Morality101.net

Morality is Liberty without Force

Browsing Posts in Politics

We have all seen it. Someone makes a snide comment about some minority: racial, sexual orientation, color, intelligence, physically handicapped, etc, all of which are a personal, private issue. Let me stress up front that this is not a "bash" article, nor is it an "excuse" article. It is meant to be an article designed to encourage all conservatives to keep their eye on the ball and not get distracted by personal issues. Our time is short to save this nation - and it IS up to us to save it - our "leaders" seem notoriously out of fresh ideas.

Each portrayal may not be exact, but I trust you will get the gist of the sameness and difference between all parties.

1. Blacks, in particular, want total acceptance, and I think the country is well on its way of giving them that. However, their spokesmen seem to think more than equality is owed them. They also want reparations for slavery. No one living today was a slave, and no one living today owned a slave. That is unfortunate history. Forget about it and move on.
2. Those who are homosexuals, transvestites, et al want to be socially accepted.
I have been in many a situation, both business and personal, where there were both homosexuals and straights, and everyone seemed to be treated the same. But some homosexuals think more than social acceptance is owed them. They want to legislate that they want to be legally accepted as a married man and woman are.
3. Christians want to have a say in their government. And they do. But they want more than that. They want everyone else to comport with their values.
4. Physically handicapped individuals want to be able to go anywhere everyone else goes and be given jobs everyone else may be given. But some seem to want more than that. Let's face it, folks, it would be very difficult to be a surgeon if you were blind!


In each of these examples you may note there are actually two issues:
1. What the group's stated initial desire is and
2. The additional desires stated only after the initial desire is fulfilled.


This is commonly called the camel getting its nose under the tent. Wants almost NEVER stop once they start. In all cases above the public has shown its acceptance to the original desire, only to be disappointed that that wasn't really the agenda. From that moment on, the general public grows weary, then agitated as the "offender" will NOT be content with what he originally asked for and sometimes the "offender" gets in-the-face-of-the-public in his demands. A sure-fire way to win people to your side, huh?

Everyone of the groups, or any group, when agitating for what the public is against has taken a private thing and made it public. And anything that becomes public is grist for the mill.

Now to the purpose of this article: Getting the Obama team out of our capital.

Insults do nothing to state one's case and do nothing to win others over. What DOES work, if anything is going to work, is treating all respectfully. If you are arguing with an enemy that is one thing. However when you argue with your political friend, you are asking for defeat at the ballot box. For me a political friend is one who believes in limited government, lowest possible tax (or no tax at all), decency in all administrations, adherence to the US Constitution. If he believes in these things and acts accordingly, I couldn't care less what his religion or lack of same is. Same with all the other issues. When it comes time to win an election or LOSE FREEDOM, these are the only qualities I care about in any candidate and any supporter. To salvage freedom, never to be regained, I can be nice to people with whom I have differences that should not matter in an election.

As I said in a letter I wrote a friend - we conservatives better hang together, or to use a worn-out trite phrase, we will all hang separately. I personally believe that "progressives" when they vote do so in their own selfish interest. I have always thought conservatives voted, it was more for good of the country. But if some of the animosity I see on blogs is any indication we could well lose the coming election as well as future ones. Let's quit bashing each other and save that energy for those who would take our freedoms and throw them on the ash heap of history.

I tend to side with Christians on many things - not because they are Christian, but because these are things that should be agreed with - such as banning partial birth abortions in particular.

But I'd rather spend an hour with a pleasant homosexual than with a holier-than-thou Christian. It has nothing to do with WHAT they are but with how their personalities strike me. I'm not asking anyone to change his beliefs or his credos, or his moral stance. I'm just asking everyone to treat your political friends as you would like to be treated.


For this article the reasons for a person's distaste don't matter.

 

It's wonderful to be able to address a group of people who are conservative thinkers! This group can accomplish a lot if we don't hang ourselves. One thing I love about conservatives is that they know what they think and aren't wishy-washy. That said, if we want to succeed in pursuing the agenda of taking back America, we must take tender care of each other. With conservatives that shouldn't be difficult. Not all conservatives agree on everything, and it is those areas that can, if we allow it to, stand in the way of unity.

RELIGION I would suggest we keep it toned down a bit. Those of us who believe cannot be harmed by those who do not, and we are not about to harm others. Religion is NOT an issue we must all agree on, even in a candidate. ABORTION Related to religion. Some see it as evil. Some see it as a privacy issue. Some see it as amoral and/or murder. Some see no harm in it. If you are like me, your feelings are strong and you won't give up those feelings. BUT we must not allow our differences in this issue to separate us from our goal. We each retain our beliefs, but we don't really need to attack each other, right? WAR Another area of disagreement. Not every candidate is going to satisfy all of us - can we not agree that if we see the candidate as a decent, honest person with integrity, we can tolerate him as an official? Vote the way you wish, but maybe we can refrain from bashing each other in the head as we go along? ;-) MIDDLE EAST Ditto the above FREEDOM, LIBERTY Do we all agree on the definitions? Do we not all want total freedom? We have to be careful on this one if one looks at abortion. The "my body is mine" thing? Some feel the unborn baby's body is his, not his mother's. For me personally this one is a really sticky one as I understand where the other side comes from, but disagree. We must think about HOW we disagree publicly and still maintain unity. I am sure there are other hot button issues you can, and hopefully will provide. My suggestions are just that - suggestions. I am open to everyone's suggestions. I write this because I am pretty sure that's how we lose honest elections: we allow single issues to rule our senses, whereas we possibly would all be better off if we CONSERVATIVES could coalesce instead of divide ourselves. Please let me know what you think?
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)
Positive Liberty.

Jason Kuznicki on Sep 22nd 2009

From the Des Moines Register:
Iowans are almost evenly divided about whether they would vote for or against a constitutional amendment to end marriage for same-sex couples, according to The Des Moines Register’s new Iowa Poll. Forty-one percent say they would vote for a ban, and 40 percent say they would vote to continue gay marriage. The rest either would not vote or say they are not sure… The overwhelming majority of Iowans - 92 percent - say gay marriage has brought no real change to their lives.
Democracy makes it trivially easy to interfere with the lives of others. One could hardly find a better example than the above, in which a significant number of Iowans apparently believe that harming others is perfectly fine, even when it brings no real benefits to themselves. It’s voted on, see, and I guess that makes it all okay. How’d things come to this? I have a theory. The median voter can’t be expected to care much about the rights of minorities, because by definition the median voter doesn’t ever belong to a minority. Whenever a binary question comes up for a vote, the median voter is in the majority. At best he will therefore be indifferent to the interests of the minority. This doesn’t bode well for minority rights of any kind whenever such questions come up. Yet sooner or later, every median voter ceases to be a median voter. He becomes a minority on some other issue, and his rights will be decided on by a different voting coalition, headed up by a different — but likewise indifferent — median voter. Today it’s same-sex marriage. Tomorrow it’ll be owning a pit bull or eating foie gras. We’re all in a minority sooner or later, and we will all face that coldly indifferent median voter who can’t see what the fuss is about, and who views deciding on our rights as something very important, even as something sacred, rather than as something repugnant and shameful. Maybe his sacred duty will tell him to take away our rights, and because it’s called democracy, it’s all good just the same. That is what’s wrong with democracy.

Jason Kuznicki on Sep 22nd 2009

From the Des Moines Register:
Iowans are almost evenly divided about whether they would vote for or against a constitutional amendment to end marriage for same-sex couples, according to The Des Moines Register’s new Iowa Poll. Forty-one percent say they would vote for a ban, and 40 percent say they would vote to continue gay marriage. The rest either would not vote or say they are not sure… The overwhelming majority of Iowans - 92 percent - say gay marriage has brought no real change to their lives.
Democracy makes it trivially easy to interfere with the lives of others. One could hardly find a better example than the above, in which a significant number of Iowans apparently believe that harming others is perfectly fine, even when it brings no real benefits to themselves. It’s voted on, see, and I guess that makes it all okay. How’d things come to this? I have a theory. The median voter can’t be expected to care much about the rights of minorities, because by definition the median voter doesn’t ever belong to a minority. Whenever a binary question comes up for a vote, the median voter is in the majority. At best he will therefore be indifferent to the interests of the minority. This doesn’t bode well for minority rights of any kind whenever such questions come up. Yet sooner or later, every median voter ceases to be a median voter. He becomes a minority on some other issue, and his rights will be decided on by a different voting coalition, headed up by a different — but likewise indifferent — median voter. Today it’s same-sex marriage. Tomorrow it’ll be owning a pit bull or eating foie gras. We’re all in a minority sooner or later, and we will all face that coldly indifferent median voter who can’t see what the fuss is about, and who views deciding on our rights as something very important, even as something sacred, rather than as something repugnant and shameful. Maybe his sacred duty will tell him to take away our rights, and because it’s called democracy, it’s all good just the same. That is what’s wrong with democracy.
GaryNorth "NO QUESTIONS, SIR!" by Gary North, at http://garynorth.com Date 9/10/2009

I will now make an assertion:

You have no major questions about the economy, unemployment, retirement, inflation, deflation, depression, the possible collapse of the dollar, real estate, or gold.

Am I wrong? Then call my bluff. Send me a question. I'll answer it.

If you are asking a career decision question, I will need the following information:

Your age Your location Your occupation Your retirement date Your #1 goal in life Deadline date

Then ask your question. Send you question (25 words or fewer) to this address:

garynorth@garynorth.com

Put the word "QUESTION" in the subject box.

I will answer all of them in future issues of this newsletter.

Back in 2005, I offered this service. For a year, I answered questions every other issue. This helped me find out what topics my readers were interested in. Well, a few of my readers, anyway. One-tenth of one percent of my mailing list sent a question. Yes, one out of 1,000.

Nobody else had any questions.

People do not ask questions. There are three main reasons for this.

1. They are the blind being led into a ditch by the blind.

2. They know the answers, and they don't want to have them confirmed.

3. They just don't care.

A SHAKY TRESTLE

Our problem is procrastination. Most of our lives are routine. We do not get too far away from a comfortable routine. Most of the time this routine works.

Some people call this being in a rut. Others call it staying on track. Sometimes the trestle is wobbling.

I have no objection to routines. My routine keeps me on track in my rut. But part of my routine is to look down the tracks to see if there is anything out of the ordinary.

Today, the economy is out of the ordinary. The trestle almost collapsed a year ago.

The question is: Will it collapse next time? Also, when might this next time be?

There are signs that the trestle is missing pillars. Every Friday afternoon, after the stock market closes, the FDIC closes five more banks. Investors shrug it off. "No problem." Then, the next Friday, five more banks get closed. How long can this go on? Not much longer. The number of closings will increase. A man whose firm buys busted banks says that he expects 1,000 banks to close. (http://www.cnbc.com/id/32581463) "No problem."

Then there is unemployment. Every month, the number of jobs declines by 200,000 or more. The rate of unemployment jumps. Investors immediately buy more shares. Why? Because they see unemployment as a cost-cutting tactic. Therefore, "corporate earnings will go up soon." They don't think that an S&P price-earnings ratio of 129 (August 31) is a danger signal. It has never been this high before. It has never reached 50 before. "No problem." They think that profits will rise to bring the P/E back to something like 15, which would be a buy-and- hold signal.

Then there is the Federal deficit. It will end up on September 30 in the range of $1.6 trillion. The administration has offered an estimate of $9 trillion between now and 2019, meaning $900 billion a year.

Social Security is officially expected to go into the red in 2017. One Congressman thinks this could happen before the next Presidential election. He is on the House Committee for Financial Services.

http://GaryNorth.com/snip/886.htm

When this happens, the Social Security Trust Fund will have to cash in some of its Treasury bonds in order to get money to send to people on the rolls. The Treasury will have to sell enough debt to the public (including the Federal Reserve System) to cover these transactions.

In 2008, Medicare's Hospital Trust Fund went negative. It received less money from Medicare taxes than it spent. Thus, it had to sell its nonmarketable Treasury bonds back to the Treasury. Its press release admitted that the program was negative, but it spoke of the Trust Fund as solvent. It is solvent legally. It has government-issued IOU's in it. But not for long.

The Trustees report that Medicare's Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund will become insolvent earlier in 2019 than reported last year. HI expenditure growth is estimated to average 7.4 percent each year over the next 10 years, a higher rate than either Gross Domestic Product (GDP) or Consumer Price Index (CPI) growth. This year the HI Trust Fund will spend more than its income, and from 2009 through 2017, about $342 billion will need to be transferred from the Federal treasury to cover beneficiaries' hospital insurance costs.

That's a nice, precise figure: $342 billion. The key words are these: "will need to be transferred from the Federal treasury."

From the empty Federal Treasury.

"We need to act quickly and effectively to address Medicare's fiscal health, including enacting the steps proposed in the President's budget, which would postpone the insolvency date of the Part A trust fund for ten years," said Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt. "Congress should also act immediately on the smart changes put forward by the Administration after last year's funding warning, which would allow the program to be modernized and transformed."

http://GaryNorth.com/snip/887.htm

I love this phrase: "Congress should also act immediately."

Congress did nothing except run up the general deficit by another $750 billion (minimum) in October. Then it did it again this spring.

The Medicare hospital insurance program is bankrupt, but nobody in government except Ron Paul uses this word to describe government programs.

CALM IN THE EYE OF THE HURRICANE

Most people know little or none of this. They go through their daily routines. They are oblivious. The government has deliberately disguised these matters. The average citizen thinks that someone at the top has a solution. He cannot conceive of the possibility that experts who run the system are making things up as they go along.

Most of the time the system lumbers along. But then, once in a while -- such as a year ago -- the system grinds to a halt. Then the response is the same: create money and increase the Federal deficit. The average guy thinks this will solve the problem at no cost to him.

It feels like no cost, but the debt level rises. This year, the Federal deficit has added another $17,000 per household. No one seemed to care. Few even noticed.

http://GaryNorth.com/snip/888.htm

As we watch these things going on around us, and when we perceive that those around us perceive none of this, we remain calm. The calm serenity of those around us calms us, as well. We see the trestle ahead. We see the engine disappear from sight. We suspect what is going to happen to us if we don't get off the train. But no one around us is moving toward the exit. No one even seems to notice.

The problem is, the trestle has wobbled before. It has looked as though the engine has disappeared, but it always reappears on the far side of the trestle. So, we assume that this time it will not go over the edge into the blackness below.

But there are lots of trestles between here and our final destination.

We are calmed by the calm of those around us. They seem to know what they are doing. Yet they didn't know a year ago. Henry Paulson was frantic. He nationalized the mortgage market on his own authority exactly one year ago. The markets remained calm. Within weeks, the bailouts of the big banks began. Goldman Sach's rival, Lehman Brothers Holdings, went bust over a weekend. Merrill Lynch was swallowed by Bank of America.

The underlying causes of the problem, namely, toxic assets, have not gone away. There are lots more of them ahead of us: Alt-A mortgages (liars' loans), option ARMs (folks too poor even to lie loans), and commercial real estate.

The re-sets will hit families that will not be able to qualify for loans. There are no more liar loans available. Lending standards have tightened over the last year and a half. The loans that were easy to get in 2007 and earlier are now ancient history. The re-sets will mean busted loans. They will end. Some of them will not be replaced. No one knows how many.

The lending agencies will not be able to hide these re-set loans. They die on schedule. They must be replaced. They will not be replaced. The lenders will have expired loans on their books.

The lenders have been playing "let's pretend" with bad loans. They have not reported these loans as being in default. They have pretended that there is hope to get the owners paying again. A re-set mortgage does not offer wiggle room. Unless the regulators change the rules, these loans will have to be written down as soon as the re-set date arrives.

Example: my son-on-law bought a new home in a nice neighborhood. He bought a bank-foreclosed house in a bank- foreclosed development. It was $100,000 less expensive than a few months before. The houses sold fast because the bank priced the houses to sell. Recently, his next-door neighbor lost his job. He moved back to northern Illinois to get a seasonal job. His wife and family stayed behind. Now she has been laid off. This is not a poor neighborhood. It is middle class.

Unemployment climbs relentlessly. This is having fall-out effects on housing. The summer season for selling houses ended in late August. The reports on home sales will turn negative as the percentage of foreclosure sales increases in relation to total sales.

Yet people in the know are calm. The average Joe is calm until the guy across the street loses his job.

THE IMPLICATIONS

Have you sat down with a pencil and paper to outline your situation?

If you were in the market for a new mortgage, what could you present to the lender to prove that you are a low-risk debtor?

If you were in the market for a new job, how much wiggle room would your finances allow you?

Where are you vulnerable? Your job?

Where is your employer vulnerable?

People assume that corporate management knows what it is doing. Then they are amazed when they are told that their services are no longer needed.

Managers don't warn people whose jobs are at risk. They hold out hope that a turnaround is imminent. They want to believe that it really is imminent. They don't want to lose anyone because of a premature warning to him that his job is coming to an end. So, they don't tell a targeted employee until there is just no wiggle room remaining.

Are you seeing this at your firm? Is there a drip- drip-drip phenomenon going on, the way it is with insolvent banks? If there is, what have you done to see to it that your job is safe? Anything new? If not, you should assume that your job is not safe.

What about your company's market? Is it stabilizing? Talk to someone in sales. That's where the first signs of recovery will occur.

Here is a strategy you can quietly use to assess your firm's line of credit. Which bank is its main lender? You need to know. Once you know, check what the bank is paying on time deposits. If it's 2% or higher, the bank is probably in trouble. It is offering rates way above the federal funds rate of 0.15% that the Federal Reserve is paying on excess reserves. It is buying time at a loss.

That bank is a candidate for an FDIC take-over. The problem then will be this: a new set of managers will be in charge of rolling over old loans. They will examine every business loan on the dead banks' books. Your firm may be at risk along with the bank that supplies the credit.

The looming decline of commercial real estate threatens local banks. A recent "Wall Street Journal" article shows why.

In contrast to home loans -- the majority of which were made by only 10 or so giant institutions -- thousands of small and regional banks loaded up on commercial property debt. As a result, commercial real estate troubles would be even more widespread among the financial system than the housing woes. At the present, more than 3,000 banks and savings institutions have more than 300% of their risk-based capital in commercial real-estate loans.

http://GaryNorth.com/snip/889.htm

When these loans go bad, this will force more of these banks out of business. It will be crunch time for local lines of credit.

CONCLUSIONS

Does any of this raise some questions in your mind?

Have you thought through your answers?

If not, why not?

Questions can be asked here of Morality101 via Comment, or

to Author, garynorth@garynorth.com (subject: Questions)

Great US flag

It's wonderful to be able to address a group of people who are conservative thinkers! This group can accomplish a lot if we don't hang ourselves. One thing I love about conservatives is that they know what they think and aren't wishy-washy. That said, if we want to succeed in pursuing the agenda of taking back America, we must take tender care of each other. With conservatives that shouldn't be difficult. Not all conservatives agree on everything, and it is those areas that can, if we allow it to, stand in the way of unity.

RELIGION I would suggest we keep it toned down a bit. Those of us who believe cannot be harmed by those who do not, and we are not about to harm others. Religion is NOT an issue we must all agree on, even in a candidate. ABORTION Related to religion. Some see it as evil. Some see it as a privacy issue. Some see it as amoral and/or murder. Some see no harm in it. If you are like me, your feelings are strong and you won't give up those feelings. BUT we must not allow our differences in this issue to separate us from our goal. We each retain our beliefs, but we don't really need to attack each other, right? WAR Another area of disagreement. Not every candidate is going to satisfy all of us - can we not agree that if we see the candidate as a decent, honest person with integrity, we can tolerate him as an official? Vote the way you wish, but maybe we can refrain from bashing each other in the head as we go along? ;-) MIDDLE EAST Ditto the above FREEDOM, LIBERTY Do we all agree on the definitions? Do we not all want total freedom? We have to be careful on this one if one looks at abortion. The "my body is mine" thing? Some feel the unborn baby's body is his, not his mother's. For me personally this one is a really sticky one as I understand where the other side comes from, but disagree. We must think about HOW we disagree publicly and still maintain unity. I am sure there are other hot button issues you can, and hopefully will provide. My suggestions are just that - suggestions. I am open to everyone's suggestions. I write this because I am pretty sure that's how we lose honest elections: we allow single issues to rule our senses, whereas we possibly would all be better off if we CONSERVATIVES could coalesce instead of divide ourselves. Please let me know what you think?
Let me begin by saying that Barack Hussein Obama is the most horrible "president" America has ever elected.  Obama is a collectivist / communist, and is using the force of government to pass laws which eliminate major choices which properly belong to free men as their birthright, forcing them to accept "cap and trade", ObamaCare, the seizure of major corporations -- banks, insurance companies, mortgage companies, automobile manufacturers -- the list is growing to almost endless.  Obama is an economic idiot, and so passes huge stimulus bills, tax rebates. We have a Constitution which requires that a president be a natural-born citizen.  We have the Judges and the entire Congress which have "sworn" to uphold it.  Suits by citizens have been thrown out for "lack of standing" - why would not ANY citizen have "standing"? For months now so many of us have found the evidence of Obama's citizenship to be too skimpy to prove anything.  The Obamanites have presented a non-vault BC which holds no verifiable or verified information of birth, such as doctor, hospital, footprint, etc.  It was apparently filed by an (unnamed) relative who must have left some sort of affidavit, but we don't get to see that, either. Meanwhile the "birther" movement has grown and grown to a point where barely half in a recent Examiner.com poll believe that Obama is a natural-born-citizen. Yet only Obama knows the truth, and he's not talking. As this issue stands to this day, Obama's natural-born-citizenship can't be proven one way or the other.  The country is in an uproar over this issue; articles appear constantly claiming pro or con, and it's getting downright hostile out there.  It's also getting hugely tiring, right?  But until this is laid to rest, the hostilities will continue to increase. Either Obama shows his real BC or a court finally orders that he present it.  This has been going on since before Election2008, with Obama doing legal pettifogging every step of the way, rather than simply putting a full BC on the table and letting America see the truth.  His delays do nothing but reinforce the public view that he doesn't show us because he is NOT a citizen.  The real BC would state his real birthplace, which was probably in Kenya, not in Hawaii.   Of course he will conceal the facts for as long as he is allowed to get away with that.  If he should disclose the real thing, he would be out of office immediately, probably with a whole list of criminal charges against him. It makes us all really skeptical that he and his cronies might manage to create some document and bury it in a vault somewhere for the day with the lights are turned on at last. Obama, just show us the damn BC so we can move knowing that you are in, or you're out!
What with the Obama Administration's frantic push for socialized medicine, a lot of people have come up with some unique ideas to justify its passage.  One unique idea that strikes me is the old canard:  The federal government is responsible for the "General Welfare" of its citizens, and having the government provide for the health care is in keeping with that responsibility. I am in perfect harmony with our Constitution, and, yes, it does charge the federal government to insure its citizens "General Welfare".    BUT..... I accessed the CONSTITUTIONAL DICTIONARY (see  http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html) I searched for 'General Welfare', and here are the results of that search: welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. NOTE: (according to the Constitutional Dictionary) Welfare in today's context also means organized efforts on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the poor, or simply public assistance. This is NOT the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I think people do not understand much about our government because our politicians have denigrated and misused words and meanings so often and so vocally that they have created a populace that is totally confused.  The sad part is that, in many cases, the politicians' misuse of words is NOT deliberate, and this leads me to believe we elect some very, very dumb people to represent us and write laws for us, all of which deny us liberties we would otherwise be enjoying.  Please do not misunderstand when I say dumb.  I am not referring to education - I am referring mostly to character and sincerity which will lead anyone running for public office to learn the Constitution backwards and forwards.

This came to me via email, well documented right within itself.  Illegals are costing nearly as much as the war in Iraq!  This  is astounding and infuriating.  Why isn't this in the  papers? Informative,  and mind  boggling! " I  hope the following 14 reasons are forwarded over and  over again until they are read so many times that  the  reader gets sick of reading them.   I  also have included the URL's for verification  of  all the following facts." 1. $11  Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare  to  illegal aliens each year by state  governments. Verify  at: http://tinyurl.com/zob77 2.    $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on  food  assistance programs such as food stamps,  WIC, and free school lunches for illegal   aliens. Verify  at: http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html 3. $2.5  Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for  illegal aliens. Verify  at: http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/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! Verify  at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.0.html 5. $17  Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the  American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor  babies. Verify at http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html 6.   $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate  illegal  aliens. Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html 7.   30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are  illegal aliens. Verify  at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html 8.   $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens  for Welfare & social services by the  American  taxpayers. Verify  at: http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html 9.   $200 Billion dollars a year in suppressed American  wages are caused by the illegal  aliens. Verify  at: 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 . Verify at: 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. Verify at: Homeland Security  Report:  http://tinyurl.com/t9sht <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.' Verify  at: http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/pdf/deportation.pdf 13.   In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in  remittances to their countries  of origin. Verify  at: 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  .' Verify  at: http: // www.drdsk.com/articleshtml <http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml> The  total cost is a whopping $ 338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A  YEAR. Are we  THAT stupid?

If this  doesn't bother you then just move along outta here.  If, on the other hand, it does raise the hair on the back of your neck, I  hope you forward it to every legal resident in  the country including every elected  representative in  Washington , D.C. - five  times a week for  as long as it takes to restore some  semblance of intelligence in our policies and  enforcement thereof.

Dean160xConsider this a subpage or sequel to our basic philosophy of liberty, recommended aid in understanding Force, defined as:
  • (private sector) The non-consensual act of taking or harming one's life or property, whether murder, rape, theft or ..., such acts being both immoral and unlawful.
(governments) Compel, constrain, or oblige (someone) to do something. Consider some basic differences between business and government. Businesses produce goods and services to fulfill the needs and desires as chosen by the individual.  Therefore businesses earn income which is recycled to continue that fulfillment.  If the business is successful, it grows to provide more benefits to more people.  If the business makes profits it may invent new goods and services which provide new benefits to the people.  If the business is not successful and profitable, it will eventually cease to exist, having lost it's customers to competitors or to goods and services which offer better benefits or more value.  In a truly free market all transactions are of mutual benefit to both business and customer, and resulting from either consumer acceptance of a vendor's price and terms, or from negotiation between parties. Even though governments pretend to function as businesses, they are not.  Governments produce nothing and have no income, funded only by only whatever they steal, by Force, from You and from all it's subjects.  Anything done by government can be accomplished only by stealing (taking by Force) the money, the property, and finally the life, of it's citizens.  Governments survive only via theft by taxation or by creating pseudo-businesses which sell "licenses" or "permits", or by leasing or selling land and rights to land, or by selling privileges which are merely an extension of rights which are the inate natural belongings of all men.  Government claims ownership of all these things, but all were in fact taken by Force from the private sector under one guise or another.  Government acts to "legitimize" their actions are called "laws". In the private sector, Force is illegal and subject to criminal penalties. Force is always the tool of criminals.  Yes, I said Force, stealing, wrongful taking, and extortion. But in the "public" arena, called government, Force is always declared "legal" -- how can that be?  How can Force be immoral and illegal only when between private persons and entities, yet is perfectly "legal" if government does it to you?  This renders virtally all government criminal!  Why is that?  Why do the people allow it? All this has vast implications far beyond being just a drunken block party.  Those are seen every minute of every day, it is the Force of governments at every level, whether town or nation or even the whole world.  These are always "made legal" by passing a "law" or "regulation" or some-such nonsense.  Because they are "the law" every citizen is supposed to obey and accept that item of Force because "it is writ".  Nonsense! If you believe that we all own government, try asking them for your fair share, try selling your share when you have not even a piece of paper representing your share.  Whatever they have stolen from you will never never be seen again. If you don't begin to "get it" by now, best read more about Morality, because you're not close to ready for the big-time.  Understand that every cent the government spends must first be STOLEN from YOU.  The more schemes government enacts, the more it will cost you.  This is not theft, it is armed robbery, it is taken by Force.  You are not asked, you are TOLD, and if you don't obey your Ruler will surely send someone to your door, with a gun, and authorized to use deadly Force to ensure your compliance.  Go back to Morality and check to see if that fits with your Right to Life. In the real world of life and the living, society has come to agree that Force is wrong, and has made laws declaring that Force is illegal and has set force penalties for using Force, heavier for murder than for burgling your neighbor's flowerbed in the night, but always there are penalties.  How then can this same society elect governments of Force, when the only difference of that Force is that government force is somehow "legal".  Even worse, governments are delegated to have more power, more Force, by a simple majority of it's congress and a swipe of the President's pen.  No approval of the citizens is necessary.  No protection for any person being of any minority which has reason to disagree. A government of collectivists which gives lip service to liberty but rejects liberty at every turn may not intend to kill you, but as surely as they are killing America, so are they killing you. Those who reject Force and practice the morality of liberty must prevail; death is your only alternative.  If you continue to pay taxes or support government in any way, you abandon, compromise and forfeit your right to Life.  You must refuse; you must withdraw; you must have the courage to spread the word; at the very least to tell those within your circle why they should do likewise.  You will find many more ears as we continue the slide into the abyss of economic collapse. If you cannot accept Liberty, then you are party to the loss of America.  Beyond that, if we appreciate Liberty but fail to insist upon it, we lose a bit more each time.  Because each encroachment upon our Right to Life endangers everyone, we must reject it or lose some part of our lives.  When you have finally lost too much of your life, you are ...  what?  ... oh no, not DEAD!  Really? Political Force is wholly intentional, and we who tolerate Force must be the stupid ones!
  • The non-consensual act of taking or harming one's life or property, whether murder, rape, theft or otherwise, such acts being both immoral and unlawful; applies to the private sector.
  • To compel, constrain, or oblige another, again without consent of the other, most approriate applied to government.
  • To compel, constrain, or oblige another, again without consent of the other, most approriate applied to government.
  • We as a nation are facing MAJOR problems and if we don't decide to work together, then we shall all suffer together.  Let's all take off our political party philosophy blinders, please, and let's look at things rationally, then let's act rationally.  What a concept!!

    If we bow to other nations, will it make us respected by the world that currently thinks we are too full of ourselves?  How will it benefit us in any way? If we remove all our protective armament and bring all our military home, will we be safer? If we manage to remove all links with God from our government, will we be a healthier nation? If we continue teaching young children about homosexuality, how to prevent pregnancy, how to protect against VD, will they be healthier and happier adults? If we have some of our citizens pay for the health care of those who pay nothing for theirs, will that make us a more "caring" nation, and more than that, will it make us a more cohesive collection of individuals? If our elected 'leaders' do not represent us while using our money, do we accept that without some severe yelling? If our schools and universities persist in teaching a philosophy with which at least half the nation is unhappy, will that bring us together as a nation? If we don't protect our borders from unchecked migration, what will be the outcome within the next 20 years? If radical Islam rears its head within our midst, what are we going to do about it?  How will it affect the future for our kids and grandchildren? If many parents continue to disregard their responsibility to properly raise their children, will this be healthy?  If it isn't helpful, what do we do about it? I know what I believe about all of the above and it has nothing to do with which political party is in power - the parties DO NOT think for me.  Do you know what you think about the above.  Does your party think for you, or will you put party aside and let's just work together to get things headed in the right direction.  Can we do that?  Are we strong enough to do that?  Do we have the intelligence to do that?  Or should we just watch our wonderful nation crumble as we squabble like silly geese about mostly unimportant things?