Constitutional Rights?

I'm getting fed up with the term "Constitutional Rights". Why? Because the term implies the Constitution gives you these rights, it doesn't. You have these rights by nature, the constitution simply says the government can't take them away. If they were granted by the constitution then by extension they are granted by the government. If they are granted by the government, then the government can take them away. They are not granted by anyone or anything, they implicit in human life; by right of being alive you have these rights. So please, don't say "It's my Constitutional Right", say, "It's My Right." No one can take your rights away unless you let them; so don't even let them think they can.

Addendum: The only entity granted anything by the constitution is the government, it is granted the power to mediate between us, not to rule over us.

Keep Your Liberty

Lately several people have posed the question to me, "why is socialsim so bad?" The short of it is because it take away individuality and free choice, it becomes about the collective. It gives government control over your entire being, the government will decide what's best for you, your health, your financial security, your thoughts; you become property of the government through proxy. So? It means I get free health care, home, etc. Well, free in the sense you may not pay directly for it; but you pay by proxy, someone else is paying for you; some one who is making more money than you. These people who pay, they are the ones who create jobs; the greedy rich. So let's play a little thought game; let's say I'm the greedy rich guy and you're the guy getting the government money; let's say I start off with $100 and you start off with $1. With my $100 I pay 10 other people $2, that means I have $80 left; of which the government takes $10, leaving me with $70. The government then gives you $2. So, I'm still way more rich than you, you have $3, I have $70. You spend $1 on my product and so do 3 of my workers, so now I have $74, you have $2. Again, I pay my 10 employees $2 each; now I have $54 dolars, of that the government takes $10; giving you your $2, you now have $4 I have $44. You spend $1 on my product, along with 5 of my employees. You now have $3, I have $50. Again, I pay each of my employees $2, leaving me with $30, the government takes $10, of which you get $2, I now I have $20, I'm still almost 3 times as rich you, but I cannot afford to pay all 10 empoyees or I would be broke, so I cut 5 jobs; and pay out $10 to my remaining 5 employees. See where this is going? It's deminishing returns. Of course this example is much simplier and quicker than reality, but this is how socialism works. Soon we are all equal, great right? Well, then who pays us? Well, the government of course, they bought my factory. Eventually once this happens to every business the government owns all the facotories; and we become communist.
"But what's so bad about communism?" We all get free healthcare and housing and a steady job. Well, now the government has too much invested in you, so to make sure we all stay healthy we need to all eat the same healthy food, wear the same cheap clothes, live in the same cheap building, work in an unsafe factory; to keep the cost down because there are no more rich people to tax to pay for the government. Now the government has to run like a business, but theres no competition, so it doesn't matter how they treat you. Sure, in a perfect world the government would treat us nice because it's the nice thing to do, but the world isn't perfect, so you won't get treated nice, you'll be a commodity.
But you say, "Well, the leader I elect to make us socialist won't be bad to us." Maybe, but you're giving them the power to do it, they may not use it, but that power is there now and you will have to fight like hell to wrest it away from the guy down the line who doesn't treat you right. The only way to avoid this is to keep that power out of anyone's hands, keep the power for yourself and your posterity like the people who founded these united states fought for and handed to us in the Constitution. Limit the size and power of government. Take respoonsability for yourself. Keep your liberty.

Ten step Program

"The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible." That was said by Karl Marx, in The Communist Manifesto, More or less, redistribute wealth and property through government control. Now, recently some have taken offense to me saying Senator Obama is a Marxist/socialist. One person even said, "Having socialist ideals doesn't make some one a socialist." Really? isn't that the whole idea, you're views make your ideals and your ideals shape your views, and more to the point, he holds many, not a few, of these views. Below is a "how to" list from Karl Marx of turning a capitolist country into a communist country. Notice how many of these are supported by Senator Obama. And, I also have some friends who believe both McCain and Obama are socialist, while I do disagree; I believe Obama is all the way there and McCain is just leaning that way.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

This would be public housing, although it does not yet apply to all land. Something supported by Senator Obama, as well many other Democrats and Republicans, including Senator McCain do a lesser degree.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

An income tax that makes the rich pay more than the poor? Senator Obama is leading the pack on this one, although Senator McCain wants it, to a lesser degree.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

This would be the so called "Death Tax". Senator Obama supports it, Senator McCain does not.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

No one is supporting this on a large scale, yet, but it does happen when people break the law, many of which should not exist, but they do.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

Bail out! Yep, both candidates supported this in the bailout package when they decided the government should take partial ownership in the banks.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

This may be the next part of the bailout, what with the airlines coming on tough times, many people speculate they may be next in line for at least partial government ownership. Luckily we have gone the other way with communication, breaking up the government monopoly on the telephone system, but who knows what the future holds.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

Government growth and environmental protection, farm subsidies. Senator Obama is definatly the front runner on this one, although Senator McCain isn't far behind.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

Unions! Senator Obama is right there on this one.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

No one seems on board this one, although the left wants it the other way around, all the rural areas should act like the cities, does that count? If so, then that's another point for Senator Obama.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

Ok, no one wants child labour, but who in this election is calling for more free education? Well, both, while Senator McCain wants competition among the schools Senator Obama wants more money for the schools, oh and he wants cheaper continuing education, most likey more free rides to be given out as well. I'd say point Senator Obama.

Marxism, is that what we want in a president?

After the "Joe the Plumber" incident Barack Obabma has been trying to dodge the charges of being a marxist and or a a socialist. But this 2001 radio interview lays all his cards on the table. When I heard this I could not believe it, I'm now officially scared of an Obama Presidency.

Free Trade = Peace?

I have had many friends who advocate no war through free trade. But I wonder how far that goes. Say in 1950 we ignore the USSR's exploits in northern Europe. So that has happened. Then we ignore the USSR's invasion of eastern Europe. So what, we don't trade with them. Then they take over the entire Eastern hemisphere, not our problem, except, who do we sell to then? And then they take over everyone but us. Is that good for our trade?

The Foreign Policy Oddity

My friend over at The World of Mike as well as many of my other friends have been strong Ron Paul supporters, and I myself agree with many of Dr. Paul's domestic policy views, like limited government, balanced budgets, constitutionalism, abolishment of the income tax and so on. However I have one problem and that is foreign policies. Why is it that everyone with great domestic policy is an isolationist? It has been proven time and again that this type of policy will come back to bite you. If you ignore the fact that people who are a danger to your country are growing in power then by the time you do something it is too late.
Many contest that these foreign powers are not a threat to our national security or economy, therefore we should not do anything about them; but if you don't do anything about them they will become a threat, and by then they are more powerful and harder to stop. Look at WWII, if we would have done something right away instead of ignoring Hitler's rise and eventual invasion of Poland millions of lives and dollars could have been spared. Look at 9-11, if we hadn't just let the Middle East deteriorate into a ramshackle of dictators and jihadists, that could have been prevented. And we must also be vigilant not only for our national security, but also for our economic security. These countries that get invaded can be great customers for our exports and if they get invaded their economies will be destroyed by the ensuing violence, if they have no money they can't spend any on our goods. Look at the nations of Africa, who could be great customers if we would help them become free, and I don't mean just throw money at them that thier bad governments will take and waste, I mean really deal with the problem.
Now, I'm not preaching all out war. A very important weapon in our arsenal is capitalism itself. I once had a teacher who said "if you want to stop a country from being communist don't put an embargo on them, sell them washing machines." That is to say, once people have goods and property, they want to be able to keep that property and not let the government take it, then they need laundry detergent and repair parts and so on. We can see this philosophy at work in China; where people are starting to earn money and buy houses, and once they buy those houses they want to keep the government from taking the house they have worked for, and now China has some semblance of property rights (yes they have a long, long way to go, but it is inch by inch getting better) because we are trading with them.
So I would just love to have a candidate with great domestic policy who has a grasp on the importance of being involved keeping other countries safe so we can stay safe.

Addendum:
The Iraq war

Regardless of whether it was right or wrong, we have gone into Iraq and given them hope, to leave and let them fall apart now would be terrible and cause even more problems for us. This is what happened in Afghanistan, we (CIA) went in and helped them oust the USSR and then we just left, and they collapsed and the power void was filled with despots and criminals who created the environment for the jihadists to blossom in which (among other blunders in the area) led to the 9-11 attacks. So regardless of right or wrong in entering Iraq we must stay and make sure they have a good, stable government to fulfill the promise of safety which we have made, if not they will fall apart and create more fertile ground for them jihadists to recruit from.

Morning Constitutional

Today I want to talk about two Constitutional amendments I've been mulling over. The reason I say they should be Constitutional amendments and not laws is because it's too easy for the government to make loopholes in or not pass at all laws which restrict them. I am not a lawyer, so these are not worded as they would have to be to become amendments, but it's the idea that matters here. Too many politicians lie their way into office and stay there by lying about what they have done, and something needs to be done if we are to survive as a nation.


Amendment 28

Any Person running for public office or holding public office must be under oath of law at such time that they are proclaiming their goals, discussing the political record of themselves or their opponent.

-Basically I'm trying to say that anyone running for or in public office should be under oath and able to charged with perjury if they lie about their intentions, past record or their opponent. It would have to be worded as to allow for matters of national security and personal privacy, but the gist is if they lied they could be charged with a crime.

Amendment 29

No amendments to or clauses in a bill shall be unrelated to the intended outcome of the bill.

-Basically, I want an amendment that bans pork in bills. It is so stupid to have things shoved into bills that have nothing to do with them. And then the voting record is skewed, because a representative may vote against a bill because it has too much pork and then get lambasted for voting against the bill itself which may have originally been a good bill.

A "WOW and an "OY" from the debate

Last night as I was watching the Presidential Debate a few things caught my eye, and because I don’t believe the pundits will talk about any of this I thought I would.

Part 1- A “WOW” moment

Although the debate was nothing new and a tie for all practical purposes there was one big “WOW” moment which grabbed my attention. Now, for a while now I have stated that, although no one will admit it, Obama has been running on a centrist Republican platform for the past few weeks; while McCain has been trying his hardest to run on a conservative Republican platform. Neither of them are what anything like the platforms they are running on, but based on the platform talking points these are their running platforms. The “WOW” moment came as McCain was talking about his economic policies and stated that he wants to use $300 billion tax payer dollars to buy up bad mortgages (alongside the $750 bailout he just voted for). I could not believe what had just happened in front of my eyes; McCain had jumped right over Obama and turned his own platform into that of a conservative Democrat! So now as it stands the Republican Candidate is running on a conservative Democrat platform and the Democratic Candidate is running on a centrist Republican platform; basically they’ve switched sides, and in the middle of a debate, I could not believe it. Now, do I believe that these platforms represent what they will do once they are in office? No, based on their histories I think McCain will be a centrist Republican and Obama will be a mid-liberal Democrat. I just find it interesting how no one is discussing this, Democrats who hate everything Republicans say are eating up everything Obama says on this platform, and Republicans still keep insisting that McCain is a solid conservative Republican, and more likely than not you will never hear about this “WOW” moment.

Part 2- The war in Iraq VS the war against Iraq

Another moment during the debate that got me going was when Obama talked about McCain’s poor judgment because the war in Iraq was not quick and we were not greeted as liberators, even though McCain said beforehand that both would be true. This has been brought up time after time over the past four years plus, and no one has corrected this misguided thought. The fact is there have been two different wars, our war against Iraq and our war in Iraq. These distinctions must be made: In March of 2003 we went to war against Iraq and toppled the regime in a matter of weeks, we were greeted as liberators as Iraqis toppled statues of Saddam and danced in the streets. However out of this came a power vacuum which filled with people who were glad that Saddam was gone not only because they hated him, but because they wanted to be in power themselves, and thus started the war in Iraq, which is a whole other war unto itself. Yes it was caused by the war against Iraq, but the war in Iraq is not the same war, we are not fighting the same enemy; instead of being the regime of Saddam Hussein it is against extremists funded by Iran and terrorists who want to get America out of the way so they can take the power. They are two different wars and this is a fact that needs to be acknowledged. Let me put it this way, after WWII after we toppled Hitler’s reign and the Soviets came in and took over in the vacuum was that still WWII? No, that was a new war, the Cold War. This is the same situation, except there is actually fighting this time.