Archive for the ‘National’ Category

Secession

Saturday, April 25th, 2009

Last week on Tax Day, Texas Governor Rick Perry intimated at the possibility of Texas seceding from the U.S. at some point (supposedly in the not too distant future).

Texas is a unique place. When we came into the union in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that," Perry said. "My hope is that America and Washington in particular pays attention. We’ve got a great union. There’s absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, who knows what may come of that.

I believe that our federal government has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens, and its interference with the affairs of our state.

That is why I am here today to express my unwavering support for efforts all across our country to reaffirm the states’ rights affirmed by the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I believe that returning to the letter and spirit of the U.S. Constitution and its essential 10th Amendment will free our state from undue regulations, and ultimately strengthen our Union.

"I have never seen the power of the grassroots as animated and as focused and as coordinated…It is a very powerful moment in American history.

"I would suggest that members of congress who are filing for election or re-election in eight months are listening."

"They’re hearing everyday working folks saying, ‘Listen, it’s out of control. We’re trying to live our lives and you’re strangling us with your spending and your taxation.

Note, I’m not sure on the ordering of the quotes above, I got them from several sources.

This has provoked a lot of comments both for and against the right to secession (which ended with the Civil War).  I, for one, am a proponent of bringing back that right.  I agree with almost everything that Gov. Perry said, except for the part about “We’ve got a great union. There’s absolutely no reason to dissolve it.”  If we can’t keep the federal government under control (and it is supposed to be under our control), then the states need to have some recourse.

Comments by some Democrats were completely foreseeable:

"Talk of secession is an attack on our country. It can be nothing else. It is the ultimate anti-American statement," Rep. Jim Dunnam of Waco said at a news conference.

I don’t see such comments as being anti-American, I think they can be some of the most pro-American comments that can be made.  If made by someone that really cares about this country, I think that it shows just how out of whack things have truly become.

Drugs and Guns

Friday, April 10th, 2009

 

From the Tampabay.com article “In wake of Paris’ shooting, one question looms: How did they get assault weapons?

Drug dealers acquire these weapons for two reasons, authorities say:

Protection from other, rival dealers. And status.

I have to disagree with that second, and even if it is somewhat valid, I don’t think it would be reason enough alone for them to spend the time and money to acquire the weapons they do.  Drug dealers need guns to protect their product.  Why?  Because they aren’t protected by the law.  End the war on drugs, and this kind of stupidity ends.

Moral Busybodies

Tuesday, March 31st, 2009

This kind of thinking is, I think, a large cause of the troubles in the world today. 

Although The Lancet study is proof of concept, experts still question the ethics of a pill for lifestyle issues.

Critics say the problems of high blood pressure and cholesterol should be tackled with diet and exercise rather than by popping a pill.

Why is it someone else’s business if I choose to “pop a pill” in order to address health issues instead of going the “correct” route of diet and exercise?  And who are these “experts” that make this decision that diet and exercise are the “correct” route?  Who appointed them our overseers?  It’s this kind of thing that erodes away at our freedoms a tiny piece at a time if we don’t address them.  First they criticize, then they suggest solutions, then they legislate what we can and can’t do.  Why do they think that they can run our lives better than we can?

Watchdogs

Monday, March 23rd, 2009

Stories like this one really upset me.  Why is it that we call for the government to provide “oversight” of private companies like this?

The Federal Trade Commission is being asked to investigate Internet search giant Google for a lack of security Relevant Products/Services in its cloud-computing services, a framework of software and services in which applications and data reside on third-party servers that provide remote access through Web-based devices.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), a Washington, D.C.-based public-interest group, filed the complaint and is asking for an injunction by the FTC to stop Google from offering any of its cloud services until the FTC has investigated Google’s safeguarding of consumers’ information.

Ok, great, so you’ve found issues with Google’s security.  Why isn’t just announcing this fact enough?  Why is there a government agency involved here?  The problem is that government really doesn’t have the resources (nor should they) to police private industry like this.  Just look at how well they “regulated” the banking industry, and the power industry, and monetary policy, and they’re getting into fast food.  I could go on and on.  They pass laws, people find creative ways around them.  If someone gets caught, they get fined, but what happens to the private investors in that scenario?  We get bent over the barrel.

Do you think that consumers are more careful about where they put their money in an “unregulated” (by that I mean not government regulated) system, or where where the government “regulates” things.  In systems where the government says they are “regulating” things, all they are really doing is providing a false sense of security to the private consumer, which is really worse than no sense of security at all.  The distributed knowledge of the people is far greater than any limited political body of bureaucrats can comprehend.

So if you’re interested in keeping as much of your money as government will let you, just remember, that watchdog that is looking out for you, someone else put him there, and he obeys them, not you, and he’s old, deaf, blind and can’t smell anymore.

Right of Revolution

Thursday, March 12th, 2009

Taken from the NH constitution:

Art. 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

I think we need to adopt something like this article back into the U.S. Constitution.  We (or at least the states) had the right to secede from the union before the civil war.  I think we need to have that right back.

Here is another nice tidbit from NH:

Art. 15. [Compensation of the Legislature.] The presiding officers of both houses of the legislature, shall severally receive out of the state treasury as compensation in full for their services for the term elected [two years] the sum of $250, and all other members thereof, seasonably attending and not departing without license, the sum of $200