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.