Invisible Contracts -- caught in our own snares

I won't go into a long dissertation on either the importance of the subject at hand, nor on the contents of the documentation which comprise it. I simply want to turn you on to something someone turned me onto recently while in a meeting between associates in my area. The subject is, of course, Invisible Contracts which we voluntarily (remember, the 14th Amendment only makes involuntary servitude illegal in America, not voluntary servitude) enter into in our commercial lives. The snares which we lay for ourselves by voluntarily agreeing to the terms of the contracts aforesaid, is the payment we receive in return for our lack of self-governing, independent qualities.

Disclaimer: I'm not agreeing with or endorsing the author's beliefs per his Mormon education.

Read More

Federal government bombs Pearl Harbor...

--awakens sleeping giant with a terrible resolve?

How many times have I said over the last few months that Hussein Obama and the Socialist Democrats are moving the ball forward way too fast, way too aggressively on such items as the infamous 'stimulus' package, 'federalizing' health care and etc., resulting in the alarm they've engendered within a significant and growing proportion of the general American populace?

There's a good discussion ongoing at VFR in which commenter Mark P. touches on this exact point.

Mark P. writes:

Basically, the Left is attempting to do too much, too fast, with way too many changes occurring in too short a time, with results experienced too sson to allow memories to fade. They are too impatient, probably due to the short-term thinking of the new cohort of liberals.

Yep. And though Auster's entry concerns itself with health care specifically, and which Mark P. is mainly speaking to, I suspect that like me Mark understands that it goes beyond federalizing health care.

The Democrats are -- under Hussein, Pelosi, Reid -- fast and furiously, and with reckless abandon such as we've never witnessed in this country, trying to ram every God-forsaken leftist-communist item they can while they can down our throats. And they somehow expect Americans (particularly self-governing producers) to simply lay down and take that b.s.?

I personally think they overestimate the extent of the damage liberalism has already done to the American spirit and psyche. Perhaps not on a conscious level, but the world is to them as they perceive it to be anyhow. I'm not saying that liberal dominance hasn't caused a lot of practically irreparable harm to the country, such as creating a large dependent class, fostering an entitlement mentality amongst certain and sundry demographic groups, constitutional and civic illiteracy and a host of others. I'm simply saying that government indoctrination hasn't quite worked out the way they planned it for a bunch of us. Some of us, evidently, and in spite of all of their efforts to train us up in the ways of the all-encompassing ideology of liberalism, were just too stupid (or hard-headed), evidently, to get it.

I've said before that my education just didn't take because I wasn't that interested in it to start with. No one ever expected or otherwise demanded me to achieve academic excellence, so I didn't because I had no reason to. No; I just did what I had to do, nothing more, nothing less. Which is to say that I maintained something like a B- average throughout my educational career because that was all that was required of me. And as you probably already know, it takes very little effort to maintain a B- grade average, so little in fact that one rarely needs to take a book home or "study" in any meaningful sense of the word. Indeed, I missed so many days of school, so many assignments and tests one year in H.S. that about 2/3 of the way through the semester I finally decided to start attending classes on a regular basis and pull my average up from an F to a high C. That is all it took, going to class, completing my assignments, memorizing test answers and such.

Anyway, I don't rightly know how I got off on that tangent, except to say that I think I was trying to lead to a point, which is this -- perhaps liberalism is, unbeknownst to itself and its wild-eyed kooky advocates and promoters, its own worst enemy what with its low expectations and standards. You know, if you begin with low standards for academic achievement, and you create an entire educational apparatus (curriculum, methodology, philosophy and so forth) lining up with those low standards, then maybe it contains its own inherently self-destructive mechanism which is bound to self-initiate at some point along the way. Generations come and they go, and liberalism continues its march forward until it reaches its apex. After which point, what? -- that which goes up must come down, following the laws of physics? I don't know, but it's an interesting thesis that might be worth pursuing further.

Y'all be sure to read the VFR discussion linked above.

Read More

On Limited Government and racism

In a comment to the preceding entry Chiu Chunling wrote:

This is why the argument over who is racist is so pointless. Jack Hampton goes on to (inadvertently) make a pretty good case that racism is a necessary characteristic of any society which wants to be around in the long term.

I don't believe that to be the case, but I certainly do believe that a society which tries to eradicate racism will only succeed in institutionalizing oppression directed towards those groups with the most actual value to that society.

People tend to fall into the idea that whatever government permits is therefore endorsed. That can only be true in totalitarian society. A limited government permits much that it is simply prohibited from forbidding.

It is a mark of how far America has strayed, that almost no one can spontaneously imagine what limited government would suggest.

Which I thought was so good that it deserved a separate entry all to itself. Take some time to think on what Chiu is saying here. Deconstruct his statements, if you will.

Read More

Why am I wrong to take the position I take?

In attempting to find some Webster's reference (which I think there is) to commenter Chiu Chunling's assertion which I quoted in the previous post, I found this comment (which I included as a comment) to one of my posts,

Terry Morris said...
It occurs to me that some folks who read this post might think I'm being a bit radical in stating that I refuse to participate further in the schemes of the federal government. A couple of points to make on that:

1) As Thomas Jefferson so aptly put it, "resistance to tyranny is obedience to God." And as one of my favorite H.S. teachers put it to me in 1984, "you better be radical about something." [TM: I actually saw this teacher at a football game last Friday night, though I didn't introduce my 25-year-older self as a matter of ultimate respect).

2) If I choose to limit my personal participation in the federal government's schemes to rob me and others of the wealth we create to fund policies and projects that we do not agree with and would not otherwise support, by legal means, what is radical about that?

Let's put it this way, I can choose to work x number of hours or y number of hours. If x is the number of hours I need to work to keep my family up with minimal participation on my part in the government's program, and y is the number of hours I need to work to to support my family and make a maximum personal contribution to the government's program, I'm simply choosing option x as opposed to option y. This means I'm opting out, to the greatest extent possible, of the federal government's tax-and-spend policies.

You think I'm wrong to do so? I challenge you to support that assertion.

This challenge still stands.

Read More

How my home town (Pop.: approx. 1,200) made the national news recently

Apparently the folks at ABC News think that when small-town Oklahoma has a dispute with its acting police chief and his miscreant incompetent police force such that they all abandon their posts, along with the Mayor, Vice Mayor, and the City Attorney, this must mean that the city's people are in a state of anarchy and that the county sheriff's office had to be called in to restore order.

Bwahahahahahaha!!!

Well, what ABC and the national news media deems to be anarchy, we in small-town Oklahoma call self-government, self-reliance, self-sufficiency; a law unto ourselves. Having those things (Mayor's office and police force) is a luxury, not a necessity, particularly in the short term. You see, it is impossible that Ringling, Oklahoma will ever degenerate into a state of anarchy, resignations of the City's entire executive department notwithstanding. There are too many good, law-abiding, God-fearing gun owners there, if you know what I mean. And everybody, including the vagabonds, knows it and doesn't dare push it for fear of the consequences. I know, it's my home town, and the majority of my family on Dad's side, not to mention a lot of long-time friends not-to-be-messed-with, still live there.

Read the ABC News story. It's laughable. And do read some of the ridiculous comments from the sheeple who apparently believe everything they read, because, well, you know, ABC and the national news media would never hype anything or get their facts wrong. But, you know, people tend to project on others what would happen with similar circumstances in their own cases, not realizing that the people in small-town USA aren't nearly as prone to be dependents as their big-city counterparts. Hey, that's just the way it is.

Reckon who tipped off ABC on this one, and what is his affiliation with Russell Goldman? I could probably get it in three tries or less - (former) Mayor, Vice Mayor, Police Chief. :-) (Hat tip: Dad)

Read More

Hunker down people, things are fixin' to get rough!

Is Gerald Celente all he's cracked up to be among certain television and radio media personalities? I don't know, but it seems like Mr. Celente has put together a pretty impressive portfolio of accurately predicting certain trends before they actually begin to manifest themselves in a significant and noticeable way.

Perhaps like me you've seen Mr. Celente appear recently as a guest on various network news programs such as Glenn Beck's show on Fox News. Of course the guest segments on those shows are always too short to get a good feel for who these personalities are and how believable they may or may not be. Celente is nonetheless capitalizing on the economic uncertainty amongst the folks, thus making a name for himself beyond the confines of New York City and economic elitists. And he's making dire predictions for our short term future, including, yes, 2009.

So what is Mr. Celente predicting for this year, 2009, and how can we get to know him better? See below the fold.

________________________________________________________

Here's the first segment of Celente's guest appearance on the Alex Jones radio program from Dec. 18, 2008:



Also, here's Celente's appearance on Art Bell's Coast to Coast radio show of the same date:



And here's the first segment of Catherine Austin Fitts's December 19, 2008 appearance on Coast to Coast where she discusses the same topic and in which she offers some down-to-earth practicable steps that individuals can take in order to prepare themselves, their families, and their local communities to best deal with the impending economic collapse. In other words, to become more self-sufficient, self-sustaining, and self-governing on an individual and a local level:

Read More

How long before the U.S. goes belly-up?

Have a look at and contemplate the implications of this GoV entry.

Baron Bodissey writes:

Last night I mentioned the imaginary money that is being used to bail out the favorites of Treasury Secretary Paulson and other members of the Washington Mandarin class. The government has paid off bad bank loans and bailed out failing businesses by borrowing enormous quantities of money from — well, from future taxpayers who will somehow become three or four times richer than they are now under the new Socialist regime.

But it’s even worse than I thought: the level of federal indebtedness has moved beyond mere profligacy into a new realm of total financial fantasy. The national debt is about to surpass the net worth of every man, woman, and child in the USA.

As I said in a comment to the entry, I have no economic expertise, but I can add, and the numbers seem to me not to add up given current longstanding trends. Other commenters have pointed out that debt to net worth ratio needn't favor the latter for a person or an entity to remain economically viable. This is true I think and can be proven by a couple of simple examples. For instance, people frequently make large purchases which exceed their family's total net worth -- a house is a good example, but for some even the purchase of a 30 thousand dollar vehicle exceeds the individual's total net worth, whether he might like to admit it or not. I'm not saying it's wise (for an individual or a government) to do so, but it is pretty commonplace and it doesn't always end in financial ruin.

But again, the issue for me is the number of net taxpayers compared to the number of non-net taxpayers, current and future. What that comes down to in simple terms is the number of people who pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits vs. the number of people who receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes, and what that ratio will be in the coming years.

My view has always been that we have to reverse this trend. And that comes down to a little self-sacrifice on the part of individuals. Yes, it can be painful. But what that's truly valuable isn't painful in acquiring or achieving?

Read More

Why does anyone need a "monster truck"?

I don't know. Why does anyone need a ten thousand dollar coin collection, or a large personal library, or a six thousand square foot home on 100 acres when 1,500 sq. ft. and five acres would more than suffice?

I have no interest in owning a monster truck, or a collection of motorcycles, or any number of things. But I know many people who do, and I don't begrudge them for it. I don't understand their obsession with this, that, and the other, but by the same token I'm sure they think my obsessions are a bit odd, if not extravagant themselves.

Auster has an entry up titled "What makes the rich tick?" I think the question really is "What makes the average guy tick?"

Ben W. writes:

Notice that I'm spending more therefore I need more money. The use of money and its need (and growth) accompanies the increased use of resources. If someone argues that I don't need HDTV, I'll say just try watching HDTV for a week and then try going back to standard TV.

And as I said in my comments on Ben's thoughts, while I can't agree with Ben concerning his apparent belief that watching HDTV will necessarily result in one having to own one, I think the main principle still stands. I know a lot of people who are rather obsessive about various hobbies that I personally have no interest in whatsoever. But I don't need to know why Monster Truck enthusiasts, as one example among innumerable ones, have an insatiable desire to own and drive and tinker with them. The most important thing for me is that these interests, whether they're my interests or not, are the kinds of things that motivate them to be productive, and self-sufficient, and so forth and so on.

Read More

Local enforcement of immigration laws works!

As I've said countless times, I firmly believe that the best, most effective (in a variety of ways) method of dealing with the immigration problem in this country is to leave it to the states and the local communities to do the vast majority of the "heavy lifting" for themselves. Do note that I didn't say "allow" them to do it, but leave it to them to do for themselves. In other words, get out of the way and let them govern themselves. They will. Case in point? Recent happenings in the border state Arizona. Here's the entirety of the article from the Intellectual Conservative:

Striking changes in Arizona as illegal immigrants flee the state
by Rachel Alexander

Arizona is leading the nation in local enforcement of laws against illegal immigration. As illegal immigrants leave the state, the state's most serious problems such as traffic congestion and the expense of teaching English Language Learner classes are dissipating.

Since Arizona's local law enforcement began enforcing illegal immigration laws and an employer sanctions law went into effect, illegal immigrants have been fleeing the state in large numbers. The effects have been far-ranging. Commuters are reporting fewer vehicles on the freeways, shortening their rush-hour commutes. What had become a serious transportation problem in Arizona is losing its urgency. English Learner Language (ELL) students started dropping out of school. This helped end a confrontation between the state legislature and a liberal federal judge who had ordered the state to spend more money on ELL classes.

Fewer illegal immigrants are using hospital emergency rooms, so waiting times have decreased. Although the rest of the country is in an economic slump, unemployment is going down in Arizona, from 4.5% in January to 4.1% in March. Day laborers loitering outside of Home Depot and other stores have mostly disappeared, ending months of confrontation between illegal immigrant sympathizers and protesters. Desert lands near the border are returning to their pristine condition and the wildlife is coming back. Identity theft and car thefts are decreasing. No one showed up on May 1 to march in immigrant rallies.

With illegal immigrants leaving, the state will see huge savings as fewer illegal immigrants use social welfare programs and the cost of arresting, prosecuting, incarcerating and deporting them decreases. Arizona is facing one of the worst budget deficits ever, looming as high as $2 billion in 2009, but the situation may resolve itself.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas are leading the local law enforcement efforts in Arizona against illegal immigration. Arizona is also home to State Representative Russell Pearce, who is responsible for spearheading possibly more laws against illegal immigration than any other state representative in the country. It is also home to Chris Simcox, President of the Minutemen Civil Defense Corps. Other counties around the state are beginning to follow the lead of Maricopa County, signing agreements with I.C.E. to permit their law enforcement agencies to arrest illegal immigrants. Cochise County Attorney Ed Rheinheimer intends to prosecute illegal immigrants for trespassing on public lands. Mesa mayor Keno Hawker recently wrote an op-ed in the East Valley Tribune praising Sheriff Joe Arpaio's sweeps of illegal immigrants. Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik bypassed the Pima County Supervisors when they refused to authorize him to add two Border Patrol agents to his border crime unit, and added them anyways.

Although Arizona's Democrat Governor Janet Napolitano has vetoed most illegal immigration bills since 2002 when she entered office, Arizonans have bypassed her by sending initiatives directly to the ballot. In 2004, voters passed four illegal immigration measures with over 70% yes margins. A law targeting drophouses was signed into law earlier this month. An even stricter employer sanctions measure is currently underway to be on the ballot this fall.

Arizona's illegal immigrants are fleeing to sanctuary cities like San Francisco and states with less enforcement and laws prohibiting illegal immigration like Nebraska, Iowa, and Maryland. Since one out of every 10 illegal immigrant is a felon, the result is felons are disproportionately moving to these places.

Granted there are benefits that immigrants bring to our country. But those benefits are outweighed by the negatives when the immigrants cross illegally. There are too many rules, laws, traditions, and practices in society that conflict with illegal immigrants trying to make a living. Arizona's experiment may end up resolving the illegal immigration problem satisfactorily for all, because once the fiscal expense of illegal immigrants is brought down, revising the laws to permit more immigrants to enter the country legally will become more attractive and realistic.

Of course I'm of the opinion that legal immigration is also a huge problem in this country, not just illegal immigration; that if the effects of illegals fleeing the state of Arizona are as good as reported in the story, then it's reasonable to assume that greatly reducing the number of "legal immigrants" to this country would also have very positive short and long term effects (an opinion which doesn't seem to be shared by the writer, but I understand, it isn't pc to favor restrictions on legal immigration.). And of course I'd like to see this done as well at the state and local level in accordance with the tenth amendment, U.S. Constitution.

My hat goes off to the people of the great state of Arizona! Now to resolve that Muslim prayer issue in the Arizona House chambers...

Read More