Archive for May, 2009

Story of Onsong

May 31, 2009

In the extreme northeast corner of North Korea, there is a small town called Onsong. What we know of the history of this town is horrifying. OneFreeKorea has the details.

Let me highlight the points:

  • A man was executed by firing squad for stealing copper to sell for food. His corpse was left in the hills for the dogs to eat.
  • The school grows emptier and emptier every day as students and teachers are unable to walk to class, or spend their time searching for scraps of food in the fields.
  • A bridge that used to connect Korea with China was destroyed and never rebuilt. Trade would bring in valuable food and money to the people of Onsong.
  • The North Korean regime installed high wire fences to keep the people from fleeing across the river without a bridge.
  • Then they built traps—the same kind of traps they use around their concentration camps. Those caught in the traps fall on to spikes that either kill them or seriously wound them.
  • Border guards murdered 15 women near the border there, accusing them of either trying to flee or spying for South Korea.
  • In 1987, in a nearby concentration camp, the prisoners overthrew their guards. In response, they were machine-gunned to death and the camp closed. Over 5,000 people died that day.

When people talk about war bringing death, think about the cost of no war. Some wars are worth fighting because not fighting them is worse.

This is one of those wars.

Each day we wait before overthrowing the Kim regime means another day of starvation, torture, executions, and more. Innocent women, children, fathers, mothers, all held captive, forced to do unnatural things to provide the basic sustenance for their families, all because a sick regime believes the people are less than human, unworthy of pursuing their own interests.

Some say North Korea is strong. They may be strong, but we are stronger, and have been for a very long time. As Thomas Payne pointed out, the longer we wait, the more strong they become and the more damage we will cause ourselves. Now, with a nuclear North Korea, the time is up. It is now, or never.

North Korea is Your Problem Too

May 29, 2009

Daniel Hannan is a sensible conservative from the UK. (Is there any other kind?)

However, on North Korea, he giggles from the sideline and wonders aloud whether China is being retarded for tolerating North Korea with nukes. (link)

I hope Mr. Hannan isn’t that short-sited. Maybe he trusts that once again, as in Iraq, the US will do the right thing and lead the world to depose of yet another grave threat to everyone’s security, and so he feels comfortable saying:

I certainly don’t see any British interest in biffing North Korea which is not, by any definition, within our sphere of influence.

North Korea is in your sphere of influence, because North Korea is close to the terrorist networks throughout the world. The US, Japan, and South Korea can patrol three-fourths of the border around North Korea, assuring that nuclear and missile materials and technology doesn’t flow from North Korea through those borders into the hands of agents of the various terrorist organizations (who threaten everyone who doesn’t submit to Allah, by the way, which includes Daniel Hannan).

But the other fourth of the border, the border with China, isn’t patrolable by any ally of the UK. Materials and technology can easily flow across that border, through China, to anywhere in the world. And from there, it can end up in London.

If Daniel Hannan is ok with that, then his nonchalant attitude is justified.

If not, then one of the following scenarios have to unfold:

  • North Korea abandons all of its nuclear and missile progress and opens up its country to full inspections and disarmament. (Not going to happen.)
  • China allows the US, UK and other interested parties to patrol the border between her and North Korea. We can’t trust the Chinese with our security. (This isn’t going to happen either.)
  • The North Korean regime is brought down to the ground to be yet another footnote in the history books, despite the objections of China and Russia, if any.

And Daniel, your childish cut against the US for leading the world in destryoing Saddam Hussein in Iraq is pathetic. You were there, you were conscious, and you have the record before you. Saddam Hussein never denied he had a nuclear program. Saddam Hussein was actively supporting terrorist networks we felt threatened by, and refused to cooperate. Saddam Hussein didn’t even try to comply with the treaty he had signed after the first Gulf War. And Saddam Hussein made the UN Security Council into a laughing-stock. Your country was just as enthusiastic as all of our partners were to get Saddam off the stage of international politics.

Yes, he didn’t have a nuclear program, but he was trying to pursue one. Nuclear scientists lead coalition troops to the machines buried in their backyard. There were stockpiles of yellowcake—not the kind you eat, of course. And he had successfully evaded international detection because he was using a method of enriching uranium that no one thought he would seriously try.

Comments on “My Presidency”

May 29, 2009

A fellow blogger writes about what she would do if she were president. (link)

Let me take this opportunity to explain why she is dangerously wrong. I know a lot of people that think like here. Indeed, I used to think like her. But it is still wrong and dangerous and our Founding Fathers identified it early on as a threat to our liberty.

People tend to think that the choice of the federal government is to do something one way or the other. That’s not true. The choice is, ultimately, to do something or not to do it at all. Our Founding Fathers made a very short list of things the federal government could do, and explicitly wrote in the 10th Amendment that everything else was off-limits.

The two basic areas that the federal government has been granted power to act by the people and the states are:

  1. Foreign relations, including treaties, trade policy and war.
  2. Relationships among the states, including inter-state trade, resolution of disputes, and basic limits on forms of government within the states.

Granted, a few, specific things have been added or removed over the years through the amendment process, and a few things have changed in very slight but appreciable ways. The constitution is specific, however. Only a constitutional amendment can change the meaning of one word in that document, and that by explicit language passed by 3/4 of the states.

Whenever someone wishes that the federal government would do more than the above list of 2 items, they are running a dangerous course towards tyranny.

Our Founding Fathers wisely introduced the concept of “Balance of Powers” into our system of government. Those who have a basic understanding of the constitution identify the three branches of government—the president, congress, and the courts—and can identify how those three balance each other out. But that is only a fraction of the picture.

More importantly, there are three additional institutions in the United States that balance out the federal government and keep it in check. They are:

  • The states as a group.
  • The people as a whole (and not a majority or minority.)
  • The individual.

These three forces act to limit what the federal government can do, and to punish the federal government when it exceeds its bounds set by the constitution.

Why is it so important that the federal government be relegated to the uninteresting role of dealing with foreign nations and ensuring that free trade exists among the states? Because the Founding Fathers believed that having lots of little tiny governments compete with each other is the best way to ensure that government is kept accountable and that good governments rise to the top while bad ones sink into oblivion. This concept comes in many forms and names, but I believe it is the same concept that drives progress in the free market: competition.

See, with the federal government at the top, ensuring that people and goods are allowed to move freely between the states, the states become competitors, bidding for trade and people. The more trade they get, the more people that choose to live there, the better off that state will be.

Well, what can a state do to attract or repel people? Its laws and tax codes, which can cover far more than the federal government can ever dream of covering, can either attract people because it creates prosperity and happiness, or drive them out because other states are doing a better job.

And not just states, but counties, cities, towns, school boards, etc… all compete one with another to attract new people or drive them out.

With this in mind, let me provide what is within and without the limits of the federal government from Rebelliousvanilla’s list:

  1. Healthcare. Aside from ensuring that contracts remain enforced across state borders and that medical supplies and personnel can flow freely between the states without tariffs or taxation, the federal government can do nothing. It is up to the states to figure out how to regulate the medical industry, if they decide to regulate it at all. The liberal wants the federal government to dictate healthcare policy because if one state were to implement the liberal’s ideas, people would flee that state to states where healthcare policy is more free. One are RV is correct is the labeling of goods that flow across state borders. This is something that the federal government can do.
  2. Illegal Immigrants. This is an area where the federal government has absolute authority since it deals with foreign nations and treaties. We have very good laws on the books already. The president simply has to enforce them.
  3. Poor. The poor, and all social welfare, is way beyond anything the federal government can do. It is a state and individual issue. Like healthcare, liberals want a federal welfare program because any state adopting it would soon go bankrupt.
  4. Divorce laws. Aside from regulating how marriage contracts are applied across state borders (they can’t change across state borders—making California’s constitutional amendment invalid), the federal government has no say.
  5. Abuse protection and equal funding. This is social welfare. It is up to the states and the individual, not the federal government.
  6. Education. The federal government has no say.
  7. Abortion and drugs. I don’t know that the federal government can limit trade. The only thing that can do is force drug traffickers to declare what they are shipping, and hold them accountable to the federal government when they lie about transporting drugs between the states. The states can punish possession, consumption, manufacture, and distribution. On abortion, the federal government can hold the states accountable for executing individuals without due process, but that’s about it.
  8. Research and energy. Although the federal government can fund research, they cannot limit energy trade across state borders.
  9. Taxes. The federal government can set tax policy for federal revenues. Under a federal government executing its proper role, there isn’t much need for money beyond the military. During peacetime (and we haven’t been at peace since WWII), the federal government would only hire a few judges and diplomats, and that’s pretty much it. Whatever taxes above that would be used to pay off the war debt.
  10. Defense. RV is right here—this is the primary duty of the federal government.

Hopefully, the idea of the separation of powers where the states, the people, and individuals are included as other checks on the federal government will be restored in the public consciousness. It is terribly important that we keep government distributed so that it competes with itself.

“Every Aspect of our Lives…”

May 28, 2009

Nancy Pelosi finds a welcome audience in China, where human rights are unknown.

She boldly declares amongst the group of like-minded communists that “every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory … of how we are taking responsibility [to help the environment].”

Folks, it is apparent with that statement alone that Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives, does not understand the basic rights and responsibilities we claim for ourselves and afford all others.

She believes that we are not accountable in our current state, and will never be accountable until the federal government has taken inventory of every aspect of our lives.

She believes that we as individuals do not have any responsibility until the federal government makes us responsible.

I’ve seen what people like Nancy Pelosi do. They create countries like North Korea where man is reduced to a statistic, a meaningless number, a means to an end, the end being the desires of the state. People in North Korea don’t matter to Dear Leader. He doesn’t care how much they suffer because their own personal welfare is of no concern to him. Instead, he drives them like slaves, abusing them in prisons, brain-washing them since youth, treating the most elderly among them like the smallest child, and demanding every breath, every drop of sweat, every moment of time be devoted to the state.

This will not do.

I boldly declare that the Declaration of Independence was written for today, Thursday May 28th, 2009. If you are an American, then you must share in the signing of this document, because it is true and because this document, and this document alone, defines what makes America America.

The most relevant part reads:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

We must, today, severe the political bonds with Nancy Pelosi and all who think like her. We sever them in a way that leaves us peers, not masters and slaves. We do not intend to make her our slave, nor do we wish to enslave anyone else.

The Laws of Nature, that is, the fundamental laws of the universe, the laws based on the way things are not the way we wish it would be, dictate that:

  1. I, and all people, have an unalienable right to life.
  2. I, and all people, have an unalienable right to liberty, the freedom to do what I see fit with my life.
  3. I, and all people, have an unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness, that is, doing and owning and building my future and my happiness, or economic freedoms to work, own, buy, sell, and create.
  4. Government is created by individuals like myself and you to secure those rights, and do nothing else. It is a subservient organization, subservient to the people as a whole.
  5. When governments abuse their power (what Nancy Pelosi is articulating), that the Laws of Nature demand that such a government be dissolved to be replaced with a new government by the people.

In today’s country, we can sever the political bands with a vote. We can vote Nancy Pelosi and her like-minded friends out of office and replace them with people who see government’s paramount and sole duty as protecting the natural, unalienable rights of the people.

I fully intend to work to see this through.

However, should our voting process become corrupted (which it is dangerously close to becoming), then we will be justified by Nature’s Law to overthrow our government by force. Yes, I am and advocate of a revolution should it be the only means available to dispose of a despotic government such as Nancy Pelosi’s.

On the environmental issues, why is it necessary for environmental policy to be set by the government? If our actions are so damaging to the environment that we must change our behavior immediately, then it wouldn’t be necessary for governments to do anything since we, the people, would change our ways naturally.

The fact of the matter is that there is NO EVIDENCE that global warming is dangerous, there is NO EVIDENCE that humans are causing the global warming, and there is NO EVIDENCE that we can do anything to reverse it if we tried, and there is NO EVIDENCE that immediate action is required. If you carefully analyze all of the purported evidence, you will find it all strangely lacking and based on unsubstantiated claims and speculation.

Leaders of the Global Warming movement, such as Al Gore and NASA “scientist” Dr. James Hansen, have been found to fabricate (lie about) the science and the evidence, to such a point that scientists who believe we may be causing global warming have to refute them at every turn. In fact, the motivation for fraudulent advocates of global warming is money and power, as can be easily identified by even the most ignorant among us.

Just like before the Civil War, people disobeyed their government by running slaves in the underground railroad to freedom, we, too, have a sacred duty to act in such a way to subvert every despotic government. We have a duty to see that government is held accountable for its usurpations. We have a duty to see that our rights are secured and not infringed upon. We have a duty to speak loudly and boldly about injustice wherever it is seen. These responsibilities and duties do not come from the federal government or any other earthly institution. It is our duty by Nature’s Laws, the natural law that governs all actions and reactions in this universe. It is because by executing faithfully our duties, we maximize the good in society and minimize the evil, but by neglecting our duties, the inverse is true.

Nancy Pelosi does not belong anywhere near the controls of government because she believes government has the power to dictate how we are allowed to act and behave, beyond the securing of our natural, unalienable rights. She is fundamentally opposed to our sacred heritage, and she believes contrary to the American belief in individual liberty.

“Saved or Created Jobs”

May 27, 2009

Next time President Obama claims to have “saved or created jobs”, look at this link.

President Bush and Obama’s bailouts and “stimulus” packages have destroyed our economy. The free market is quite capable of clearing our the deadwood and creating wealth out of failure. They interfered in this process, and as predicted, our economy is doing much worse than anyone thought it would be.

If we had stuck to the republican plan, based on hundreds of years of experience, common sense, Nobel laureate economist analysis, and others straight logic and reason, we would have not only climbed out of this recession but be at a new height in our economic growth. Instead, people are still losing jobs, the markets are still losing money, businesses are still tightening their belts, and property prices are still falling.

What is the scientifically sound approach to fixing a broken economy? It’s very simple really: Get government out of the way. Any damage in the economy is almost always caused by government interference. In this case, it was caused by government forcing banks to give loans out to people who could never pay them, rather than loans they could pay or telling them to come back later when their finances were in order.

The scientifically sound approach is a drastic cut in taxes, a drastic cut in extraneous regulations, a drastic cut in spending, and otherwise freeing up the market. In other words, the solution to economic woes is always less government, not more.

If we simply returned to the constitutional limits on the federal government, our economy would be reaching new heights in a matter of weeks. Why? Because overnight, investors would return with their capital, businessmen would begin planning for a brighter future, and everyone’s assets would suddenly see a boost in value as opportunities suddenly became available that didn’t exist before because of government interference.

By forcing GM to stay in business when it should have gone bankrupt, by forcing failed banks and investment institutions to stay at the top of the hill when up-and-comers should have been able to take them over and repair the damage, we are prolonging the effects of the failure.

We must allow failure to occur in a free market. We must allow people to profit over other people’s mistakes. This is the only way to create new jobs to replace the old.

Racist Sotomayor MUST Resign

May 27, 2009

If Sonia Sotomayor really believes skin color and ethnicity has anything to do with a person’s ability to judge fairly, then she is a racist. Our country has abandoned racism a long time ago, or so I had hoped.

If she truly feels like she is superior in any way because of her ethnic heritage, she should resign immediately because she is a racist bigot.

More here

Contact info for our senators is above. They have the power to stop this nomination and ask President Obama to choose someone who doesn’t believe race and ethnicity have a bearing on a person’s character and qualifications.

Sonia Sotomayor: Not Fit

May 27, 2009

If you love the rule of law, and not of men, then Sonia Sotomayor cannot be confirmed as a member of the Supreme Court.

As an appeals court judge, her conduct was more that of an activist than of a judge. Rather than represent the ideals of justice and fairness, she embraced injustice and unfairness. Anytime someone on the bench shows preference for one side or the other, and does anything more than preside over the courtroom during hearings and apply the law as it has already been written and interpreted, is a time that they go beyond their duties and begin the malpractice of injustice.

As a country, we rely on the law. We rely on judges being an arbiter of what the law means. We rely on them applying the law equally for everyone. That is, as a rich, white male, I should get the same treatment under the law as a poor illegal immigrant from Mexico. I should be judged on my actions and intentions, not on arbitrary distinguishing characteristics such as skin color and heritage.

We’ve moved beyond that racism. We’ve long ago decided that the ideal of justice is too important to leave in the hands of politicians and administrators, entrusting that sacred duty to those who can be kept impartial and separate from politics by force of constitution.

I understand why leftists like Barack Obama rely on judges who are not just. The law is simply not in their favor. After all, even way back in 1787, when the constitution was first adopted, the constitution was put into place to protect the people from tyrants like Barack Obama who come with a message of hope, love, and peace, but come bearing the sword of destruction through government imposition. If the constitution were applied as it was written and intended, Barack Obama and socialists all over our government, from both parties, would find themselves completely stripped of the power to hurt the people with their policies and laws.

It requires a special kind of judge, a judge who can read the constitution, read the laws, and then decide for herself what it should mean rather than what it does mean, and then change the laws and constitution of our country to suit the case. Without this kind of judge, socialism would’ve died a long time ago in the USA.

Sonia Sotomayor, and any person who cannot read the constitution and understand what it meant so long ago, and apply those same principles to cases today, is not fit to serve on that bench. To allow them to do so cuts the constitution to shreds, to the point where we are today, where the federal government is not bound by it and in truth, neither are we. It leads to chaos, anarchy, the rule of men and not of law. It leads to injustice, social or otherwise.

I cannot permit Sonia Sotomayor to sit on that court. I hope that all those who value the rule of law will oppose her appointment, as well as any nominee like her. The senate can and must hold President Obama to appoint someone who will rule based solely on the facts of the case, the original meaning of the constitution, and the current state of the laws of our country. No other justice will do.

North Korea Declares War on South

May 27, 2009

It’s over. The North has declared military actions against the South. (link) The North has said it is no longer bound by the armistice that ended the Korean War. (Really, led to a temporary truce.)

Who’s going to fire the first shot now? I pray it isn’t the North. We’ve already seen too many wars start like that, with innocent lives ruined by a government who refused to defend her people from obvious and imminent threats.

Update: Many people don’t realize this, but the UN Security Council has already spoken. See UNSC 1718 of 2006. The North has completely ignored every section of the resolution. The UN is powerless here, like it was with Iraq.

North Korean War has Started

May 27, 2009

North Korea has fired off several more missiles since Monday’s nuclear test. They are not communicating with Washington D. C., nor any other government, even Beijing.

We were never at peace with the North. It’s time now to admit that. The war never ended, at least not in the minds of the North. Negotiations were all a stalling tactic to allow the North to reorganize and modernize for the second wave of attacks.

The longer it takes America, South Korea, Japan, and China to realize that North Korea is clinically insane and we have no reason to allow them to continue to run that country, the quicker we can resolve this problem and leave the world a better place.

Otherwise, a lot of people are going to get hurt.

One of those missiles will have a 20 kiloton warhead on it. It can land on Tokyo, Seoul, Los Angelos, or Seattle. If we allow them to continue, they will launch a nuclear strike and millions and millions of people will die.

Some of them will die from the initial flash. Others will die from the shock wave. A lot more will die from radiation burns and poisoning. We still don’t know how to treat those people, other than to shuffle them off to a corner where they can suffer the final moments of life as their lungs fill with blood and their flesh falls off their bones. I can’t imagine how painful that is. I pray to God that no one will ever have to experience that again.

We can wake up one morning to find Seattle now joins Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Or we can end it before it begins.

That’s the choice before us. That’s the choice the North has given us. Either we stop them, or they kill us.

I fully support a war with North Korea, no matter the cost in treasure, blood, or whatever else. I’m not talking about someone else’s treasure or blood or whatnot. I am ready to pay the price myself for a free and republican North Korea.

Forget that Obama is probably the worst president we’ve ever had. We need him now to lead the fight into battle, to rally the troops here and abroad, and end this threat once and for all.

North Korea: “Growing Belligerence”

May 25, 2009

North Korea fired three missiles after their successful nuclear test. (link)

North Korea also fired three short-range missiles, one around noon and two more later in the day, an official with South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff said, speaking on condition of anonymity. The first had a range of about 130 kilometers, Yonhap News said, quoting an unidentified diplomatic source. The second two were fired as a warning to U.S. spy planes monitoring the nuclear test site, the news service said.

People are going to die here. Either North Korea nukes Japan, South Korea, United States and Europe, or North Korea falls by force. Negotiation is not an option anymore. There is nothing we can offer to have them back down and honestly come to the peace table.

Either we can wait until we have a Nuclear Cold War all over again with a tin-pot dictator in a third-world country, or we can end this now before it gets much more out of hand. US, South Korean, Japanese, Australian, and if possible, Chinese assets should be used to forcefully disarm the north.

If you want to live in a nuclear-free world, the North Korean regime has got to go, right now.