Tuesday, September 30, 2008

One More Choice Than Communist China

Jesse Ventura pointed out that the two-party system is like having one more choice than Communist China. Yet, to say that is to assume there is some real difference in your two options to begin with. So, I'm gonna try to break this down and find out what really seperates the two major candidates and, well...what doesn't.

First of all I have to point out the inevitable problem with the two party system, is that one party only has to be slightly more appealing to a majority of the country than the other in order to win the election. Over time, in an effort to pick up more of the "swing votes" their platforms begin to merge; leaving few distinguishable policies between the two parties.

(not an endorsement for Ralph Nader)

The biggest difference right now is that the Democrats are slightly more opposed to the war than the Republicans. Likewise, the Republicans are slightly more opposed to higher taxes than the Democrats (as long as it doesn't cut into their budget).

That's it.

Think about it: we have a "Republican" President right now. This is the man who passed "No Child Left Behind", The "Patriot Act", invaded a sovereign nation that posed no threat to our country, did nothing to haste illegal immigration (or the free health-care and education they receive once they get here), nothing to repeal Roe vs. Wade, nothing to decrease our dependence on foreign oil and other resources, has increased the national debt more than any other President in history, and is
now trying to pass an outrageous bailout bill that gives practically unlimited spending power to an unelected official (I can't name all the liberal things he's done, but that's a good start). I guess this is where the term "neo-conservative" comes from.

The term "Conservative" used to have something to do with...well, being conservative.
Apparently small government is now defined as more government, but with a slightly lower tax rate than the Democrats propose. It means increasing our debt at record pace, so we can continue to spread our empire around the world. My generation wasn't around for it, but it wasn't long ago that this was the policy of the Democratic Party (It was a Democratic administration that led us into the Vietnam War by the way). However, at this point I'm not even sure talking about anything other than the war issue matters with Republicans. That's obviously the only issue they're concerned with. How else would Joe Lieberman, one of the most liberal senators in Washington, get a speaking role at the Republican convention? Oh yeah...he supports the war.

The Democrats on the other hand say, they...kind of think we should get out of Iraq...sometime in the next four years. Blah, blah, blah...health care...blah, blah, blah...empty promises...blah, blah, blah. It all just feels like a high school student council election to me sometimes. They promise new Coke machines in the cafeteria and a student break room, knowing all along they won't have the ability nor the finances to get all of the things they promise.

To sum it up: Obama is the candidate slightly more opposed to the war, slightly more in favor of the current bailout bill, and just wants to raise taxes on the top 1% of income earners in the country. McCain is obviously more in favor of the war, has a few problems with the bailout bill, and says...he wants to keep taxes where they are.


Talk about "change". These candidates are just full of original ideas aren't they.

Does all of this seem nitpicky to anybody else?
I mean, where is the real debate?

Has anyone talked about ending the Federal Reserve, and going back to the gold standard to stop inflation and runaway government spending? How about withdrawing all of our troops from overseas; not just from Iraq, but the other hundred and thirty countries we currently occupy. So that Maybe, just maybe...the rest of the world won't despise us and feel threatened to the point where they attack innocent civilians in this country ever again. Or how about defending THIS country, instead of someone elses; so that when we are attacked, maybe we can do something about it. How about we stop paying for illegals hospital bills and education, and instead put that money towards supporting those who rely on a bankrupt social security administration. And here's one more...how about allowing states to make and enforce their own drug laws. Hell if your that concerned you can spend those leftover billions on setting up rehab centers and counseling for families rather than ruining lives by locking people away for a personal choice. I don't know though...it's just a thought.

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

The Economy and Bailouts Explained

For anyone who might be wondering how we got in this situation and what the best way to get out of it is; here's what I think.

Like I've said before, the government's answer to any problem that comes along is always more government intervention. The very thing that gets us in trouble in the first place. During the Great Depression the government began getting involved in the housing markets to try to help those who were struggling to get into homes they couldn't afford. Fannie Mae was created in 1937, and Freddie Mac came along in 1970. Then in 1977 the Community Reinvestment Act was passed, forcing banks to give loans out to risky borrowers (a mistake the free-market never would have made on their own).

Then to add insult to injury, the Federal Reserve began creating artificially low interest rates as an attempt to ward off the coming recession. This means investments that normally wouldn't be profitable, are now more profitable. But since the demand is artificially created by the Fed creating more money, rather than by demand of the free market; it creates what's called malinvestment. In other words the market is flooded with more of something that it didn't really have a high demand for in the first place.

Case in point...real estate. Think about how much new home construction was going before this whole housing bust came along. Now we're left with all those houses, and nobody to fill 'em all.

Ordinarily in the free market the prices would have to be adjusted to...well, whatever it took to sell them. This is how the free-market evens itself out naturally. People who need homes can then find more affordable ones, and unnecessary construction of new ones is brought to an end until the market balances itself back out and the demand returns.

So here's the problem...the government just wants to have their cake and eat it too. They want housing prices to remain high to protect investment, yet they don't want to leave people out on the street who can't afford them.

So in the end what will happen is simply this; Wall-street will stay rich, and the rest of us will work harder to pay for the everyday things we need in order to survive. The only asset most Americans invest in, the American dollar, will be at a new all-time low. All in order to protect the investments of a few on Wall-street.

Once again, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans will offer a viable solution to this problem. Instead, they will most likely avoid any debate of context other than...more of the same.

U.S. To Suffer Same Fate as Soviet Union

FYI: "The Soviet Union's collapse into independent nations began early in 1985. After years of Soviet military buildup at the expense of domestic development, economic growth was at a standstill. Failed attempts at reform, a stagnant economy and war in Afghanistan led to a general feeling of discontent, especially in the Baltic republics and Eastern Europe." - History of the Soviet Union

If this sounds familiar to you, well...it should. We are witnessing the end of America as we know it.

It's important to note that the head of a private bank, along with a little help from the secretary of the treasury (also, not an elected official) are now running this country. Deciding which companies are going to be bailed out and how much new currency they can print up to cover it all. This isn't to say Congress nor the President would be doing a better job. They've made it quite clear that they have absolutely no idea how to get us out of our current situation.

"You mean, the government led us into trouble and now they don't know how to get us out?!!"

Hard to believe, but yeah...it's true. Any solution they come up with will only mean more big government. It's the only thing they know how to do. They never stop to think that maybe they could be the problem to begin with.

It'd be easy to blame the Bush administration and the Republicans for this recession, but it'd be just as easy to blame Pelosi and the Democrats too. I'm not going to lay the blame on either of 'em though. No, instead I blame every American who'll still be voting for them in this next election.

Every politician and every corporation in this country is powerless without your support. And I don't mean maybe one day years from now, if enough people wake up and start voting third party. No, I mean right now. We have to remember that everything that is real and necessary in this world can never be taken away from you.

This country has allowed itself to become enslaved by the big corporations, all based on the idea that they can offer us something that we can't live without. Whether it's your cell phone, satellite t.v., your car (that burns way too much gas), the nice clothes, or the food we could easily grow or hunt ourselves. And what do we do to afford all these unnecessary things...we work for the very same corporations that offer them to us of course.

Nowadays however, you have to go through the government just to be able to do anything for yourself. You have to get a license to hunt or fish, a permit to carry a weapon to defend yourself, and a license if you want to start your own business. Providing for and defending ones own family is apparently NOT a right. It's a privilege the government grants you (if they approve of course). If you want some free handouts though, your more than welcome to collect your welfare or unemployment checks. All they ask in return is that you continue to depend on the government and their intervention in every aspect of you life. Sound like a fair deal to you?

Maybe I'm crazy, but I'm about ready to give it all up. Imagine a life without bills to pay...every month...for the rest of your life...

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one

Thursday, September 18, 2008

The Dumbing Down of America

I laugh, but this is really not funny. I guess the U.S. Department of Education got exactly what they wanted. An American public ignorant enough to believe anything that they're told. Imagine what kind of atrocities the government could be getting away with right in front of our noses, and we're too stupid to realize it.

Thought of the Day

One thing everybody knows, yet too few discuss is the fact that this country is in serious debt. The most likely reason not many discuss this is because neither of the major parties can offer a real solution. Both parties vote for more spending, the only difference being that the Republicans say they want to keep taxes where they are, and the Democrats want to raise them. Considering the overwhelming amount of debt we're in it seems that the latter of the two would be the obvious choice to move us in the direction we need to go. Hardly any issue in politics is so cut and dry however. The effects of a higher tax rate on the overall economy first has to be considered. Especially when you factor in the current recession we're in. The fact is, the majority of jobs are created by the wealthy. As an anarchist, I'm not a big fan of this idea, but with the way our market functions, that's just how it works. Taxing the wealthy more, would only cause them to decrease the amount of money they re-invest back into the economy. This means less growth, fewer jobs, and lower wages for the rest of us. In other words...like it or not, right now we all depend on the few wealthy Americans that create our jobs (I'm ready and willing to make the sacrifice, but I'm not sure the rest of America is).

Secondly, raising taxes doesn't necessarily mean an overall increase in the governments revenue. If a tax increase causes the economy to slow, or even decrease, despite the fact that tax rates were higher the overall income of the federal government could actually decrease.

One area where I might support a possible increase in taxes is on corporate taxes. This, however has to be done very carefully as not to drive away more jobs than it creates. Scaring corporations overseas is never a good thing unless you have small businesses ready to take over the hole they've left in the economy. With increased corporate taxes, they can not only go overseas to avoid the tax, but also typically pay lower wages to their workers; therefore still providing the same product at cheaper prices than American owned businesses can. There has to be a careful balance between corporate taxes, and tariff taxes on goods that we import from other countries in order to even the scales on these corporations that are considering going overseas to save money. In any case I support the small businessman over big corporations any day. The majority of the jobs in this country come from small businesses, and not only that but...they pay better too.

In the end I'm not sure it really matters how much revenue the federal government takes in. Regardless of whether we have a Republican or a Democrat in office, they simply see that as more money they have to throw away. The majority of our tax dollars goes simply to paying off the interest we've accrued on the money we borrowed to begin with. Everything we spend thereafter is simply added on to that.

We are now fast approaching 10 trillion dollars in debt. That's about $33,000 worth of debt for every one of us. My generation will never see a dime of what they've paid into their social security, and speaking as someone who's accumulated over $200,000 in medical bills; Medicaid and government intervention in medical care has done nothing but decrease response time and increase the prices. I have a feeling if Grady Hospital didn't think the government was going to cover my medical bill for me, they wouldn't have bothered charging me to the fullest extent on every little thing they did. Being young and self-employed, I was uninsured. And yet, Medicaid refused to cover my hospital bill, because at the ripe old age of 21, I was strong enough to recover from a horrific traffic accident and work a part time job making a solid $12,000 a year. At that rate it would have taken me just over 17 years to pay it off. Assuming of course that I devoted my entire salary to my hospital bill. I find it strange that the issue of socialized medical care wasn't even in question until long after the government had already stepped in with their so called "managed care". They seem to have created this dependency; just as they create these problems, then try to offer up a solution. The bad part is, that solution always seems to involve more government intervention.

Despite my horrendous experience, I'm not one to think health care is a "right". To me something that is a right is something that CANNOT be taken away from you. Not something that has to be granted to you. If health-care was free it would have to be provided to you by the government. Therefore, the government has granted you this "right". In the same sense, they can take it away just as easily. I believe in self-reliance. No one can take anything away from you then. You have the right to...the PURSUIT of happiness. Not necessarily the right to happiness, but rather the right to pursue it...on your own. Whatever that may mean to you. There will always be good doctors out there who will do the right thing, regardless of whether the money is there or not.

Our government has managed to create a dependency on their intervention in every aspect of our lives. Not only is this present within our own country, but abroud as well. Iraq being the obvious example of a country that is dependent on American support. We need to allow these countries to become independent while we draw our troops back into our own country, and begin to defend Americans rather than our oil reserves in the middle-east or other interests that do not directly effect our national security.

We ABSOLUTELY need to become energy independent. Drilling is NOT the answer. It's not that I have a huge personal problem with drilling for oil, but rather the fact that it would take upwards of 5 years before we saw the first barrel of oil if we started drilling today. We need a solution NOW. Alternative energy is within our reach and there is nothing stopping us from powering our homes with wind or solar power. We have to remember with the power of the free market, comes great responsibility. It is us who ultimately decides what products sell and what businesses fail in this country. If you are concerned about your independence, much less your environment, you must demand products that provide for such concerns. As far as cars go, right now there is a fully electric car that can go from 0-60 mph in under 4 seconds, and drive on a single charge for over 200 miles. Why have you never heard of it?

As far as immigration goes, I am just a little uncomfortable with the idea of building a wall around our country. However, I think immigration is a serious problem that needs to be dealt with. Illegals in this country are allowed a free ride (no taxes), while we (the taxpayers) provide them with free medical care and education. I think a lot of the concern over immigration could be solved if we simply stopped offering up the handouts. The next step would be to find a tax system that would force them to provide an equal contribution to this country, like a consumption tax of sorts.


I'm not sure what time it is now, but I'm going to have to leave it at that until I can rejuve. I don't even remember what my point was, or why I got started on this rant in the first place.

Another Reason Not To Lose Hope

This guy's name is Adam Kokesh. He's an Iraq War veteran, and could possibly lead the next great revolution in this country.

I hope to see a lot more of him in the years to come. It's time for something big to change.

I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not gonna take this anymore!

I know there are some Obama supporters out there so, please tell me...what is this big "change" he's seems to be so fond of?

I have to ask the same question for any McCain supporters, since they're now trying to run their campaign on idea of change as well.

How can either of these two major candidates be considered a change from the current administration, much less each other? There are four primary issues that all of the third party candidates have agreed on. Neither of the major candidates proposes to do anything different on these issues than that of the current administration.

So if you're unhappy with Bush (as most Americans are), why would you think things will get any better with a different name and the same game?

The four issues all of the third party candidates agreed on and Obama and McCain (and Bush) don't:

We Agree

The Republican/Democrat duopoly has, for far too long, ignored the most important issues facing our nation. However, alternate candidates Chuck Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney, and Ralph Nader agree with Ron Paul on four key principles central to the health of our nation. These principles should be key in the considerations of every voter this November and in every election.

We Agree

Foreign Policy: The Iraq War must end as quickly as possible with removal of all our soldiers from the region. We must initiate the return of our soldiers from around the world, including Korea, Japan, Europe and the entire Middle East. We must cease the war propaganda, threats of a blockade and plans for attacks on Iran, nor should we re-ignite the cold war with Russia over Georgia. We must be willing to talk to all countries and offer friendship and trade and travel to all who are willing. We must take off the table the threat of a nuclear first strike against all nations.

Privacy: We must protect the privacy and civil liberties of all persons under US jurisdiction. We must repeal or radically change the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the FISA legislation. We must reject the notion and practice of torture, eliminations of habeas corpus, secret tribunals, and secret prisons. We must deny immunity for corporations that spy willingly on the people for the benefit of the government. We must reject the unitary presidency, the illegal use of signing statements and excessive use of executive orders.

The National Debt: We believe that there should be no increase in the national debt. The burden of debt placed on the next generation is unjust and already threatening our economy and the value of our dollar. We must pay our bills as we go along and not unfairly place this burden on a future generation.

The Federal Reserve: We seek a thorough investigation, evaluation and audit of the Federal Reserve System and its cozy relationships with the banking, corporate, and other financial institutions. The arbitrary power to create money and credit out of thin air behind closed doors for the benefit of commercial interests must be ended. There should be no taxpayer bailouts of corporations and no corporate subsidies. Corporations should be aggressively prosecuted for their crimes and frauds.

If you want change, you have to vote for someone different. That's kinda how the whole process works. Don't let the corporate media tell you who you're going to vote for again this year. And don't let the scare tactics force you to vote for someone just because of what might happen if someone worse wins.

Having said this, hopefully I can keep myself from bringing it up for a while. If you watched the press conference yesterday you may have heard Ron Paul quoting from Carroll Quigley's "Tragedy and Hope", but the significance of this statement is far more clear having seen it for myself.

"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead the two parties should be almost identical so that the American people can throw the rascals out in any election without leading to any profound or extensive shift in policy." - Carroll Quigley

To Summarize...

I was a little too disgusted by this whole thing yesterday to even say much about it, so to summarize, I will no longer be voting for Bob Barr. Despite the fact that he claims he is showing the leadership to unify the liberty movement, what he has done will forever divide the movement Ron Paul and others worked so hard to start. He hitched a ride on the freedom train, if you will, and tried to steer it in a different direction. Sadly, if we're not careful there's a good chance he may steer it right off the tracks.

Not to sound pessimistic, but the average American voter is not ready for a Libertarian President. The movement first has to be just to get the third parties in the debates and on the ballots. This will open up the stage for a stronger liberty based candidate in all the elections to come. But Bob Barr is not interested in third party politics and bringing down the status quo like he so often speaks of. No, Bob Barr is only interested in Bob Barr politics.

There is still a very real chance for us to bring about a peaceful change in this country. We just have to realize that it will not happen overnight. It took us the last hundred years to get where we are now, I feel like I'm being optimistic when I say, we can bring it all back down in the next two to four.

And for those who have no idea what I'm talking about, here are some links you should check out.

Fellow Republican Paul rejects McCain, boosts others

Barr 'embarrasses LP' by no-show at Ron Paul press event

Barr says he shows 'leadership' in dissing Ron Paul

The Lesser of Two Evils is STILL EVIL!

Sorry, but it doesn't make it any better that your voting for the "LESSER of the two evils". I'm sick and tired of hearing that tired old argument. It's the people who say things like that who are the reason this country has lost it's way.

This is why it seems like every election is "THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION EVER!" Because by continually picking the lesser of two evils we're allowing our country to stray further and further off path and into this hole we're in.

And if voting your conscience is a wasted vote, then I'd like to know what a properly used vote is like. This year it looks like most of the Republicans will be voting for a candidate they have strong disagreements with, out of their fear of someone else who might get elected. That sounds like terrorism at it's worst to me.


1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

How many more years will Americans allow the two parties to bury us further and further in debt? Our national debt is now $9,669,863,994,566.08. That's right, that means that just for being an American citizen, your share of that debt is $32,110.86 (hopefully they'll give a couple weeks notice before they mail out the bills for that one).

So let's see...right now we're stuck in a war we don't know how to get out of, we never really finished the job in Afghanistan, we've been talking about invading or even carrying out a nuclear first-strike on Iran, North Korea just announced they're reopening their nuclear facilities
, of course we felt it necessary to get ourselves involved in the Russian-Georgian conflict, and who the hell knows how many other countries we've managed to piss off with our involvement overseas (Venezuela & Cuba for starts).

Neither of the two major parties offers up a solution to these problems.

The big government Democrats have failed to go any further than to criticize the Republicans for their support of the war. And likewise, the war-mongering Republicans, while they claim to be "the conservatives"; have done little more than to spread their empire using the same interventionist and nation-building policies that George W. Bush ran against in the 2000 election. All the while, our national debt is in a sky-rocket and our military is spread so thin we couldn't even defend our own country if we needed to. Much less win a war against a few unorganized radical Islams.

A good rule of thumb when considering whether or not to go into war is to ask yourself, if we lose will you still be glad that we had fought knowing that you stood up for what is right and did all you could. Sadly, I don't think many Americans take into consideration the possibility that we might one day actually lose a war.

I'm also sick of hearing the phrase, "in a post 9/11 world...we can't allow these this or that to happen". It's like after 9/11 we entered some alternate dimension or something where it's okay to invade other countries because "we're Big Bad America...and we're scared".

Pat Buchanan put it well when he said, "you don't step on Superman's cape". But I guess... if Bin Laden was behind 9/11, we sure showed him.

A Reason to Consider Staying in America for Another 4 Years

Ventura 2012!