become ashamed to call myself one.
How's that Hope and Change working out for everyone?
Turmoil
PS – I realize I already posted this, I'm really testing out my new blog spot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)