The Fair Tax is Awesome

I don't have a snazzy title today, because the Fair Tax is awesome... so that says it all.

Hopefully you're reading, or have already read, Fair Tax: The Truth by Neal Boortz and John Linder. I say that because the Fair Tax is a grassroots movement. CNN isn't going to advocate it, and you're not going to see a truthful or thoughtful article about it on the cover of your morning Times. So it's up to all of us to pick up the book, learn about it, get excited about it (because you can't learn the truth about it without getting excited about it unless you're a lobbyist or someone else with a financial stake in the current tax code), and get out there and let other people know how awesome it is.

I'm not going to go into all the reasons why it's awesome in this post, but I am posting a video that will hopefully pique your interest. I'm also giving you the link to the Tax Foundation's website, where you'll find all kinds of cool stuff that will make your jaw drop (at the stupidity of our current tax system).

Something fun...

I just saw this on you tube, and thought I'd share... because it's quite funny.

Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

Yesterday I watched the first two parts of HBO's John Adams miniseries, and I was really impressed. (Hopefully you're watching it too, because it's very worthwhile.) The second part is about John Adams convincing Congress that it needs to declare independence from Great Britain, because of the way the colonists have been abused by the king (taxation without representation, British soldiers firing on young boys, etc.). John Adams talks a lot about the natural rights of man, and how the colonies need to be independent to get those rights back.

The whole time I was watching it I was thinking to myself, what happened to that spirit of craving liberty, no matter what the cost? What happened to believing that man has natural rights that can't be taken away by the government (and if the government does take them away, it's cause for revolution)? Today people could care less whether they're free, so long as the government helps take care of them. Can you imagine people today being willing to give up everything they owned, just for a chance at a better government and more liberty? I sure can't. And I wish I knew how we'd gone from there to here in just 230 years.

The title of today's post is a quote by Barry Goldwater.

Armed people are free... a social democracy is a hollow farce without an armed populace to make it work.

Today the Supreme Court hears a challenge to DC's gun control laws, which amount to a total ban on gun ownership by law abiding citizens. The crux of the matter is whether the Second Amendment grants an individual right to "keep and bear arms." If it does, DC's laws certainly violate that right by preventing the vast majority of people from owning guns. If it does not grant an individual right the DC ban is ok, because people will have no right to own guns (even in their own homes, even for self defense).

I don't know about you, but I'm sure hoping that the Supreme Court considers this case seriously and acknowledges that the Second Amendment grants an individual right. I know it's not politically correct to own guns these days, but the Supreme Court shouldn't be influenced by that. The job of the Justices is to find what the Constitution really means, and to suggest that the Second Amendment doesn't grant an individual right (when it's placed second in a list of individual rights, in a document that is expressly concerned with individual rights) is ridiculous.

I'm not going to get into whether guns or good or bad, or whether disarming the populace and leaving criminals and police as the only people with guns is a wise move. Those questions are for different posts. The really important question, which must be addressed no matter what your personal beliefs about guns are, is whether the Supreme Court should take away a right that was expressly granted by the Bill of Rights.

If the Court somehow finds that the Second Amendment does not grant an individual right, what's to stop them from finding that the First Amendment doesn't either? Or the Fourth, or the Fifth? If the Court starts down that road, I'm afraid to think where it will lead- and you should be too. Don't be fooled into thinking that the Second Amendment is different: it's not. If the Court is swayed this year by the vocal minority of people who believe law-abiding citizens shoudn't have guns, there's no reason why the Supreme Court of 50 years from now will not also be swayed by a vocal minority who believes due process is no longer necessary.

This decision is going to make waves, no matter what it is. Let's just hope it's a move towards reclaiming one of our forgotten rights, not towards more government tyranny.

The title of today's post is a quote by L. Neil Smith (from The Probability Broach).

P.S. Did you know that the American Revolution was brought on by the British confiscation of Massachusetts colonists's arms?

The power to tax is the power to destroy.

Well I'm certainly glad to see that Congressmen really take seriously their duty to represent the people, aren't you? Oh, wait... I'm thinking of some other group of people. Congressmen have no interest in representing anything but their own interests. To wit: the Senate has refused to take a break (even just for the election year!) from pork-barrel spending. Only a minority of the Republicans would vote with McCain, and of course only three Democrats (not including the presidential candidates, of course) supported the moratorium. It failed by a 71-29 vote.

Which just goes to show that most of the members of Congress only cares about being able to abuse government (taxpayer funded) coffers. Even though Americans are sick of "earmark" spending, members of both parties could care less: they think that having been elected, pork-barrel spending is their right. And to some extent they are correct. This sort of spending has been around forever. However, in recent years the abuse has gotten much, much worth, both in terms of the number of earmarks inserted and the cost to taxpayers. ($200 million to build a bridge in Alaska to an island with a population of 50, anyone?)

And of course, the Senators also wants to end Bush's tax cuts: they just passed a $3 trillion budget by a 212-207 vote. So, let's see. They don't want to give up their taxpayer funded vote buying system and they don't want to prune government spending... So hey, here's an idea! Why not punish the hardworking Americans that pay most of the taxes! That ought to do it! And then, they'll wonder why corporations are taking their jobs to other countries and wealthy people are keeping their money in offshore accounts.

This is not going to end well, people. The government can only get so corrupt before it must either be overthrown or become a totalitarian government. The top percentage of wage earners will only support the rest of the people so long before they either leave, or stop working (unless, of course, the government forces them to stay and to work, which isn't impossible). Sadly, most people don't care enough even to pay attention, much less to try to do something about it. I can only hope there are enough people left who do care to stop politicians from ruining this country.

Here's the link to the story: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,337769,00.html.

Here's a link to learn about some of those wonderful, indispensable earmarks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fY2dOJi41SI&eurl=http://www.google.com/reader/view/.

And finally, here's another one talking a little about the wealth of Congressmen (who pretend to be ordinary people, of course): http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1330776120080313?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews.

The title of today's post is a quote by John Marshall.

I don't represent the children. I represent the teachers.

I saw in the news yesterday that the nonprofit Center for Union Facts is holding a contest to find the ten worst teachers in America. It's accepting nominations now, and once it chooses the top (bottom?) ten it'll offer them $10,000 to quit. (I bet the hard part won't be getting enough submissions, it'll be narrowing the field down to ten.) The Center's point in doing this is to expose how hard unions make it to fire teachers, even the really terrible ones that ought to have been tossed out on their behinds a long time ago. Here's the link to an article discussing it: http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2008/Mar/13/ln/hawaii803130335.html.

I think the best part, though, is the soundbite from the president of the American Federation of Teachers: he called Berman, the Center's executive director, an "ethically challenged attack dog," and then went on to say "Berman has a record of using hidden funders to attack groups that contribute a great deal to society . . . now he is coming after teachers at a time when most Americans support education and want to make improving education a top national priority."

So... instead of a cogent argument or well-reasoned comment, he starts calling names: always a sound tactic for left-wingers when they know they can't win. He knows the Center is right, he knows there are oodles of bad teachers out there that his job is to prevent getting fired... and anyone who has a problem with that is an "attack dog." Lovely. And even better, he acts as though it's impossible that someone could want better teachers and also support education. Because obviously, it's an either or proposition: if you want to improve education, you can't possibly criticize teachers unions, can you? Hmm. That doesn't sound right somehow. Teachers are supposed to be the educators... if you had better teachers, wouldn't you have better education, too? It seems like common sense, but what does common sense matter to the head of a teacher's union. As long as he gets to keep his job (by making sure bad teachers keep their jobs) he could care less what happens to the kids those teachers are supposed to be educating.

The title of today's post is a quote by Al Shanker, former president of the American Federation of Teachers.

P.S. If you'd like to know more about how bad teachers unions are for kids, government schools, and education, take a look at this site: http://www.teachersunionexposed.com/protecting.cfm.

Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could easily defeat us all.

Political correctness has gone way too far in this country. A boy in Pennsylvania was punished, because he wore a T-shirt that had an image of a gun on it to school. The shirt was meant to honor his uncle, a soldier who's fighting in Iraq. He got suspended when he refused to turn it inside out, because "there's a much higher level of sensitivity these days." Here's the link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080310/ap_on_re_us/t_shirt_gun.

In another story, some people are upset about a South Carolina shop that sells KKK robes, pictures, and other paraphernalia. At the end of the article, the pastor who's trying to close the shop down says he wants to "destroy the concept of hatred." That comment is one of the stupidest ones I've ever heard. Destroy the concept of hatred? How would that work? And how is closing someone's legal shop going to further that aim? Hate is never going to be destroyed, and it's naive to think it will. And I for one would rather know someone hates me than think everything is fine and have that hate percolating beneath the surface instead. Jeez, grow a thicker skin, people. Here's the link: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/K/KKK_STORE?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US.

Finally, you can't dye your own dog, even if you just use beet juice, because that's animal cruelty. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,336719,00.html.

So much ridiculousness out there these days. And there are many stories out there that are even more egregious, but of course I can't find them when I'm looking for them. Anyway, the point is, we as Americans need to get our act together before we end up like Britain. Now "offending" someone at work can get you fired- but things could get even worse. And they will if people don't stop being so sensitive. There are some things that don't need to be said at work, but we're beyond that by a long shot. Now most people are hyper-sensitive and easily offended. People either can't take a joke or are afraid of telling a joke because someone who hears it might not be able to take a joke. We need to ask ourselves where we're heading with all this political correctness, and whether it might not be getting silly- and perhaps even detrimental to our ability, or willingness, to relate to someone of a different skin color or gender.

The title of today's post is a quote by Justice William O. Douglas.

http://www.blogcatalog.com/directory/politics/libertarian

Power can be rightfully exercised over someone else, against his will, only to prevent harm to others. His own good is not sufficient warrant.

The governor of New York, Eliot Spitzer, is probably going to resign after being tied to a prostitution ring today. Details are sketchy, and Spitzer hasn't admitted much, but he has apologized and says he's let people down. Apparently he was (is?) a patron of a high-end prostitution ring that was busted recently.

Now... I'm not a Spitzer fan. I completely disagreed with many of his policies, and I won't be sorry if he resigns. However, I think it's ridiculous that prostitution is illegal. Why shouldn't women (and men) have freedom to sell sex? You can give it away, but you can't sell it... That doesn't make much sense to me. I know that Americans are prudish, but it's ridiculous for it to be illegal (especially when people who strongly condemn it, like Spitzer, are probably patrons).

Because prostitution is illegal, when prostitutes are victims of crimes they are often unwilling to go to the police. This is not only because they're afraid of going to jail for selling sex, despite being crime victims, but because there have been many instances of police threatening and abusing prostitutes. Outside Las Vegas, where prostitution is legal, not only is violence against the prostitutes negligible, but so are the rates of disease.

Ok, so you don't care about the well-being of prostitutes. Well, how about this: estimates say prostitution enforcement costs major cities an average of $7.5 million per year. In New York City, over $23 million is spent each year outlawing prostitution. After all, someone will always sell sex as long as there is someone else who's willing to buy. It doesn't matter whether it's illegal, people will do it anyway.

Any time the government makes something illegal, all it does is create an underground economy in that something- and spend a lot of our money in the process. Isn't it time we start asking asking whether imposing certain morals and values on everyone else is worth it?

The title of today's post is a quote by John Stuart Mill.

Whenever there is a paternal government, there is state education. The best way to ensure implicit obedience is to commence tyranny in the nursery.

Here are a couple of recent news stories that demonstrate just how wonderful our government school education is. (I'm just kidding about the wonderful part, by the way; if I had kids, they would definitely not be going to government schools.)

This first one is about the girl who mentioned Jesus in her commencement speech a while back. She's filing a lawsuit alleging her free speech rights were violated, because she was told she couldn't get her diploma unless she apologized. How great is that.... a student can't get her diploma because she mentioned Jesus in her speech. What if someone was offended?! What's the First Amendment again?! http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295432,00.html?sPage=fnc.national/education

It gets better. In this next one, three university administrators who were fired when they admitted lying to cover up the rape and murder of a student last year. All three got severance packages giving them a year's salary, and two will retire and collect pension and benefits. Gee... reading this you could almost think they weren't punished at all. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,289748,00.html?sPage=fnc.national/education

And here's the best (worst) of all: a recent study found that government school teachers' sexual abuse of childen is widespread, and most of the time nothing is done about it. There's nothing else really to even say about it, you have to read it for yourself to believe it. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,303780,00.html?sPage=fnc.national/education

The point is: do you really want to entrust your kids to these sorts of people? The other point is, teacher's unions are horrible, horrible things. They're the reason why an administrator can cover up a murder and still get his six-figure severance package, and the reason why most of the molestors who pose as teachers continue teaching after they're caught. Parents should demand better for their children.

The title of today's post is a quote by Benjamin Disraeli.

P.S. In his Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx said government education for all children was of the utmost importance for purposes of indoctrination.

A democracy cannot exist permanently. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury.

In the spirt of today's dog and pony show, today's post is about voting. Specifically: there ought to be limits on who can vote. There's no legal reason why the right to vote can't be restricted, and there are many practical reasons why some portions of the population should have to stay home on election days.

The Constitution does not guarantee a right to vote (look it up yourself). The 15th and 19th Amendments simply prevent the denial of the right to vote on the basis of race or gender, resprectively. But you won't find anything that says everyone is guaranteed the right to vote. The Supreme Court said as much in Bush v. Gore, in fact.

With that in mind, some restrictions do need to be put in place. If you're accepting a government check, you don't vote. If you're living in government housing, you can't vote. Basically, if you're living off the fruits of someone else's labor- you have no right to vote. (With the exception of disabled veterans; after all, they actually did something for our country.) If you're sitting on your ass, not working, and you're too lazy to do anything but have kids or sit on the stoop and blame someone else for your failures- you have no right to my money. Or anyone else's.

Some people argue that this is too harsh. I disagree. These people have made their own choices, and they were bad ones. They shouldn't be able to keep voting for the candidates who will reward them for making those choices by giving them money. The Democratic candidates are falling all over themselves promising to raise taxes and proving that they'll be the one to help people not take care of themselves by having the government do it for them. It's ridiculous that instead of rewarding the people who work hard and do the right thing, the Democrats are rewarding people who do the exact opposite.

This misguided nonsense could be changed simply by revoking voting privileges from people until they are longer living off the government (and by government I mean taxpayers). They won't starve, but they'll no longer be able to vote taxpayer money into their own pockets in reward for contributing nothing to society. Let the Democrats court the people who are making good choices for a change. It won't make them happy to lose such a huge chunk of their voters, but it'll be great for those of us who can actually (gasp) take care of ourselves.

The title of today's post is a quote by Alexander Tytler. It has been edited.

The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.

Apparently, the Supreme Court may take up the issue of what constitutes an "indecent broadcast" again, since it's been about 30 years since they last considered it. What the Court is being asked to address now is the "problem" of "fleeting expletives" - when Bono and Cher curse on live TV when they're accepting awards, for example. In the cases of both Bono and Cher, the FCC was inundated with calls from viewers and organizations who felt very offended that they, or perhaps their children, were subjected to expletives.

Who are these people? Problem one: they watch award shows. Don't they have anything better to do with their time? Problem two: they call and complain to the FCC. Who does that? Problem three: have they, or their children, never heard anyone say "fuck" before? Or do they just feel that if it's on The Sopranos or on their kid's video game it's fine, but on regular TV it's a problem? It perplexes me.

I feel the same way about the Superbowl halftime show that was a big deal a few years ago- the one with Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake. If I understand correctly, it's ok for their kids to be up till 10 or 11 watching guys hit eachother, and it's ok for them to watch the two performers grind against eachother in a very sexual way... but it's not ok to see a nipple plate and part of a breast? It's puzzling. I don't agree with Europeans about much, but you wouldn't see people getting (hypocritically) bent out of shape about something so ridiculous over there.

And now, because people don't feel like facing reality and/or because they want TV to raise their kids for them, we're asking the government to erode our First Amendment rights some more. After all, we can't have our precious children hearing expletives while they watch their four unsupervised hours of TV a day. How wonderful. It's always enlightening to see how much our freedoms are worth to these people.

Here's the link to the article: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/03/03/court_may_consider_broadcast_decency_rules/
The title of today's post is a quote by H.L. Mencken.

Popular suffrage is in itself no guarantee of freedom. People can vote themselves into slavery.

Neal Boortz had some very interesting information about the costs of illegal immigration on his website yesterday, so because I'm pressed for time today I'm going to share it here too. It's also informative and all around good stuff (scary stuff) to know.

1) $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year. http://tinyurl.com/zob77

2) $1.9 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens. http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

3) $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens. http://www.cis.org/articles/200/fiscalexec.html

4) $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English! http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

5) $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

6) $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

7) 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

8) $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare and Social Services by the American taxpayers.http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html (Link not active ... was not able to verify this information)

9) $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

10) The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's two-and-a-half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt.01.html

11) During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin and marijuana, crossed into the U. S from the Southern border. Homeland Security Report. http://tinyurl.com/t9sht

12) The National Policy Institute, estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period. http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/pdf/deportation.pdf

13) In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin. http://www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm

14) 'The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States. http://www.drdsk.com/articles.html#Illegals

Total cost is a whopping... $338 BILLION A YEAR!!!

Incredible. Or should I say incredibile? Either way, something's very wrong with this picture.

The title of today's post is a quote by Frank Chodorov.

P.S. In case this piqued your interest, Boortz's website has very interesting news every day- stuff that you don't see on CNN.

The only real good technology is no technology at all. Technology is taxation without representation.

This is the best story I've read in a while:

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSN2237297620080222?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews&rpc=22&sp=true

To summarize, the Vice Chairman of GM told reporters last month that he thinks global warming is a "total crock of shit." He got a lot of flak from bloggers, and probably from environmentalist moonbats also. But he stands by his statement. I love it for two reasons: first, because he came out and said something that needs to be said a lot more often; and second, because he didn't back down when people got upset, as so many people seem to do. I say, good for him.

And while I'm at it, let me agree with him: all this global warming nonsense is a crock of shit. It continually amazes me that people are not only believe it, but are willing to accept all sorts of government restrictions and regulations because they believe it. In California, lawmakers are trying to make global warming be taught in schools and addressed in textbooks. Environmentalists are telling us we shouldn't drink bottled water anymore, and some are actually pushing for a ban. In San Francisco, lawmakers want to make it illegal to use your fireplace. Companies are falling all over themselves to "go green," whatever that even means. Car companies are being told that all cars are going to have to get 30 miles to the gallon in ~10 years. Environmentalist groups advocate carbon quotas (once you've used yours up, you wouldn't even be able to take an airplane flight). Oh, and now some Alaskan village is suing dozens of companies for relocation costs, because they have to move due to melting ice- because of global warming. And the list goes on.

Meanwhile, there are studies and studies done which prove that 1) global warming is not really happening and 2) any climate change that is occurring isn't caused by man. Did you know that the Earth has only warmed by 1 degree in the last 100 years? How about that temperature fluctuations are normal and have been happening since before man even existed? Or how about that polar ice caps aren't really melting: there's the same amount of ice as ever, it's just in different places.

If you don't know this, I'm not surprised. CNN doesn't report it, and most people are too lazy to do their own research. There's not enough time or space to discuss all the studies that have been done to disprove the global warming nonsense, but they are out there and easily found with a simple google search. In fact, more scientists believe that global warming doesn't exist than believe that it does. There's so much evidence out there to the contrary, it's unbelievable that people still think it's real. Of course, due to the laziness and ignorance of the masses, the mainstream media can ignore all the evidence and report what they want people to think.

If you want to know the real reason why this global warming hoax has been forced down our collective throats, just look at all the government restrictions and regulations that have been passed under the guise of preventing global warming. Once you recognize that the government (with the help of the mainstream media) is just trying to get you scared enough to give up your freedoms, you'll be most of the way there.

As has been my theme for the past couple of days: ignorance is a curable disease. Just pick up a book.

The title of today's post is a quote by John Shuttleworth, environmentalist (and nutjob?).

P.S. Did you know that 15 years ago the media was reporting that the Earth was cooling? Good book: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism.

Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty.

I saw on CNN this morning (I was at the gym, and couldn't change the channel to a better news station) that Clinton and Obama are making free trade a major issue in Ohio. Apparently Ohio has lost manufacturing jobs since President Clinton signed NAFTA into law, and the Democrats are both eager to show that they don't support free trade.

There are two issues here, as I see it. The first is econonmic: the government can't protect every industry or everyone's job. They can protect some industries, and so protect some jobs, but this will be at the expense of other industries. Take steel as an example. The government protects the steel industry (through trade restrictions), and steel workers' jobs are safe. But the steel industry needed protection in the first place because the U.S. just can't make steel as cheaply as some other countries can. As a result, the American auto industry has to pay more for steel (because they can only buy U.S. steel, not cheaper foreign steel) and has to lay people off to offset some of the added cost. At the same time the cost of American cars goes up to offset some of the rest of the added cost, while countries that are free to buy cheaper steel can sell their cars more cheaply. The American auto companies then lay off more jobs, because people are buying cheaper foreign cars.

The steel industy is just an example; the same effects are seen any time the government protects an industry. Politicans know this, and economists know this- but most Americans don't. The problem is that is takes years for the effects to be felt, and by that time most people won't connect the dots. This is wonderful for politicians, who can look like the champions of the working class for protecting an industry- and escape all the blame once the effects are felt.

The second issue is possibly even more distressing than the lack of basic economic knowledge evinced in this election season: the growing desire of most Americans for the government to take care of them. The Ohio example: they want the government to guarantee them jobs (and not just any jobs- the ones they want). If an industry is struggling and has to lay people off, they look to the government to end free trade and bring jobs back to that industry. (Apparently finding a job in a different industry or learning a more marketable skill is out of the question.) Compare the reactions to the Democrats, who want to "bring jobs back" (cheers), and to Mitt Romney, who said in Michigan that people need to face the fact that some jobs may not be coming back ("backlash"). People don't want to be self sufficient anymore, so they certainly don't want to be told that the government can't protect their jobs: they just want the government to take care of them. Nevermind that it is impossible for the government to protect everyone- most people don't know that and don't care to find out.

I'm really hoping that the people who are willing to educate themselves and who don't need the government to take care of them don't let ignorance win this election.

The title of today's post is a quote by Thomas Jefferson.

"Need" now means wanting someone else's money. "Greed" means wanting to keep your own. "Compassion" is when a politician arranges the transfer.

Continuing where I left off yesterday: the second thing that has been bothering me is the talk of Exxon Mobile's profits. It made $40 billion in profits last year, and Hillary Clinton and the media have been talking about how that money needs to be taken away. Apparently it's not "fair" for a company to keep the profits it earned.

Of course these people fail to mention the most important part: Mobile is not keeping its $40 billion profits. The $40 billion is gross profits, and doesn't take into account the crude oil it needs to buy (the price of which is rising), the employees and maintenance costs it needs to pay, and so on. Profits are not the same as profit margins. Its profit margin hasn't increased, by the way: even though its profits have been up the past couple years, its profit margin has stayed steady at 10%.

Also lacking in the media (and Clinton) analysis is the amount of taxes Mobile paid. It has paid an average of $27 billion in taxes every year the past three years, a number that none of us can even fathom. It comes out to about 41% of its taxable income. And this is still before it pays its employees, its maintenance costs, etc. So the next time you're watching TV and you hear something about record profits- listen carefully to see whether profit margins are ever addressed. I think you'll find they aren't.

Politicians and the media are going to keep making these ridiculous claims as long as they know the average person can't be bothered to get a grasp on simple economics. So if you're one of the people they rely on to remain ignorant, pick up The Undercover Economist (I've mentioned it before) or something similar. And if you know someone who believes ignorance is bliss, give them a copy and show them its not. How long are we going to let ourselves be manipulated like this?

The title of today's post is a quote by Joseph Sobran.

If we're looking for the sources of our troubles, we shouldn't test people for drugs, we should test them for stupidity [and] ignorance.

Two things have been bothering me this weekend, and they both involve the willingness of most people to believe what the media tells them instead of doing their own research.

The first is the lies that are spread about the Fair Tax. I advised a friend of mine to do some research on it, and he came back to me with an article by someone who was either completely misinformed, or lying. According to the author, the Fair Tax spells doom: the supporters of the Fair Tax are falsely calculating the rate by calculating it as an inclusive tax, rich people wouldn't pay "their fair share," the government would have to raise the rate because it would also have to pay the tax on its purchases.

Goodness. Where to start? The author never addresses the impacted tax that adds an extra 22% or so to every item we buy anyway.... and how that would disappear if the Fair Tax were instituted. Nor does he mention that all income taxes are calculated inclusively: if you're in the 15% bracket, you pay $15 out of every $100; calcuated as an exclusive tax it's 18%. Most Americans pay 33 cents on every dollar in taxes; if that were calculated at an exclusive rate it would be a 48% tax. (Hmm... I wonder why we never hear that 48% exclusive rate quoted?)

As for the author's "fair share" argument: rich people buy a lot more things, so they would be taxed more. You don't see poor people buying million dollar yachts or homes. (But for the fans of income redistribution this would be bad news: they would no longer be able to encourage class warfare by arguing that taxes should be raised on the rich, for example.) Finally: the costs of everything the government buys now includes the imbedded taxes, as mentioned above. Under the Fair Tax this would be gone, replaced by a 23% consumption tax. There would be no substantial difference in prices.

So: if you want to learn more about the Fair Tax, don't believe ridiculous articles like the one my friend found, and don't even rely on me. Go to the Fair Tax website, or better yet buy the new book, Fair Tax: The Truth. I would say take it from the library, but if you buy it you can give it to a friend when you're done. If the media isn't going to be honest about the merits of the Fair Tax, it's going to have to be a grassroots effort. We all need to do our part to help combat stupidity and ignorance.

Since this ran longer than I expected, more on the second thing that annoyed me this weekend, tomorrow.

The title of today's post is a quote by P.J. O'Rourke.

If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all.

Michael Bloomberg, the multi-billionaire mayor of New York City, has a history of imposing his values on everyone he can reach. Recently, he banned trans fats in all NYC restaurants; he did this because he is a healthy eater, and he thinks everyone else should be as well. He expanded the ban on smoking to include even small restaurants and bars, as well as office buildings, because he doesn't like smoking. He claims to believe in global warming, and wants more government regulation, of course, to prevent it (If the New York Times doesn't publish the studies that show what little global warming there is isn't caused by man, do they exist?). The list goes on, and on; it's all a part of his "quality of life" plan for NYC and everywhere else. Nevermind the people he has to step on (and put out of business) and the majority opinions he has to disregard to get where he's going- he knows what's best for us, dammit.

The worst of his pet projects, however, stems from his hatred of the Second Amendment. He just can't stand to see law-abiding citizens owning guns. To that end, he's sued numerous gun dealers up and down the Eastern seaboard (most of these suits are baseless, but it's easy to continue a lawsuit till one of you is bankrupt if you're a billionaire and he's not), tried to get Congress to force the ATF to give police departments access to gun data, and formed a coalition of mayors against guns (at least four of whom have since dropped out, citing discomfort with the group's tactics), among other things.

He claims that his actions are to fight crime, but he has no response to the many studies and data that show that gun control laws do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals- all they do is keep law-abiding citizens from being able to protect themselves. Nor does he have a rational answer for why Great Britain, for example, has experienced sky-rocketing crime statistics, or why the number of illegal guns on the street has tripled (at least) since their handgun ban. Unsurprisingly, he can not tell us why similar problems would not arise in America if he got his way. Apparently he can't be bothered with such minutiae.

But the big picture really isn't about this busybody, annoying as he is. He may be the posterchild for the big government nanny- "I know what's best for you, don't argue with me"- but at least his sphere of influence is fairly small. I can move away (which I plan to) and you never have to move here (and you shouldn't). But if a Democrat gets elected this year, they're going to bring policies like this to the whole country. Have you noticed how Obama and Clinton talk about "change" all the time? The main criticism each has of the other is the other won't "change" things enough. Question: what sort of change are they talking about? They never say. I have some ideas, and you probably do as well, but isn't it odd that their supporters just seem excited by the prospect (or maybe just the word, who knows) and aren't at all curious what it means? There really needs to be some test you have to take before you can vote.

The title of today's post is a quote by Jacob Hornberger.

One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation.

Here's an interesting article on the subprime mortgage situation:

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/newstex/IBD-0001-23168675.htm

The author examines the causes of the crisis, and comes to the conclusion that too much government regulation is one of them. Many factors contributed to crisis, of course, but I'm inclined to agree that too much government probably had something to do with it too. Of course, I think too much government is behind most problems.

I suspect that now the government is going to make things even worse trying to come up with a "solution." There's been a lot of talk about preventing the banks from foreclosing on the homes of subprime borrowers (something that's already happened to some extent, although it's not permanent - yet), buying out the loans, or taking other regulatory action to "fix" things. One thing you can be sure of, if the government gets involved in the "solutions" business, it's going to cost taxpayers.

Speaking of taxpayers, have you noticed that news sources almost never refer to government money as taxpayer money? They refer to this-or-that governmental agency's "budget" or simply say the dollar amount- but you don't see "1 billion taxpayer dollars used to shoot down a satellite" (for example) very often. Hmm.

Finally: mainstream news annoys me. Today the major story is that John McCain maybe possibly had an improper relationship with a female lobbyist... eight years ago. This story, which is worthy of several front pages and much discussion on television news, apparently, is based on accounts from anonymous sources. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton has definitively accepted numerous illegal campaign donations, and I don't remember any of those headlining the New York Times. Not to mention all the other questionable activities she and her husband have definitively been a part of, which probably haven't even made it onto the Times' back page this election season. I try not to think about how many people are getting all of their information from these sources, and doing no research (or thinking) for themselves.

The title of today's post is a quote by Thomas B. Reed.

The finest opportunity ever given to the world was thrown away because the passion for equality made vain the hope for freedom.

The Democrats are falling all over themselves to be seen as the candidate who will do more for the "less fortunate." The nonsense that they spew gives me a headache. But what's even worse is hearing people talk about how fantastic their ideas are: how Democrats will cure all the ills and evils of society. Living in New York City, I hear this a lot... Sometimes I think economics books just aren't sold here.

A fun website: http://hilldabeast.com/. Not that educational, but I just don't like Hillary Clinton. On second thought, maybe it could be educational... for someone who doesn't know Clinton is a socialist and is inspired to do some research, perhaps? Probably not. But still good fun.

The title of today's post is a quote by Lord Action.

They're the same face! Doesn't anybody notice this? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!

Many people have been following the Senate's investigations into steroids in baseball and "Spygate" in the NFL. Most people that I've talked to are upset about the intrusion into professional sports, and don't think the government has any business meddling in them. I agree. But what really concerns me is while people are disturbed by these "investigations," most are unconcerned by all the other government intrusions. They are affected much more by the others, but pay no attention to them; but when the government involves itself in professional sports, look out.

All this would be ok if it inspired people to probe deeper. Perhaps to ask a series of questions along the lines of: What else might the government be involved in that it doesn't need to be? Does any of it affect me? If so, what can I do to stop it? I highly doubt this will be the result, though. Individual freedoms are being lost or encroached upon every day, but no one asks whether the current MLB and NFL investigations are a symptom of something deeper. Instead, most people will continue to go on complaining about the pro sports investigations for a while, and will never think about it more deeply than wondering what Roger Clemens will say when he testifies.

The title of this post is from Zoolander.

A rose by any other name...

We all know that quote, and it may be true. But it's also true that giving something that doesn't smell like a rose an attractive name will make it more appealing, at least initially. Take the term "liberal." If you didn't know any better, you would think a liberal was someone who was committed to freedom and liberty. You would think a liberal would praise economic as well as individual liberty, and in general advocate freedom from government intervention. This was true up until the end of the nineteenth century, perhaps even as late as the New Deal era, but it is no longer true today.

Today, a true liberal has to be called a "classical liberal" or a libertarian in order to distinguish him from a left-wing Democrat, with which "liberal" has now become conflated. Those of us on the right have helpfully given the word over without a fight, with all of its positive connotations. Even better, we now use it as a four-letter word: You're such a bleeding heart liberal! No one on the right wants to be called a liberal, but that's exactly what we should want to be called. We need to take our word back.

Those of us who believe in liberty, true liberty, ought to stop looking at "liberal" in the specious context in which it is now used, and instead look at it in the context in which it ought to be, and so recently was, used. True liberty is about having the right to make choices for yourself (even bad ones), to keep your own money, to live without excessive government intervention. Real liberals know this. Left-wingers don't believe in true liberty, so they don't deserve to be called liberals. (Believing in a woman's right to choose does not make you a true liberal when you also believe in taking gun rights away from lawful citizens. With liberty, it's an all or nothing proposition.) Stop letting them (and helping them) smear "liberal" with meanings that have nothing to do with liberty, and start taking it back.

"Bleeding heart left-winger" doesn't have the same ring to it, but it sure is a lot more accurate.

A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves.

In 2004, there were approximately 221 million people of voting age. Of those, almost 175 million were registered to vote, or 80%. Of those, only a little over 122 million actually voted in the 2004 presidential election- or 55% of all the people of voting age (from now on, for purposes of brevity, I'll use "Americans" to refer to people of voting age). And of those, only 50.7% of them voted for President Bush. Lest anyone think I'm choosing sides, in 1996 there were almost 197 million people of voting age. Of those, 146 million of them were registered to vote, or 75%. Of those, over 96 million voted in the 1996 presidential election- less than 50% of Americans. Of the people that did vote, only 49% of them voted for Bill Clinton.

I know that was boring, but I hope you made it this far: it's important. The president is being elected by 25% of Americans. (I won't even get started on the elections in years in which there wasn't a presidential election- suffice to say, the numbers are even more abysmal.) I only gave the numbers for two years, but they're no better in other years- you can look it up yourself. Our leaders are being elected by a minority of Americans, not a majority.

Presidents assert that because they were elected, it means that Americans trust them and want to be led by them. The opposite is true. Most Americans are so disillusioned that they don't even bother to register to vote, much less vote. (Even if you consider the few million felons who can't vote, it's not enough to change the numbers much.) Presidents are granted power, but only 25% of Americans are granting that power. There's something wrong with this picture.

The biggest problem is the two-party system which forces people to vote on the basis of one or two "big issues." Even if you aren't a libertarian, I'm sure you don't agree with many of the views of your party- but you're stuck with it because there's nothing better. A second problem is the prohibitive cost of running for president: in 2004, it cost over $1 billion to finance a campaign. Most people can't afford that. There are certainly more problems, but these are the two big ones. Something needs to be done. 75% of Americans had no say in choosing our president, and that percentage is even higher when it comes to Congress.

So what can be done? There's no easy answer, but hopefully if enough people start thinking about it we can change things. Getting rid of the two-party system is key. Again, even if you aren't a libertarian, I'm sure you'd like to have more options. So would the 50% of Americans who don't even bother to vote for president. I wish I had something more enlightening to say, but I don't have any answers- just a bunch of ideas, the same as you. It's up to all of us to put them into action and get candidates out there that will actually excite people. When was the last time you truly believed in a politician? (And it doesn't count if you just though he'd do better than the other guy.)

The title of today's post is a quote by Betrand de Juvenal.

One man's frankness is another man's vulgarity.

It's the weekend, so I thought I'd keep it light. Consequently, the subject of today's post is language. To begin with, a few phrases that annoy me:

1) "It's not fair." Life isn't fair, deal with it. Use a different word. If you can't think of one, you shouldn't be complaining. For example, something can be unfair but still be just and correct. It may suck for you, but that's life. Deal with it.

2) "I'm offended." Again: use a different word. If you can't, you're obviously trying to be PC: shut up. Why not say it makes you angry, or it's a stupid thing to say, or something that actually explains what the problem is? If you can't say anything like that, taking offense is probably silly. Furthermore, you're contributing to the dumbing down of our language. We're becoming a nation of people who can't articulate a more intelligent response than "I'm offended." That brings discussion to a halt: how do you even respond to a comment like that?

3) "Less fortunate." I never thought about this one till Neal Boortz commented on it one day, but since then I've been paying attention. It's not used when someone's house burns down; it's only used when talking about poor people. The implication is the only difference between a rich man and a poor man is luck, or fortune. It implies hard work and thriftiness isn't a factor.

4) "Giving back." Every time Bill Gates or Warren Buffett donates money to charity, the media says they're "giving back." When someone is on the news talking about his charity work, he says he's "giving back." But what does that even mean? By definition, you can't give something back that was never given to you. But it's used synonymously with "gave away" or "gave to charity." So why not just say that? Something is being implied here too: think about it.

There's a deeper problem here than lack of precision. Language is how we express ourselves and what we use to conceptualize problems and ideas. When we start dumbing language down or using it to make implied value judgments, we are also changing the way we think. In 1984 George Orwell observed that when language is limited a person's ability to think is limited to the concepts that exist in words. Even if we don't take it that far, by controlling language it is possible to shape thoughts. You may think I'm being paranoid, but there are many books and articles written on the subject.

So be careful with language. I gave you some examples, but there are many more out there. Look for them and recognize them when you see them. Don't let your thoughts be shaped by the media and politicians in the name of political correctness (whatever that is).

The title of today's post is a quote by Kevin Smith.

If people have to choose between freedom and sandwiches, they will take sandwiches.

One of the big issues that's been getting a lot of discussion is universal healthcare- or, as I like to call it, socialist health care. Most of the Democrats are for it, the polls show that the people who are being polled want it, and most people I talk to seem to think it's the bee's knees. I, however, do not. I think the last thing we should be doing is putting the government in charge of our healthcare. That's not because I think the healthcare system we have now is great. I don't, it needs to be reformed.

But I don't believe that more government is the solution. I know politicians tell us it is, but really: when has more government ever made things better? I'm not going to list all the things government has made worse and more expensive, because it would take too long. But do some research, read some books, and if you still think more government is the answer we'll talk then. For now I'll just mention Social Security and Medicare. Two programs that started small, were supposed to be efficient, weren't supposed to be too expensive, and so on. Now? They are both enormously expensive programs that have continued to balloon out of control. They are both going bankrupt. And so on. You can look up both the original claims that were made about the programs and the current numbers, if you don't believe me. History repeats itself. And if we don't do something, it will again: compare what was said about the New Deal programs when they were passed and what's being said about universal heathcare now.

It is especially important to understand this because there are other, non-governmental options that would work much better. Unfortunately, the media doesn't discuss these options and most people are unwilling to do the research themselves. I'm just going to give one example here, but there are many others. Look into them! This one is not my brainchild, other people have proposed it and I just happen to agree.

In 2006, ~$220 of every $1,000 of your tax dollars went to pay for healthcare. Under this plan you'd be allowed to keep that money, put it in the bank where it would earn interest. But when you went to the doctor, you'd pay for it out of your own pocket- no health insurance, no middle man. Most people don't go to the doctor very much (or they go for unnecessary things, like stomach aches), so odds are you'd just save most of that money. At the same time, because insurance would be out of the picture you'd be able to go to any doctor you wanted to. Because doctors would be competing for business 1) the best doctors would rise to the top and be available to everyone, and 2) prices would go down (competition lowers prices, look it up, and dealing with insurance is expensive). Finally, you could buy some sort of emergency insurance, for if you got cancer or something else too expensive to pay for out of pocket. This sort of plan would work, and work better than any government insurance ever would.

Start thinking outside the box, do your own research, and maybe we can get our freedom back. We can make our own sandwiches.

The title of today's post is a quote by Lord Boyd-Orr. Sadly, it still applies today.

Oh, I don't pay taxes-- I get money back!

I'm still thinking about taxes today. What's bothering me most at the moment is the coverage of the "tax rebates" that Congress has been working on. It annoys me that all of the articles I've read make it sound as though Congress is giving (some) taxpayers a gift, not giving them back a small portion of the money that Congress steals from them. It annoys me that taxpayers who make over $75K won't get a dime, even though they pay a larger portion of their income in income tax. Finally, it really annoys me that people who don't even pay any income tax get a "tax rebate." I mean: why stop there? Why can't we all get the manufacturer's rebates for new cell phones and cars, even though we haven't bought them? Why don't we just call a spade a spade - it's income redistribution.

Apropos of nothing in particular: the title of today's post is the response of a mooncalf from Denver, when asked on April 15 why she continues to pay taxes.

It's a ridiculous answer, but it got me thinking. Why are most people still paying income taxes? The government steals much of their hard-earned money and wastes most of it, but almost no one stands up and refuses. Most people don't seem to care. For example: I'm sure you've heard of pork barrel spending, but have you ever researched it? Have you seen examples of the pet projects that your tax money goes toward? Do you have any idea what it all adds up to? If you haven't, you need to open a new page and run a google search right now: the results should make your hair stand on end. And if you have, you should still refresh your mind: you're nowhere near as angry as you should be.

And for that matter, do you even know how much you actually pay in income tax? Or are you like the simpleton from Denver, and you think the money the government condescends to return to you is all that was taken from you? or perhaps even a gift? Did you know that up until WWII, there was no withholding of income tax (with a few shortlived exceptions)? That means that at the end of the year people wrote the government a check for the taxes they owed. That also means that people were much more questioning of what happened to their tax dollars and much more upset about any tax increase, because they always knew exactly how much they were paying. Now the government steals a good portion of your money before you ever even get your paycheck; but instead of seeing it that way, if you're like most people you're happy to get a portion of it back because you don't even think of that money as yours. Great deal for the government, raw deal for you.

If you want to learn more (and you should) or if you're wondering what can be done (and you definitely should be) pick up a copy of The Fair Tax Book by Neal Boortz and Congressman John Linder (some of the ideas that are in this post, I got from that book). It doesn't matter if you hate Neal Boortz, that's not the point. The point is, your money is being stolen and wasted by a government that is hellbent on stealing more and more and will never be satiated. How long are you going to stand for it? If you've even heard of the Fair Tax, you've probably heard of it from a politician who opposed it or the mainstream media. These people can't seem to get their minds around how it actually works, and they don't want to. Rather than believe them, do some research yourself: if enough people learn the truth, things could actually change. Aren't you angry enough yet?

In its essentials not only is completed socialism the same as communism but it hardly differs from facism.

Lately I've been thinking a lot about leaving this country. I'd already decided that I was going to leave New York for somewhere less stifling on individual freedoms within the next three years, but now I think that may not be drastic enough. Don't get me wrong, I love America and everything she's supposed to stand for. What I don't love is the politicians that are perverting it. Yesterday I read an article about Hillary Clinton in the New York Times. For those of you that haven't yet had the displeasure of reading it, I'll post the link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/us/politics/21clinton.html?_r=1&ex=1358571600&en=ff696d598a7af887&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin

First let me say: if you don't know what's wrong with the picture she's drawing, you really need to be reading an economics book right now. But let me help you get part of the way. An executive's compensation is agreed upon by him and the company. CEOs get paid so much because they're worth it, in the eyes of the market. HC wants to step in and impose her opinion of what's too much on parties who would otherwise come to a mutual understanding: freedom of choice being taken away. Instead of lowering taxes, which would increase the economy by letting people spend more of their money, she wants to raise taxes on the "wealthy." The top 1% of wage earners is already paying 40% of all taxes, and the bottom fifth is paying nothing... but that's not good enough. According to her, raising taxes on the wealthy will help the economy. How? She's not asked, and she doesn't explain. Freedom to keep what you earn continues to dwindle away. Socialism, anyone?

She also wants the government to create more jobs by raising spending on "job creating projects." Forget all the free market options that would help create jobs, the government to the rescue. Final thoughts: jobs did once pay enough to allow one parent to support the family, but they don't anymore. A couple of reasons you won't hear HC mention: taxes are too high, and the government refuses to control inflation so prices are rising while wages can't keep up. HC wants to halt foreclosures and freeze subprime interest rates. This would make it nearly impossible for anyone without perfect credit to qualify for a mortgage at an affordable interest rate. Sounds like socialism to me.

I've been asking myself, when did we get to the point where people actually agree with ideas like this? Do she and Edwards get away with their socialist views because people don't understand why it won't work? or do they just not care? I am very, very frustrated, and you should be too. I for one am not going to work if taxes keep getting raised. I'm already angry that in September when I start work I'll be paying at least 30% of my income in taxes. I'm angry, but I'm trying to do something about it, so I'll work anyway. But if I'm expected to pay 40% or 50% of my income in taxes, I'm just going to leave the country. I don't think I'm alone in thinking this way, either. Except for American companies relocating to other countries and wealthy Americans moving their money offshore I don't have any data to back me up, but you can only push people so far before they just say "no." (I think more people should have said no a long time ago, but that's a whole other post.) This country is quickly coming to a point where one of two things will happen: we'll either have an Atlas Shrugged scenario, or there'll be a revolution. Things can't keep going the way they're going.

Do you hear that? It's the death throes of individual responsiblity- and freedom. If freedom lovers are going to prevail we have to unite and start making a concerted effort now- we have to take a stand. If we don't... well, I can almost hear the socialists cheering.

The title of today's post is a quote from The Socialist Tragedy, by Ivor Thomas.

A slave is a being who allows others to make his choices for him.

I've been a libertarian forever. I don't like the government, except in very small doses, and I especially hate paying taxes. But it's been just recently that I've started reading a lot more; economics books (if you haven't ever read one, get a simple one and read it - The Undercover Economist by Tim Harford is a great place to start), political blogs, etc. The more I read, the angrier I get. Every day, the government encroaches a little more on our freedoms, takes a little more choice away from us. Even more upsetting, few people seem to care. Talk to most people about smoking bans or mandatory seatbelt laws, and they'll say they don't care because "they're for our own good" or "those don't affect me." And granted, these are very small things- if you look at them by themselves.

But if every day, or every month, the government takes a small freedom away from the people... those small freedoms are going to start adding up before too long. Unfortunately, many people are too shortsighted to see this. Others are happy with the government making decisions for them, so they don't mind that they aren't truly free. I mind a lot. And I think we're already at a point where so many small freedoms have been taken from us, that most of us don't even think much of it when another one is taken away. I think something needs to be done now, before it's too late - if it isn't already.

I argue politics when I had an opponent, rage at the TV when I see Hillary Clinton on it, and frequently tell everyone how much I hate the government. And people say to me: "What can you do about it? Stop getting so upset." And while that may be true, I would like to try to do something. This blog isn't much, but it's better than sitting on the couch complaining about the way things are going. I know there are many people that think like I do. If we all get angry enough to start doing something about it, we could change this country for the better. Do something! Start a blog, write a letter to an editor, join a local group that believes as you do. But do something! Apathy will get us nowhere.

~Libertarianista

Reading suggestion: Hologram of Liberty, by Kenneth W. Royce. He argues that the Constituion was never meant to keep the government small, that it was structured in such a way to allow the creeping growth of the federal government that we've seen. Very good book, and more than worth picking up a copy.

Finally: the title of this post is a quote by Aristotle.