Great op-ed in my local paper.

It was in 1774 that John Adams reminded how the “most sensible and jealous people are so little attentive to government that there are no instances of resistance until repeated, multiple oppressions have placed it beyond a doubt that their rulers had formed settled plans to deprive them of their liberties.”

And that’s not merely to “oppress the individual or a few,” the father of the Constitution added, “but to break down the fences of a free constitution, and deprive the people at large of all share in the government, and all the checks by which it is limited.”

Mr. Adams, of course, would have been labeled a “right-wing extremist” or a “militia maniac” by today’s “progressives” in Congress who have been working so assiduously to soil the fabric of America. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would dismiss Adams’ sentiment as “un-American” and tap dance around its implications of unconstitutional freelancing.

But on the cusp of a new year and the second decade of the 21st century, this is where America finds itself: Constitutional perverts and rule of law scofflaws are in charge, the once-creeping crud of socialism has broken into a trot and an increasing number of good and decent people really are mad as hell and not willing to take another centimeter of the shaft.

And perhaps, just perhaps, revolution is nigh.

“Revolution” is a dicey word in any era. Indeed, it can be accomplished by the ballot and not the bullet. But the Founders and the Framers had no qualms about the latter. How soon today’s “leaders” — supposed custodians of the Constitution but merely unionized garbagemen — seem to forget that America was born in armed revolt and that the luminaries of the era acknowledged its necessity in the defense of natural rights.

Certainly, and as Thomas Jefferson reminded in the Declaration of Independence, “governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes.” But the heaviness and permanence of the corrupt nature of our government surely will force the hand of the people to press the button or pull the trigger in the new year.

So shameless are corruption’s practitioners and their enablers that their behavior is rationalized through euphemisms. Bribery of the sort that would land those in the private sector in the pokey for 10 years is called “legislating” in Washington. It is rewarded with tenure by voters either too enamored with the supposed windfall to understand that the depth of the pickpocketing reaches to their ankles or with memories far too short to effect change in the next election.

Pennsylvania, the State of Independence, now is the State of Corruption. Grand jury allegations more than suggest the state Legislature operates as a corrupt, criminal enterprise. And the words of the Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights from 1776 never have tolled more clearly: “The community hath an indubitable, inalienable and indefeasible right to reform, alter or abolish government, in such a manner as shall be by that community, judged most conducive to the public weal.”

“Suckling at the public teat,” you’ll notice, is missing.

Americans and Pennsylvanians faces a crucial test in 2010. They can either continue traveling down the road to serfdom or return to liberty’s boulevard. The republic’s future hangs in the balance.

via Serfdom vs. liberty in 2010 – Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

Merry Christmas America. How do you like being raped and pillaged for Christmas? Our government, once this is signed into law, has cut the final string to it’s founding principle of protecting individual rights. No longer are we individuals. We are now part of the “public”. Anything thing that can be construed as harmful to the “public health” will used against the individual. We are all only one NIH study away from losing any right the government chooses to take away. Guns are first.

The Senate approved sweeping health-overhaul legislation on Thursday, a landmark moment for White House-led efforts to expand insurance coverage to more than 30 million Americans.

via Senate Passes Sweeping Health-Care Bill – WSJ.com.

Just as a reminder this bill does nothing to fix the problems as I explained in my post on root causes.

Might be good to re-read my posts on real free market solutions.

Part 1

Part 2

This is what socialism brings.

Poverty has forced at least 225,000 children in Haiti’s cities into slavery as unpaid household servants, far more than previously thought, a report said Tuesday.

The Pan American Development Foundation’s report also said some of those children — mostly young girls — suffer sexual, psychological and physical abuse while toiling in extreme hardship.

The report recommends Haiti’s government and international donors focus efforts on educating the poor and expanding social services such as shelters for girls, who make up an estimated two-thirds of the child servant population.

Young servants are known as “restavek” — Haitian Creole for “stays with” — and their plight is both widely known and a source of great shame in the Caribbean nation that was founded by a slave revolt more than 200 years ago.

via Report says 225,000 Haiti children work as slaves | Top AP Latin America Stories | Chron.com – Houston Chronicle.

Just a couple thoughts on this. This is what happens when you have a socialist/welfare mentality as a society. Haiti has long been looked at as a nation that needs handouts. All handouts do is destroy the incentive to work. We should allow nations like Haiti to fail, and when they do, real leaders will step up to eventually move the country forward. The problem is countries, like the United States, always rush in to save them from failure, and what you get is a worsening condition that would have long ago ended if rock bottom was allowed to be hit.

Also, child slavery is somewhat of a red herring. Is a child having to work to help support their family slavery? Were children slaves when we were more agricultural, and they worked on the farm? It’s silly to automatically say they are slaves. If there is sexual abuse that is much different. That is something that should be severly punished, because it is an act of violence on an individual (even worse that it’s a child). Work is not violence, and it is not slavery. If the child is prevented from working by do gooder liberals, there is a much larger chance that the child will die of starvation, be pushed into criminal enterprises, or become an orphan.

I love how our media and liberal elites love to sit back and judge other countries. “They can’t have child labor. Look at us. We are outlawed that long ago.” Do they really think that Haitian parents care or love their children any less than they do? Talk about arrogance. We once had child labor too. Not because we loved our children less back then, but because it was a necessity of life.

The solution again is to let the country stand on its own. If Haiti’s citizens embrace a more capitalistic economy and are allowed to prosper, child slavery(labor) will eventually disappear. It disappears as productivity and prosperity increase, and child labor is no longer needed to sustain the livelihood of Haitian families. Why is it no longer needed? Because prosperity is increased by productivity increases. The more productive a society is, the more prosperous it is. Productivity and prosperity feed on each other moving society continually upward. Productivity increases prosperity by giving more goods and services with less inputs, and prosperity when reinvested (not confiscated by gov’t) increases productivity by being able to afford technologies that can produce without more labor (example: machinery). The more productive the society, the less people that need to work for a given standard of living. Needing less people to work means eventually children will not need to work. Haitian parents, if given the opportunity, will choose to not have their children work, just like American parents. That opportunity won’t present itself though until liberals let them fail, and they embrace capitalism.

Apparently, so called green firms are looking toward local coercion to grow their businesses now that the global gun to the head fell through.

Businesses that had banked on global greenhouse-gas limits to spur alternative-energy investments now are looking to national and local policies to get more wind turbines turning and nuclear-power plants humming, after the muddled outcome of the Copenhagen climate summit.

The failure of the United Nations gathering to produce an enforceable accord to cut fossil-fuel emissions leaves the U.S., Europe, China, India and other countries to pursue the energy policies they already had.

In many cases, those policies are aimed more at strategic goals, such as economic development or reducing dependence on Mideast oil, than at threats posed by global warming.

via After Summit, ‘Cleantech’ Firms Reset Strategy – WSJ.com.

“Businesses that had banked on global greenhouse-gas limits” should be considered fascist enterprises. No businesses should be looking to force to public into buying their crap in order to grow their businesses, but unfortunately that is how business works now in America. Look at the health insurance companies. They are going to have millions of new customers thanks to government force.

Also, as stated in the last sentence, so called green tech is not economic development. You don’t develop economically by forcing people to buy something that is more expensive, delivers you less energy, to eventually get back what you already had. I’m not more wealthy for trading in my paid for Ford for a new Mercedes with a car payment.

In today’s Wall Street Journal, there is an op-ed by David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey about giving the states the ability to propose constitutional amendments.

For nearly a hundred years, federal power has expanded at the expense of the states—to a point where the even the wages and hours of state employees are subject to federal control. Basic health and safety regulations that were long exercised by states under their “police power” are now dominated by Washington.

The courts have similarly distorted the Constitution by inventing new constitutional rights and failing to limit governmental power as provided for in the document. The aggrandizement of judicial power has been a particularly vexing challenge, since it is inherently incapable of correction through the normal political channels.

There is a way to deter further constitutional mischief from Congress and the federal courts, and restore some semblance of the proper federal-state balance. That is to give to states—and through them the people—a greater role in the constitutional amendment process.

The idea is simple, and is already being mooted in conservative legal circles. Today, only Congress can propose constitutional amendments—and Congress of course has little interest in proposing limits on its own power. Since the mid-19th century, no amendment has actually limited federal authority.

But what if a number of states, acting together, also could propose amendments? That has the potential to reinvigorate the states as a check on federal power. It could also return states to a more central policy-making role.

via David Rivkin and Lee Casey: The States Can Check Washington’s Power – WSJ.com.

While the authors have a good idea and a great point, they completely leave out what happened “nearly a hundred years” ago that allowed federal power to expand. Several things happened, but one thing in particular happened that if it had not happened would given the authors what they are asking for and would have prevented the massive expansion of the federal government. In 1913, the 17th amendment was ratified. That amendment changed Senators from being elected by state legislatures to being elected by the people via the popular vote.

The original point of the Senate was to represent state interests and to keep the Federal government from infringing on states rights. Once that barrier was removed, there was no longer a check on the federal powers. You get what we have now.

Prior to the 17th amendment, states could do exactly what the article is proposing. States could propose amendments via their state’s senators, who were accountable to the state legislators. Now, senators aren’t accountable to state legislators, so all they care about is the popular vote of the people, which is easily manipulated.

Come to think about it, do you think Senators could be as corrupt as they are if they were accountable to state legislators? Could corporations buy off US Senators at the expense of their citizens if they new that the state legislators could kick them out of office? While I’m sure there would still be corruption, I don’t think you would have it on the scale that we do now. I also don’t think you would necessarily have these career politicians and the rotating door between government and lobbying.

As time goes on, the great intellect of our founders avails itself more an more. They put controls in place knowing what would happen without those controls. Unfortunately, we allowed Woodrow Wilson, who was a “progressive” to undermine so much of what the founders put in place. Under Wilson, we got the 17th amendment, ending state rights. We got the federal reserve act, which allows the federal government to spend by printing money, robs the middle class and poor through inflation, and creates boom bust cycles. We got the progressive income tax, which punishes productivity and instigates class warfare. The list of Wilson’s destructive acts could go on with drug laws, antiwar suppression, etc.

If we ever want to take the country back towards more liberty, states without a doubt need to start reasserting themselves. It does seem to be happening underneath the surface. There is a growing 10th amendment movement. There are even discussions on some websites and TVs shows about secession. While I don’t see secession ever happening with everyone being programmed that the south was evil for seceded, I can see states voiding federal laws if the people get loud enough. Ultimately, it comes down to people rising up against these federal laws. The first chance at this will be this enslaving health care bill. The people need to get extremely loud about it and tell their state legislators to ignore the federal law. If states ignored the law, as some have ignored the drug laws, they can in effect void the laws.

Maybe it will happen. More likely it won’t. One can only hope that states reassert themselves. If they do, we have a fighting chance at re-establishing our country. If not, Rome will continue to burn until it is no longer.

Wow, stumbled across this blog post this morning on Mish’s Global Economic Trend Analysis. It’s obvious we are becoming a society dominated by the state. You cannot have government employees making twice as much as the private sector. The incentive becomes working for the government, and not building our economy from the private sector, the sector that actually produces something. Also, with that comes the incentive to grow the state and to defend that state at all costs. When the state comes calling for the highly paid government workers to put down any civil unrest with the general population, the government employees will no doubt try to earn their pay. Anyway, here is a letter to Mish about the absurdity of his salary.

Hello Mish.

I read your article about the salaries of government workers compared with the private sector. I am a police officer. I won’t say where, let’s just say it’s one of the most expensive cities.

I am 29 years old and I make about $130k a year with overtime. Most of the officers make this and some even make $185k a year. A few supervisors in Internal Affairs have made of $200k along with detective sergeants.

To be honest, I think our salaries are totally out of touch with not only the private sector, but with America. It’s absolutely ridiculous. When I became a police officer we were all making way below what private sector employees made. I took the job knowing I will never be rich but knowing I will have a stable job with benefits.

Little did I know my union would secure very good contracts at the expense of pillaging the public. This cannot go on. I have studied and read Robert Prechter’s Conquer The Crash book and how he (and you also) say we will have a deflationary collapse. I agree totally.

I’m just paying off debt while the going is good and have put most of my money in gold (at $800 an ounce). I’ll probably sell that gold soon because it’s getting popular in the media and on the radio. So yes, I just wanted to let you know that these govt/federal/state jobs are ridiculous. I know because I have one. 90% of the workers sit around and work for about 2 hours throughout the day and get paid 6 figure salaries. They have full benefits and pensions, 6 week vacation plans, and sick days galore.

It’s gotten to the point where the private sector cannot compete because these senators keep bringing home the pork for these bloated corporations with unions. The small business man can never compete. This is socialism at its worst that has crept into America over the past quarter century.

via Mish’s Global Economic Trend Analysis: Police Officer Responds To “Six-Figure Federal Salary Gravy Train” Post.

There are only a few ways that all this absurdity is going to end. All of them are bad. Time to prepare for TEOTWAWKI.

Last night I’m watching John Stossel’s new show on Fox Business. His topic was health care. As usual, Stossel was right on blaming health insurance (third party payer) for the rising prices. Of course, the socialists in the audience and in some of the on the street interviews were having none of it. What was to blame? PROFITS! These idiots think that profits drive up the costs. I even debated a socialist on Facebook who said under socialism goods and services would be the cheapest they can be, because there would be no profit. By definition, he thinks removing profit lowers price. His exact words were, “Profit wouldn’t even be considered in a socialist state, so drugs would automatically be at their lowest possible price.”

It’s silly to think that removing profit makes things cheaper. Price is a function of supply and demand, not profit. Socialism always generates more demand while dwindling supply, so there is no reason to think that not having profits would lower price. That is a simple economic fact. The other hazard of removing profit though is lack of innovation. This is where removing profit is deadly.

The biggest profits are generated with the introduction of a new innovation. The innovator has first dibs on the market. They can charge the most to recoup their investment costs. After investment costs are recouped, they generate tons of profit. I know that sounds horrible in the eyes of many socialists, but what happens next is competitors see the huge profits. They then rush in to capture some of the profits for themselves. By jumping on the profit bandwagon, they bring the goods and services to more people. How do they differentiate themselves in order to get a piece of the profits? They either innovate, making the product or service even better, they seek efficiencies, which lowers costs, or they undercut their competitors, seeking less profits in hopes of taking some of the market. This whole process drives down the cost through innovation, efficiencies, and out right price wars.

This competition always drives profit margins down. Anyone who gets in on the early stage of a new technology can tell you “enjoy it while it lasts.” Once the profit margins are driven down so far, you end up with the companies who can deliver the products or services with the best quality and efficiency.

Meanwhile, the innovators are back at it seeking the massive profits that come from new products and services. This is what leads to our ever improving livelihood.

So what does this mean for health care? If we remove the boot of the government, we can have this same process in health care. It does happen inspite of the government now, but there is no doubt that it is hampered and slowed. For instance, moving a drug through the FDA is estimated to cost close to $1 billion dollars and takes 15 years. How many drugs are there that are needed, but can’t produce the profits necessary to overcome the costs imposed by the FDA? How many people die without those drugs?

If you remove profits, you remove innovation. If you remove innovation, people die. New drugs, treatments and cures are not developed.  If you remove profit, you remove competition. It’s competition that brings products and services at ever cheaper prices to the masses. If people can’t get the products and services, people die. While all these socialists scream, “No profits in health care!”, they should be screaming “Let people die, let people die!”

Watch Stossel’s Health Care show here:

http://www.therightscoop.com/watch-%e2%80%98stossel%e2%80%99-from-fox-business-%e2%80%93-december-17-2009/

via Hot Air » Blog Archive » Reason TV: The best Christmas ever?.

Would we be merry without the free market? Kids sure wouldn’t.

Can you imagine what would happen if the government would let the free market address health care?

Ford Motor Co. is working to offer drivers a way to upgrade the electronics in their vehicles, much the same way they can add applications to their iPhones and BlackBerrys.

The car maker hopes to persuade software developers to tap the Internet service, GPS location-finding capability and digital-music setup already found in its Sync entertainment-and-communications system, which it developed with Microsoft Corp.

Such applications, or “apps,” might do such things as give directions to every espresso shop along a highway open after 9 p.m., or allow friends to follow one another to a location through a GPS process called “breadcrumbing.”

via Ford Seeks iPhone-Like Apps for Its Cars – WSJ.com.

While this is not some huge innovation, it’s just another example of the free market improving our lives daily with little improvements. In pursuit of a competitve advantage, Ford is looking at making your life just a little better. GPS has already made driving much better, and this is the next step. Having something similar to the iPhone built into your car will open up your travel to millions of innovators all over the world. That article mentions finding coffee shops opened after 9pm. How about an application that reminds you to pick up flowers for you wife on your way home? How about an app that searches the local area for the best gas price? How about an app that checks your email on the way to the office, so you can filter though the less important emails before work even begins? The possibilities are endless, and this is how the free market makes our lives better. As I’ve said previously, the fastest growing and most innovative areas of our economy are the ones with the least government regulation and involvement. Imagine what would happen if this innovation was allowed to flourish in the health care industry.

This is breaking news on the Wall Street Journal. Hillary Clinton pledges $100 billion per year out of American tax payers’ pockets to hand over to the Mugabes of the world via the “Climate-Aid Fund”.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has announced that the U.S. is prepared to join other rich countries in raising $100 billion in yearly climate financing for poor countries by 2020.

The announcement could give a boost to deadlocked climate talks which have faltered over disputes between rich and poor countries over emissions cuts and climate financing.

Mrs. Clinton said the financing is contingent on world leaders reaching a broader climate pact at the U.N. talks in Copenhagen.

She said the deal must include all major economies, meaningful actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions and a system to ensure all parties’ actions are transparent.

Mrs. Clinton says “$100 billion is a lot. It can have tangible effects.”

via Clinton: U.S. Ready to Join Climate-Aid Fund – WSJ.com.

So, let’s get this straight so I can get back to reading how to survive the coming collapse. We are already borrowing over $1 trillion a year. On top of that, we are going to borrow another $100 billion for this climate change scam. We are going to ask China to lend us money to hand it over to Mugabe. In other words, we are slaves to Mugabe. We are pledging our future and our children’s future labor to give $100 billion now and every year in the future to the Mugabes of the world. Did any of these political pigs want to ask us if we wanted to be enslaved so they could feel good about themselves?

Next time Obama goes back over to China to tell them how bad their leaders are and how they aren’t free, can he take the gun away from our heads first? Without the government gun to our heads, Americans would never fork over $100 billion to hand to tin pot despots.  I believe there was once a revolution over taxation without representation. Maybe it’s time for another one.