Relevant Information And Gun Control...

So.

Should anyone's medical records be considered "relevant" information in the State's decision making process as some faceless bureaucrat reviews my application to purchase a firearm.

First, let me say how absolutely ludicrous it is that an American must debase himself and prostrate himself before some functionary of the State, paid on average twice as much as he is, while working much less, and beg for permission to exercise rights that are granted by God and guaranteed by the Constitution.

Imagine this:

What if my life hits a rough spot?  What if my marriage is in trouble?  What if one night, in the darkest emotional abyss I come to myself and realize I need help?

When I go see a counselor he's going to ask me about my guns and about my mental state.  He's going to ask me if I ever think about hurting myself or others.  He's going to make notes in my medical record. Before 2013, those records were privileged and confidential.  My employer couldn't look at them.  My wife and children couldn't look at them.  They were what used to be called "private."  But things are different now.

Now I have to make a choice.  Knowing that any visit to a mental health professional will put a flag on my "file," I have to decide between getting the help I desperately need and maintaining my access to my rights.  Let's say that my marriage and my family are more important than the risk of losing my rights.  Let's say I'm dedicated to making this work.

Now I have to make a choice.  Knowing that any confession of a suicidal thought - no matter how fleeting, or any mention of a thought of violence to another person - no matter how fleeting, will put another flag on my "file," I have to decide between being honest with my physician so that I can get the help I desperately need and maintaining my access to my rights.  Let's say that my mental well being and my family are more important than the risk of losing my rights.  Let's say I get the help I need, I'm in a better place.  My family is happier, and we all stick together.

Now, imagine that years later I want to exercise my rights - those rights given by God and protected by the Constitution - and I walk into a gun shop.  As a part of the application and review process (remember the humiliation?  I don't have to apply to buy a copy of "Hustler" magazine, although that type of trash has destroyed more innocent lives than guns ever will.) my medical records come under scrutiny.

Now I have a faceless bureaucrat in a stale gray cubicle thousands of miles away looking at those things that used to be "private."  Passing judgment on me.  She has no knowledge of my non-medical records.  She can't see the youth basketball teams I've coached for 15 years.  She can't see the hours I volunteer with the local food bank.  She can't see the money I give to my church.  She can't see the 25th anniversary dinner my wife and I shared last week.

All she can see is what my doctor wrote in his notes 18 years earlier.

And, like the technical support engineer in Mumbai, she follows a flow chart.  "Thoughts of suicide?  If yes, go to page 7, if no, skip to page 9."  And on page 9 she reads, "Thoughts of violence to others?  If yes, go to page 10, if no, skip to page 13."

And after the 45-day waiting period, my answer comes back from the State.

And the unintended consequences of some well-meaning, unthinking, self-righteous, all-knowing do-gooders (and the express design of the Statist) are proved out.  I am denied my rights given by God and protected by the Constitution because I pose a "significant risk of harm to self or others."  Not because I am a violent criminal.  Not because I am a wife beater.  Not because I assaulted someone.  Not because I attempted suicide.  Not because I am currently taking mind altering drugs.  Not because of anything I did that was wrong, but rather because I did the RIGHT thing!

You can stop imagining now.  But ask yourself how this might affect the decision of someone who really needs a little help?  Is it possible that one person who needs it might not get it simply because of the risk?

And what happens when that one person who really needed help, but was dissuaded from getting it by the risk he saw that it could compromise his ability to exercise his rights granted by God and guaranteed by the Constitution hurts someone?  Whose fault is it then?  We know that the Statist would put the blame for gun crime on the makers of the guns. Will the Statist place the blame for the consequences of avoided mental health care on himself?

And should we hold crowbar makers liable for burglaries, alcohol manufacturers responsible for drunk driving, accounting professors liable for fraud, sugar refiners responsible for obesity and on and on?

To My Liberal And Moderate Friends...

To my moderate and liberal friends:

I was not the biggest fan of George W. Bush when he was elected.  I voted for him because, in my opinion, he was a better candidate than Al Gore. 

When terrorists attacked our country and President Bush, supported by virtually all of Congress and most of Americans at the time, invaded the sovereign nation of Afghanistan I had concerns.  I wasn't opposed to the war, but I wasn't for it either.  I hadn't had enough time to recover from the emotional blow of 9/11 to make a rational assessment of starting a war.

When the Patriot Act was rushed through Congress I was largely unaware of its content or implication.  I'm naturally skeptical of the effectiveness of any government program, and anticipated that this would be a bandaid that would quickly fall off and be forgotten.  After all, it had a sunset clause that forced its periodic review and renewal.

When the country was whipped into a frenzy over the perceived threat of an attack from Iraq, I really had to pause.  I did not support our invasion of Iraq, but I was not vocally opposed to it, either.  For the second time in just a few years, my country had gone on the offense in an overseas war.  This time it was not a hunt for justice, but rather an action with the stated goal of preempting a possible attack.

And toward the end of President Bush's second term, as he claimed that he had to "abandon free market principles to save the free market" by bailing out large banks, I realized something.

I realized that George Bush, the man I'd trusted enough to vote for twice, was betraying many of the core principles that I valued most as an American.

1.  Our national sovereignty is the first barrier we have protecting America from becoming subject to the will and whim of foreign nations.  We'd been willing to violate that of another nation.  Twice.  Something didn't feel right.

2.  Our natural rights as individuals are what make us sovereign in ourselves.  Unique in the world is the American Constitution which guarantees those rights to every citizen and asserts them for every person on earth.  The Patriot Act was probably the greatest breach of that Constitutional protection since the Alien and Sedition Acts early in our nation's history.  Under the Patriot Act, my First, Second, Fourth and Sixth Amendment rights were eviscerated.  We all took a giant leap away from being Citizens and toward becoming Subjects of America.

3.  I am a firm believer that free people are the most productive and happy people.  I am a firm believer, too, that free markets are the most productive and efficient markets.  I won't believe that everyone gets rich in a free market economy, but I am convinced that they provide more good to more people than the enforced equal poverty that results from socialistic or communistic economies.  When George Bush walked away from the free market and allowed the government to choose winners and losers in the financial crisis of 2008 I was very disappointed.

I was awakened.  And I realized that I'd been betrayed not only by the President, but by John McCain and Jon Kyl, my Senators; by Ann Kirkpatrick, my Representative.  Virtually every person I'd supported to represent me in government - from the city council to the White House - was either ignoring or fighting against principles that I believed were key and core to my identity as an American and as a human being.

And I revolted.  I started writing and calling.  I let my elected government officials know what I felt, thought and believed and why.  I told them what was important to me and what I thought was important to the nation. 

Did anything change?  I don't know.  Ann Kirkpatrick was replaced in the US House of Representatives by Paul Gosar.  Dr. Gosar and I don't agree on everything, but we have a civil discourse and I'm convinced of his conservative core.  (And when I say "conservative" I don't mean "neo-con" or "Republican".  I mean "conservative" in the sense of "conservation" of our national sovereignty and my natural rights as an individual.)

But, as they say, enough about me! 

Even the most ardent liberal philosopher (and I'll make a distinction between "liberal" and "statist" or "progressive") should be appalled at what has happened.

The Bill of Rights - the first ten amendments to the US Constitution - is arguably THE thing that makes America unique in the world. 

In the name of the Bill of Rights we've ended slavery in America, we've extended voting rights to women, we've advanced the cause of blacks in America, we've ensured that abortions may be had at virtually any time and for any reason, we've defended and even funded hate, degradation and pornography in artwork, we've allowed criminals who are known beyond doubt to be guilty to walk free, we've forced workers to pay union dues simply for the privilege of having a job, we've forced the Christian religion off the public square and out of text books while promoting humanism as the new religion of the state, we've enshrined principles of the theocratic and exceptionally brutal Islamic law called Shariah in our courts.

And in the name of the "General Welfare" clause of the Constitution we've provided a modest pension for our senior citizens, we've provided medical care for our poor, we've ensured that children have good food to eat, we've integrated schools, we've declared and fought a costly war against drugs, crime and terrorism, we've restricted travel and property rights for certain among us, we've developed a central bank that has caused a century of economic instability while feeding its cabal of owners with obscene and illicit profit, we've turned doctors, counselors and clergy into watchdogs for the State.

What began ostensibly with good intentions has grown out of control.  Now we entertain a national discussion - a serious and deliberate discussion - on how we should (not "IF", but "HOW") restrict the natural rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment. 

Some have said that this assault on the Second Amendment is the camel's nose under the tent.  I would argue that it is not his nose at all.  His nose was probably the Federal Income Tax passed early in the last century.  The camel's head was probably the abrogation of the Fourth Amendment protections by the passage (under President Bush) and the renewal (under President Obama) of the Patriot Act.  We are now at the camel's forelegs. 

We need "common sense" reforms to save "even one life" from "gun violence".  Look, the reasoning goes, who needs guns like that for hunting or target practice?  No one needs those things!  And what are you getting so worked up about?  No one is going to come and take away your freedoms. 

What freedoms are you not going to take?  You've already told me what I may or may not say in the context of political correctness.  You've already limited how, when and where I may defend myself using any means I feel apropriate.  You are already able to listen to my phone conversations, read my email and search my person and property whenever you like.  You've already told my doctor that he must report "dangerous" things to "authorities".  You've already taken away any expectation I had for a fair and speedy public trial by providing for indefinite preemptive detention.  You've already forced my state into submitting to the will of the federal government and complying with all of its laws with the threat of withholding funds.  You've already told me that if it's not in the Constitution then I don't have a right to do it.

So, my friends.

I want you to know that it is not disloyal, unpatriotic, hateful or racist to admit that President Obama is continuing to drive our nation down a road that Woodrow Wilson started us on, and that almost every president since has continued on, toward a future where the State is supreme and the individual exists only to serve the State.

Please, take an honest look around.  See what has been happening.  See what is happening.  Draw a trend line through your observation points.  Is it trending toward more personal liberty?  Or is it trending toward less? 

Throw out your Che Guevara tee shirt.  Take down your Mao Tse Dong poster.  See those "progressives" for what they were.  They were people who killed other people who disagreed with them.  Listen to President Obama and realize that he's a bully.  He's willing to bully people until they do what he tells them - not have a conversation with them until they see things his way.  He threatens, he mocks, he sets up straw man after straw man.  He paints his ideological opponents as vilainous cartoon characters.

That's not the liberal ideal!  It may work for progressives, statists and demagogues, but a true LIBERAL recoils at the thought.

Stop letting government officials talk about restricting or taking away things they think others don't "need".  One day someone will (not might) decide that YOU don't "need" something you love. 

Our nation wasn't built on "needs".  It was built on Natural Rights.  It was built on opportunity.  It was built on big, audacious ideals.  Ideals much bigger than "looking out for each other", or "having skin in the game", or "fair shares and shots".

We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.  Among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

No president, no legislator, no king or tyrant is placed by Nature above another human being.  And the God of Nature will hold those accountable for what they do while they are entrusted with leading others. 

I hope that you can find in your hearts the will to examine really what our president, Barack Obama, is doing.

An Historic Day!...

Here is arguably one of the greatest speeches ever given to mankind. 

Happy birthday, Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr.!



Compare that to the historic "Second Coming" (as Newsweek terms it) of Barack Hussein Obama and His speech today.



Profoundly and disturbingly different...

Crime and Punishment in Iran...

The New York Times reports on a crime wave in Iran and how the Iranian government is dealing with it, via Shariah law.  (That's the Islamic law that US and European courts are fond of citing and even embracing when hearing cases involving Muslims and infidels alike.)

In the case of the two thugs who were hanged on Sunday, they stabbed a man nearly to death while trying to steal his money.  Another woman interviewed in the article recounted the case of two toughs who broke into her home and beat her severely, trying to get her to tell them where she hid her money.

In our desperate search for a solution to violent crime in America, it's informative to note that violent criminals aren't using guns in Iran.  And law-abiding Iranians aren't able to use guns - the Great Equalizer - for their defense. 

As so many have said, criminals are the problem.  Their behavior is what is wrong.  The tools of their trade are irrelevant.

There's a reason the Colt Single Action Army .45 caliber revolver that entered service in 1873 was called "The Peacemaker."

President Obama's Big Ideas...

Here are the President’s 23 Big Ideas for limiting gun violence going forward. I’ve numbered them, and beneath each I’ve put some of my thoughts.



1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.

- So, what? Federal agencies are withholding relevant data from the federal background check system? I’d fire the Attorney General if I found out that was happening!

- And what is “relevant?”


2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

- HIPAA used to be sacrosanct. I know a woman whose 18-year old son, who was still in high school at the time, disappeared. She learned from friends that he was in the hospital and when she called for information, she was denied on the basis that her son was an adult and that his privacy was protected under federal law.

- So now I can’t know about my adult child’s health condition, but bureaucrats at the state, the local police department, and gun store owners can?


3. Improved incentives for states to share information with the background check system.

- So, currently states must be getting, like, $5 for every bit of information they share with the background check system. Is that going up to $7.50, or something?

- How does a government “incentivize” others to do what it wants? It’s always a negative. So, they might withhold federal law enforcement resources, funding for Planned Parenthood operations in the state, or federal highway finds when states don’t cooperate, but they’ll never “improve incentives.”

4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

- I hope this includes dangerous members of Mexican drug cartels. I’m not sure if Eric Holder has heard about this possibility.

- Also, watch for Homeland Security’s threat assessment on right wing radicals to resurface.


5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

- Yes, because they can’t run a full background check through the “federal background check system” right now. “Nope! Sorry, Officer. I can only run a partial on that guy. Too bad, too, because I can see some really nasty and relevant stuff here. Just can’t tell YOU about it!”

- Only a partial. What part are they currently running? And what part are they currently not running? And why, or why not?

- Will the “full background check” include the immigration status of the person in question?


6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

- See, this is what takes so long when I go to my lo9cal gun shop. The gun dealer has NO IDEA how to run a background check. That guy will bumble around, calling his buddies and searching on Google, trying to figure it out every single time!

- And notice this is how they can run a check FOR A PRIVATE SELLER. So, if I wanted to sell a gun to my friend, he and I would go down to the gun stor3e and pay the federally licensed gun dealer a fee – probably about $50 – to run a check on my friend.

- Would the dealer have to run a check on me, too?


7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

- Like the highly effective anti-tobacco campaign? Or the anti-drug campaign?

- Who will fund this campaign; the evil gun manufacturing industry? It worked to have cigarette manufacturers pay for their suicidal/fratricidal ad campaigns.

- But why? Just as making booze and smokes is not a criminal enterprise, neither is making guns and ammo. There is no violation of law here that would justify confiscation of property.


8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

- Huh?


9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

- Yeah, because they don’t do this already.

- And knowing who used to own the gun that killed your family is so comforting. Ask Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry’s family if they feel better knowing that Eric Holder and Barrack Obama gave the gun that killed him to a Mexican drug cartel member.

- News flash, Barry! The local cops run every gun they come across – even in a traffic stop – to see if it’s stolen or legally registered. I can’t imagine that the feds don’ do the same.


10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

- This would be a sheet of paper covered with serial numbers of guns and addresses of their registered owners that law-abiding citizens reported to have been lost or stolen, right? How would that help?


11. Nominate an ATF director.

- Yeah, because B. Todd Jones is only the Acting Director of the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. If he’d been the full director on 20 December, those little kids would still be alive.

- I’m not sure how B. Todd Jones sleeps at night, knowing that if his business card had been a little bit different he could have saved them all.

- And I don’t know how the President can sleep at night, knowing that he’d only put off ONE SINGLE round of golf, and done his FREAKING JOB that day by appointing a real DIRECTOR, he could have saved those kids.


12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

- Okay. What next, though? Remember in the 1930s? Japan observed that the American Army had no guns. Their spies watched us drill with sticks and concluded that we would be an easy target. And from 1941 to 1943 they kicked our trash all over the South Pacific. We finally got our feet under us and showed them in the end, though.

- Unfortunately, those kids and teachers didn’t have 2 years to “train up”. A school official with proper training and inadequate equipment will die just as fast as one who is untrained.


13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

- Yeah, because heretofore we’ve MINIMIZED our efforts! Ridiculous.


14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

- See my response to Point 8.


15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.

- Cool. Like the biometric trigger safety that’s already on the market.

- I only have one problem with that idea. Sometimes my computer’s biometric scanner won’t recognize my finger. And that’s okay because I very rarely need to access a file on my computer in 2 seconds or less to save my life.

- Me? Beta test that idea? No, thanks.


16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

- Having said that, Mr. President, consider it done.

- My kids’ pediatrician already asks them about guns in our home. He has for years. This isn’t news. It’s not okay, either. It’s just not news.

- A counselor I know asks his patients about guns and suicide. He has for years.


17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

- Yeah, because they don’t know that already.


18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

- I thought that was “Crazy Wayne” LaPierre’s idea. I could swear I remember hearing something about how irresponsible and irrelevant that was.


19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

- See my response to Point 12. Without proper equipment, a school administrator will die just as quickly as one without a plan.


20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

- Medicaid is a prime example of an unfunded mandate. Now we’ll require more? Who will pay for that?

- The idea of an unfunded mandate should be anathema to someone who faults the No Child Left Behind legislation for the same reason.


21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

- I thought we’d already passed that bill. All we should need to do is open it up to find out what’s in it. Right, Mrs. Pelosi?


22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.

- See my response to Point 21.


23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

- Only a demagogue and a bully would call a parallel series of identical lectures on the same subject a “dialogue.” I guess because there are two of them giving the talks, and “di-“ means “two”…

Fiscal Cliff Math...

Deficit Coverage Analysis for 2011


Spending and Revenue
$3,600,000,000,000.00 US Federal Spending*

$1,211,000,000,000.00 Revenue NOT from Individuals and for Social Security and Medicare**

$1,091,500,000,000.00 Personal Income Tax Revenue**

$1,297,500,000,000.00 2011 US Budget Deficit*

Population
308,754,538 Total US Population in 2010

142,892,051 Individual Tax Filers in 2010***



This means that, if all US Citizens were asked to fund just the OVERSPENDING of the FEDERAL government in 2011, each of the 308,754,538 of us would have to pay $4,202.37.  That's $4,202.37 MORE than we already paid in taxes (whatever that amount was) in 2011.
But it's not fair to tax people who didn't earn anything.  So let's just go after those lucky people who had income in 2011.  After all, they probably stole their job from someone else, so they deserve to pay more.  That brings it down to 142,892,051 people each paying an additional $9,080.28.

But not everyone who has a job pays taxes.  In fact 11%*** of tax filers in 2010 had a "negative" tax payment.  That means they got more from government than they contributed.  They must be in terrible shape, and it just wouldn't be right to expect them to contribute anything.  So let's just add a little bit more to the tax bill of those greedy people who earn enough to pay some.  That makes it 127,173,925 people each adding $10,202.56 to their tab.

But then, it takes a lot to run a household these days.  Even though they make up to $50,000, let's let those 127 million Americans off the hook.  After all, the real money makers are those silver spoon kids who went to college and make OVER $50k a year.  Let's put the burden on them.  That gets us to 48,583,297*** American tax filers in 2011.  And each of them needs to shell out another $26,706.71 to pay for the DEFICIT (read "credit card") spending in 2011.

But that would take at least 25% of those people's income.  And they've already paid a lot in taxes this year.  So, let's just look at the people who make a LOT of money.  If they made more than $100k in 2010, there's no doubt they did well.  And there's no doubt a lot of other people suffered that year.  Those high-earners need to pay more.  So we take an additional $69,848.32 from each of the 18,575,967*** Americans who earned $100,000 or more.

But wait!  That's more than half of their income!  That would only leave them about $30,000 to pay for their Jaguars and yachts and mansions.  And we know they already pay more taxes than Warren Buffet!  We can't soak these people.

So let's get the "Super Rich".  These are the people who make more than $200,000 each year.  These are the greedy company owners and the cruel factory overseers.  These are the people who take 20-day Hawaiian Island vacations.  Heaven knows they can afford it!  And Heaven knows they don't need it!  If we move the overspending from just 2011 - just one little year of the Obama/Boehner Administration - to their backs, then those bastards would really get what's coming.  We'd have 4,286,762 Americans - just 3%*** of us - bearing the burden of our lack of restraint to the tune of $302,676.04 EACH. 

That's right. 

They'd have to pay more each year than they earn. 

And to help you out if you went to public school in California like I did, there are even fewer people who earn over $400,000 than there are who earn over $200,000 each year. 

The math won't work.  How about we just cut out $1.3 trillion from our expenses and call the budget balanced.  Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich did it in the 1990s.  I'm not sure why the community organizer and the bar tender**** we have running this joint now can't figure it out.

*From www.usgovernmentspending.com
** From www.heritage.org
*** From www.taxfoundation.org
**** Thank you, Mark Levin

Four Years. No Budget. No Worries...

So, President Obama has said that he has made "no decision" as to whether or not he will submit a budget to Congress for approval before the looming deadline of the first Monday in February.  That's from TheHill.com. 

He cites the "Fiscal Cliff" crisis that kept him from getting around to the task of deciding how best to spend $3,000,000,000,000.00.  On top of that, you have to consider the president's really busy holiday schedule that included a 20-day vacation in Hawaii.  No doubt, he planned to get up early - before Michelle and the kids - to sit on the balcony with his laptop and finish up the final details of that spending plan. 

If only those pesky partisan Republicans who control everything in the world hadn't made him fly all the way to Hawaii and then back to Washington and then back to Hawaii, he'd have had it done.

Let's be reasonable.

That looming deadline is what we "U.S. Americans" call a "law."

So, would the Internal Revenue Service accept my excuse, "I was really busy," as a valid reason not to file my tax return on time this year?

Sure, they have a "law" that says I need to file by the deadline. 

But let's be reasonable.

Seriously, the politicians we've sent to Washington - and to many state capitals, too - to represent us, to protect our freedoms by upholding our constitutions, and in the process to obey the laws need to start doing just that.

For crying out loud, just do the right thing!

Not News, But Informative...

Flashback to 1995. 

Washington, DC was one of the world's murder hot spots.  Eric Holder and Barry Obama were unknowns, climbing the Establishment Ladder.  They were free to associate almost exclusively with like-minded people and to speak their minds.

This video simply shows Mr. Holder's mindset toward guns and gun ownership.  Having said that, I don't believe for a minute that his intent is as ill-informed or benign as the Democrat Women he's addressing here.

And I'll say it again:  It's not just about guns!  It's about all of our rights!  Speech, association, privacy, religion, fair and speedy trial, public trial, confronting accusers, movement, property ownership, quiet enjoyment.  ALL OF THEM!

Students Of Feeling. Thinking? Not So Much...

These people - Anarchists - are as deluded as the proletariat who follow the Socialist or Communist ideal.  They ignore - they even deny - HUMAN NATURE. 

As we know the maxim, "Nature abhors a vacuum," is true; so we know that political vacuums are readily filled by the most vile of men who are bent upon forcing their will on others.  We experienced that first-hand in Libya and Egypt last year.  We enforced that experience on the people of Iraq and Afghanistan early in the last decade. 

Removing the bad without a deliberate and organic transition plan will only result in worse.  In fact, addressing the Anarchist's ideal, they put society only a short step away from tyranny.  First we find tyranny of the mob, then fearing the mob we embrace the protection of a strongman.  We arrive at tyranny of the dictator. 

A Picture Says A Thousand Words...

I wish I knew whom to credit for this.  It's poetic.

Problems Of The World? Solved...

I just need to say this, so don’t think I’m getting all weird on you and abandoning all reason.  I've been thinking about this for a long time, now.


In fact, this may be one of the most reasoned and reasonable things I’ve posted here.

We – society, America, humankind – are sick. We are afflicted with a malady that thus far we have been unable to cure. The symptoms of our sickness are manifest in wanton and rampant violence that ranges from the sensational attacks of 9/11, Virginia Tech and Sandy Hook to the invisible yet breathtaking ly brutal instances of physical and emotional abuse to children and women around the world and in our own backyards.

An abundance of laws has failed to cure our ills. Program on program taught in our schools has failed, too. Counselors and policemen have failed to cure us. Politicians have really only made us more sick. A thousand billion dollars spent on wars against poverty, drugs and terror have not cured us.

I believe in my heart of hearts – and with all my heart – that the only thing that can or will heal mankind and make our society the healthy place it ought to be are the truths that Jesus, the Son of God and the Savior of the world, taught while he was here as recorded in the New Testament and the Book of Mormon, and when he was the God of the Old Testament.

1. I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Not money; not others’ opinions; not pleasure; not self. None. If we can really get that far out of our self and our selfishness, then can you imagine the energy, time and resources we would have at our disposal to do good in the world?

2. Thou shalt not kill, commit adultery, bear false witness, or covet thy neighbor’s property. John B. Finch, speaking in Iowa City in 1882 said, “Your right to swing your arm leaves off where my right not to have my nose struck begins.” If we ensure that none of our actions are calculated to harm another, think of the senseless pain and suffering we would prevent in the world and in our families.

3. Do not be easily offended; be humble and teachable and obedient. How much do we suffer because we choose to suffer? We allow a wound to fester, we refuse to submit to life’s lessons, we persist in thinking that we can overcome the simple laws of nature and the harvest. How much better we would feel if we changed our ways independent of what others choose to do.

4. Give of your abundance and in your poverty keep alive the will to give. Be generous and be charitable. If a man asks your coat, give him your cloak also. It is not hard to find those around us who are worse off than we. Be kind and gentle. Money is not the only thing we can give. Even the poorest among us can abound in patience, listening and time.

5. Seek goodness in life and see goodness in all around us.

We’ve tried hedonism and humanism. We’ve tried sarcasm and we’re trying statism. None of them have worked. And none will work.

If you’ll allow me to define a word that has very negative connotations, “iniquity,” as simply “not doing what is right, or seeking to violate the laws of Nature,” then I would sum up our problems as a wise old prophet once did. “Ye have sought all the days of your lives for that which ye could not obtain; and ye have sought for happiness in doing iniquity.”

Or as another said, “Wickedness never was happiness.”

Putting It All In Perspective...

Hat tip:  ZeroHedge.com

Continuing The Thought...

Okay.

I think it's well established that the rights guaranteed under the First and the Second Amendments are equally valid and that abridging one of them is not more or less wrong than abridging the other.

Let's skip over the Third Amendment for now, and let's look at the Fourth Amendment.  And no, I will not talk about airport security or my feelings about it here.

The Fourth Amendment reads:  "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

That's the whole amendment.

We typically refer to this amendment when speaking of property rights or privacy rights.  It is a key player in any discussion of governments' exercise of their power of eminent domain.  But I want to look at this amendment in light of the currently-popular movement to "tax the rich", (whoever they are!). 

If Nature and Nature's God gave Man certain unalienable rights including the right to peaceably enjoy the fruits of one's labor, it follows that taking away the fruits of one's labor so that he or she may not enjoy them is immoral and a violation of Natural Law.  We call it stealing.

But there remains the fact that government is expensive.  On a federal or national level we need a strong defense against foreign invasion or influence.  We need a court system that prevents injustice between the states.  We need laws, infrastructure and enforcement that are designed to promote the general well being of all Americans.  On state and local levels we need other services such as water, sewer, fire protection and police departments.  And because governments don't make money, we have a necessary and moral need for taxation.

Taxation in order to support the legitimate functions of government as outlined in federal and state constitutions and in city charters is fine.  Everyone benefits equally from those functions.  And as such, everyone should be equally invested in support of them.  Armies don't shoot more bullets in defense of a rich man's border than in defense of a poor one's.  Courts don't use more justices or jury members deliberating over a rich man's case than a poor one's.  The interstate isn't better maintained for a rich man's car than for a poor one's.  And a poor person does not avail himself of the functions of government any less than does a rich person.

And so, we can be equally invested in two ways:  We can all pay the same amount, or we can all pay the same rate. 

If a city of 1,000 people has a government that costs $1,000,000 to run each year, then all residents could be fairly asked to pay $1,000 each for those services.  The family of 5 would pay $5,000, and the family of 3 would pay $3,000.  It's equal and it's fair.

That same city could look at it's residential properties and realize that there were 500 homes in town.  Each home could then be assessed $2,000 per year in a property tax.  It's equal and it's fair.

The city could realize that the average annual earnings of its residents was $100,000 and place an income tax of 1% on each earner.  The person who earns $1,000,000 per year would pay $10,000 in tax, while the person who earns $10,000 per year would pay only $100.  It's equal and it's fair.

Each of these taxation schemes can be called both fair and equal.  And more importantly, in the terms of the Fourth Amendment, they can be called "reasonable."

But for a long time in history there has been a sentiment that says the "rich" somehow "owe" something to "society" that the "poor" and the "middle class" don't.  Isn't that strange? 

I'm not talking about moral obligations of goodness.  I'm telling you that there are people who actually believe that some people should bear a disproportionate share of the burden of supporting government functions than others.  And those same people who believe that also believe that the same some people should have their property taken away so that government can support the same others' lifestyle.

There are people who believe that government is right to seize the property of an American citizen and without cause or justification give that property to another person. 

That's not only a violation of that person's Natural rights and a violation of the protection of those rights guaranteed under the Constitution, but it is immoral.  It is as immoral as prohibiting a person from expressing his or her political views, joining the church of his or her choice, or telling them what they can or cannot do with their body.

Fair and equal taxation to support the lawful function of government is just.  Punitive, falsely-named "progressive" taxation with the end in mind of redistributing personal property is not.  It is unjust.  It is immoral. 

It is UNREASONABLE.  And those who support abridging the sacred right to privacy and property do not understand (or perhaps they do) that when we surrender one Natural right, we will soon surrender them all.