Archive for January, 2011

My Race: American

January 31, 2011

Michelle Malkin talks about the real no-labels movement. It seems America’s youth don’t like being classified into a single race.

Myself? I’m American. I’m not Caucasian-American or African-American or Asian-American or anything like that. I’m American. I don’t identify myself with a race or a color. My fathers are those who fought for individual, God-given liberties, and my brothers are those who believe in the equality of man in the eyes of God. That’s why I count Moses as one of my ancestors, along with George Washington (who had no children) and every other figure from history who saw people as subjects of God who could not be ruled by men.

Why Are These People Allowed to Live?

January 31, 2011

Marxists in the US are advocating the overthrow of the US government.

I don’t like Barack Obama, and I certainly don’t like the fact he’s the president of the United States. I don’t know whether he was born in Hawaii or not. However, like him or not, he is our president. The only way to remove him from office is impeachment.

Explain to me, why do we tolerate people who advocate overthrowing our government with unconstitutional means?

The Muslim Brotherhood Are Not Our Allies

January 31, 2011

Founding Blogger reports on the biggest story of the uprisings in the Middle East: The progressives are working, hand-in-hand, with the Muslim Brotherhood. That’s right, the same group of Islamo-fascists who bombed and then destroyed the World Trade Center, and have done countless other terrorist attacks across the world, both against American civilians and millitary, and other nationalities, is working with the Progressives/Communist/Liberal/Marxist movement here at home and in Europe.

It’s high time we did something about the traitors among us, those who advocate anti-American ideals such as segregating our people into groups and classes and pitting them one against another, or advocate for group rights that trample individual rights.

First, I am going to label these people for what they are: Traitors. They are traitors to our national interests. They are traitors to the very concept of what make an American American. I say this because they are actively working with the enemies of our state and they are actively working against our ideals.

Let them come forward and proclaim their reverence for God-given rights, and let them explain what rights are actual rights and what rights are really entitlements. Let them explain the concept of duty and its relation to rights.

I, for one, am sick of these people. They do not belong in our borders, and they do not deserve our protection. Let us call them out, one by one, and try them in the court of public opinion. Let us vote them out of office, and shout down their political organizations. They stand on the wrong end of history, advocating tyranny for a free people. They have never left a positive mark on history, not when Napoleon tried to sweep Europe, nor when Adolf Hitler tried to build a socialist utopia, nor when Lenin overthrew the czarists, nor when Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao committed mass murder against their own people.

What has their ideology ever done for the people, except bind their hands tighter in chains of tyranny?

Let them rot, let them expire from our political forums. I despise them because of what they stand for.

The Muslim Brotherhood are not moderates, and are not our friends. They deserve to find out what it feels like to be hunted by our marines and soldiers.

If the Muslim Brotherhood takes any form of political power in Egypt, then we will know what Barack Obama’s true agenda is. He intends to use America’s enemies to further his political power in America.

Imagine what today would look like if the Shah of Iran were never overthrown. There wouldn’t be a functioning terrorist movement because there would be no state they could call home. The Middle East would not have nuclear weapons and Israel would not have to choose between bombing a foreign country and certain death. The Muslim Brotherhood would be a tiny movement forced into secrecy in their own part of the world.

Now imagine, thirty years from now, what the world will look like with five or ten Irans who are state sponsors of terrorism. At some point, we will no longer be able to use convention forces to secure our borders, and would be driven to annihilate millions and millions of people simply to survive.

I blame Barack Obama and the left in America. I blame Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and every other democrat who supported Barack Obama.

Once More on Egypt

January 28, 2011

At 0:45, one of the young men in Egypt shouts something about rights.

God bless that man. If that is the sentiment that prevails in Egypt, and if he is thinking “rights” in the same way that our Founding Fathers thought about rights (not in the way communists do—which are entitlements)—then I am on the side of the revolutionaries in Egypt.

If it ever gets to the point in the US where we have to stand up, and shout at the government with rocks and sticks in hand that every individual in our country has natural, God-given rights, then we will be in a pretty pathetic position.

As long as our free people bear arms, the same guns that the military uses to fight, then we won’t have to demonstrate or use violence to protect our rights.

A Word on Egypt

January 28, 2011

Egypt is ablaze, and signs are pointing to a change in government through protests and rallies. Unlike Iran a few years ago, Egypt isn’t able to keep the regime in line. Reports have cops falling in line with the protestors.

My take on Egypt is I don’t know. If this is a genuine pro-democracy movement, then it’s troubling. Democracy is another word for mob rule. If this were a republican movement, such as the movement our Founding Fathers partook in in the 18th century, then it’s encouraging, but I don’t see republicans behaving this way. Republicans would be much more organized and much more cooperative with the sitting government.

If this is a secularist movement, to deny the power of the state to Islamists who associate their religion with violence, then it is a good thing. However, the current government has been tremendously strained in their dialogue compared to their neighbors. Toppling a regime who has established peace with Israel and at the same time has helped Israel to one degree or another by preventing the free flow of arms across its borders is not a wise idea for freedom and liberty in general. If I were a secularist in Egypt, I would support the current government as opposed to toppling it, for fear of what would replace it.

What is more likely is this is an Islamist movement. A bunch of radical muslims who think it is a good idea to blow up Christians and Jews and conquer in the name of their god would be the last thing we want to run Egypt. That’s what Iran is, and we know how hard it is to find peace with such a state.

Any widespread violent overthrow of a government must be coordinated. There must be people calling the shots and organizing the action. There must be a powerful sponsor who gives the rioters enough confidence to riot. I don’t see any actors that would have an interest in seeing Egypt toppled except Iran. I don’t think it’s particularly surprising given Iran’s behavior throughout the Middle East.

If my sense is right, then President Obama should be working to prevent the overthrow of the current government of Egypt, and should be actively subverting Iran’s influence in the region for the sake of peace. However, Barack Obama doesn’t “get” this type of thing. He doesn’t understand the reason why we have a president with near-dictatorial powers in the first place and what his role is in history, world politics, and in defending our sacred rights. He is not willing to kill and overthrow governments when our safety and security is at stake, and instead believes talking to murderers and rapists is a good idea.

Like Jimmy Carter, who failed to live up to the office of president, Barack Obama is going to leave the world in a much worse state than he found it in. Whoever comes to replace Barack Obama is going to have to work hard and fast to re-establish America as the big kid on the school ground and to re-establish our authority and willingness to act in matters of our security.

No Debt Ceiling Increases

January 28, 2011

One of the most frightening things facing our economy is the devaluation of the dollar, and especially the potential that it will no longer be the international currency of choice.

There are things we can do, today, to keep the dollar in its internationally renowned position, and at the same time, stabilize the dollar.

The first thing we must do is balance the budget by cuts to spending. Any proposal to balance the budget by raising taxes ignores the fact that taxes are what is killing our economy today. With the 2nd highest corporate income tax in the world (soon to be 1st as Japan lowers their corporate income tax), it is unimaginable that raising tax rates would bring in more tax revenue.

These cuts must come from the entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare. They must also come from the military. We should start the discussion with an across-the-board cut to all spending to balance the budget. Then every discussion of raising the budget for a particular item must come with a cut to a different item. If you cannot argue that one form of spending is more critical than another, then you cannot increase it.

The second thing we must do is restart the American economy. There is no reason why we, of all countries, shouldn’t experience 10-20% real annual growth. In order to do so, we must unleash the capitalist spirit in our people by cutting tax rates and eliminating the vast majority of the regulations on the books. The only regulations that should remain are standards and measures used to facilitate economic transactions. We can argue about the regulations that aggregate tort costs, such as noise or air pollution regulations, which simply forbid industry from pushing their real costs off to someone else and force them to internalize it. However, we must admit that many countries are willing to put up with the damage that industry does because they would rather have industry than a pristine environment or clean air. We must also ask ourselves which is more valuable to us in each case.

Getting either of these reforms through when the senate is controlled by the democrats and our commander in chief is an open Marxist is highly unlikely. The only method republicans have to control the government is to shut down the government.

There are two ways to shut down the government. One is to simply refuse to pass a budget. Without a budget, the president cannot spend a dime. The senate cannot write a budget, but only vote on and modify the house’s proposal.

The other way is to refuse to raise the debt ceiling. This means that, by natural fact, we must balance the budget, in real terms, immediately.

I support both of these actions.

Shutting down the government is a good idea all around. The American people don’t need the government to survive. The government is a servant that simply provides law and order—law and order we can provide for ourselves if need be. When the government shuts down for a long period of time, the world will see exactly what kind of people the American people are, and realize that it is the government that depends on us, not the people who depend on the government.

Shutting down the government by refusing to raise the debt ceiling will send an immediate message to the world that we are not going to go bankrupt, and that we have the gumption to cut up our credit cards before we get too far in debt.

I hope the Republicans stick to the ideals of our Founding Fathers, which is that all men are equal and all men have within themselves the power to govern themselves. I hope the republicans point their spears at government, unlike the previous congress which had their spears pointed at the people. Rather than fight the will of the people, they can use our disgust with “business as usual” to really change the way government works.

Suggestions for Improving Health Care in America

January 27, 2011

President Obama said that if we have any suggestions on how to improve health care, he’d like to hear it.

My suggestions are simple.

1. Eliminate Medicare/Medicaid and all government spending on health care, including spending on any federal employee’s health care.

2. Eliminate all the programs and regulations that have to do with health care, including abolishing the FDA. This means no more free trips to the hospital thanks to federal laws. Let the states decide.

3. Make a federal law that allows people to buy health insurance from out-of-state companies, thus circumventing all the stupid regulations at the state level. (This is what the commerce clause was really about—allowing free trade between the states.)

4. Eliminate all taxes and tax breaks that have to do with health care and insurance.

The above 4 reforms would have the following effects:

1. People would have to find health care from private sources, without subsidies from the government. Real market forces (supply & demand) will ensure that health care goes only to those who really need it the most and have the means to compensate those who create it in the first place. The profit motive will drive prices down by providing better care for everyone. The more people who participate in the market, the more likely health care is to become a commodity like rice and wheat. At that point, doctors and hospitals will be compelled to provide the best health care possible for the lowest price possible.

2. If there are no social safety nets when it comes to health care, then people will have to rely on other people instead of elected politicians and bureaucrats for charity, the way Jesus commanded us to do it. I trust that the benevolent people of our country will provide better health care for the poor than what they receive today, especially if health care costs are driven as low as possible and when the average American keeps more of his paycheck for himself.

3. The cost of developing new medical procedures and drugs will be cut to a tiny fraction of what it is today. In place of the FDA, private organizations will evaluate medical treatments and drugs. Those who sell out will be exposed; those who maintain the highest integrity will become internationally recognized. In all things, individuals, patients and doctors, will be able to evaluate each case and decide whether or not experimental treatment is appropriate.

4. The government will shrink dramatically in size. Medicare consumes the largest part of our federal budget, and the federal regulations imposes harsh spending requirements on the states. Having this cost evaporate leaves surpluses at both the federal and state level, surpluses which will be used to pay off the debt and to lower tax revenues. This means the American people will have more economic freedoms than they do today, which translates to more civil freedoms because they can afford it.

The risk of eliminating the health care plan of an entire segment of our population is, of course, enormous, However, the cost of providing that health care, on top of the accompanying laws and regulations, is much, much greater. Either we embrace freedom or we embrace statism, which is no different in substance than socialism, communism, nazism, and all the other evil -isms from the history of the world.

I choose freedom.

Why Corporations Need Unlimited Speech

January 25, 2011

There is a lot of absurd hubbub about the recent Supreme Court ruling (Citizen’s United) that says that corporations have the same rights as individuals when it comes to speech. It’s obvious where the hubbub is coming from—those who want unions to get preferred treatment over other corporations.

To understand why corporations need unlimited speech (at least as much as individuals do), I want to tell a story. Let’s suppose that I, you, and a whole lot of other people get sick of political corruption. We decide we want to not only spend a lot of our own money to discover corruption wherever it is, but spend twice as much money as the candidates to expose the corruption when they run for office.

This certainly sounds reasonable! After all, if John Q. Citizen wants to spend all his free time following up on what the politicians are doing, he should be allowed to do so. If John Q. Citizen wants to buy a huge billboard spelling out why Politician X is corrupt and doesn’t deserve to be elected, he should be allowed to do so. Without this, we cannot function as a democratic republic.

What? You think we should be allowed to tell someone when they have said enough? You want to create a system where those routing out corruption are not allowed to outspend and out-speak the guilty and corrupt? Yes, the same rights and privileges afforded to those with noble intentions is awarded to those with ignoble intentions, but who, ultimately, can judge between the noble and ignoble? That’s what elections are all about.

If you agree that any individual should have unlimited speech, then let’s talk about what corporations really are. Let’s say John Q. Citizen is doing a really good job routing out corruption, but he could do more if he had a team of people working for him. This requires capital, of course, and he comes up with the ingenious idea of asking for money. He promises that 100% of the money you give him will go to pay those who are routing out corruption and run election ads against those who are corrupt.

Should the very fact that John Q. Citizen is cooperating with others disqualify his speech, or the speech of the group? Does it matter whether they appoint someone to be their CEO, someone to be their spokesman, someone to run the books, some people to be on the board, and so on and so forth?

The shallow arguments against corporate personhood sound reasonable on their face. But what they truly represent is an argument against individual liberty. That’s why communists and leftists love to use this shallow argument—they are fundamentally opposed to individual liberty.


January 25, 2011

When the state and federal governments are running a deficit, the correct action is to CUT SPENDING, not increase it.

Laurie Jinkins, recently elected from my district, has stopped by my house on two occasions. On both occasions, I carefully explained to her how the state budget deficit hurts my family and my neighbors because it’s us who has to pick up the tab. Her job is to go to Olympia, cut taxes, cut spending, and balance the budget so that companies can make a little more profit and grow the economy. Her job is NOT to cut up the pie and try to expand it with more tax revenue, and her job is ESPECIALLY not to take our money and spend it on the public sector!

Our precious tax dollars should only be spent on things that benefit everyone, and only when there is no better alternative. With roads and bridges, it’s difficult to make the argument that the state or federal budget should be used to build and support that infrastructure. If it’s hard to argue for roads, how can you possibly argue for increasing public sector employee benefits?

Laurie introduced a new bill to take money from cancer patients who have to make their own money in the private sector and spend it on cancer patients in the public sector. This is not right, it is not fair, and it is theft by those who think they have a right to take from one and give to another. (See HB 1517.)

Balanced Budget Amendment

January 17, 2011

Thomas Jefferson once stated that if he could make any change to the constitution it would be to deny congress the power to borrow money.  How much better off would we be today if Jefferson had his way?

A balanced budget amendment is not as straight forward as one would think.  We would have lost World War II without the power to borrow money.  Jefferson himself called congress into a special session when Napoleon Bonaparte offered to sell 828,800 square miles to the US for $15,000,000.  This was a good deal and Jefferson wanted to execute the purchase before France could change her mind.

Another thing to keep in mind are the shell games politicians play. When a state goes to the people to get approval for a state lottery or other revenue increasing scheme, they almost always include language stating that all the revenue raised will go to some virtuous cause, like schools or to care for the elderly.  This leads people to believe that the revenue raised will be on top of the revenue the schools (or other virtuous cause) already receives.  In fact this is never the case.  If the lottery raised $100,000,000 dollars for the schools it merely frees up $100,000,000 of education funds to go back to the general fund.  It just becomes more play money for the politicians. Any balanced budget amendment must prevent this.

One thing we do not wish to allow is perpetual debt.  We cannot allow congress to mortgage the future of unborn generations.

Proposed Constitutional Amendment

1. The United States government shall have two budgets; one for national defense and one for everything else. The defense budget and the general budget shall have separate revenue streams. Revenue may be transferred from the general budget to the military budget; however, money shall be be transferred from the defense budget to the general budget.

2. Congress shall have power borrow money for national defense with a simple majority of both the house and the senate and with the signature of the President, upon the following conditions:

  • Congress has declared war.
  • Actually combat is taking place.
  • There is a draft and the children of congressmen are being drafted.

(The war has to be real.)

3. Congress shall have power to borrow money for the purchase of new territory, up to the purchase price of said territory) with a simple majority of both the house and the senate and with the signature of the President.

4. Congress shall have the power to borrow money for any other purpose with a simply majority approval of both the house and the senate, plus two percent for each consecutive year that the United States has carried a debt.


If the US was debt free and congress wished to borrow money they could do so with a 50% plus one vote majority in both the house and the senate. If they wished to borrow more money the next year and they had not paid the debt from the previous year, it would require a 52% majority.  If they had carried a debt for ten years then a 70% majority would be required.  If they carried a debt for twenty five years it would require a 100% majority, plus one vote to borrow more money.  The party is over.  At this point they cannot borrow any more money until all outstanding debts are paid off (unless they chose to purchase Siberia or they needed to finance a war).

Cross posted from A2 Curriculum