Archive for December, 2012|Monthly archive page
The purpose of gun control is not the control of guns. It is control of people. The political overlords who screech the loudest about banning guns surround themselves with guns in their employ. They have no intention of surrendering them. It’s the slaves who will be disarmed.
The deadliest thing ever created by humankind is government.
Sure guns are dangerous. So are cars, and ladders. But if you really want to rack up body counts in the tens and hundreds of millions, ya’ just gotta’ have a government.
So what do the good, gun grabbing Progressives offer us. More government.
What have gun grabbing pro-government “Progressive” sorts given us? Gulags and gas chambers.
What is the only counter to Murder by Government? An armed populace.
I used to work with an anti-gun fanatic. When I heard the news about the Newtown shooting, I figured the e-mail would show up in…3…2…1…”you have mail”. I try to keep discussion with him civil, so I didn’t point out that he had far more responsibility for the killing of those kids than the gun supporters do. If the gun supporters had been listened to, the crazy guy would never had made it to the classroom where the kids died. Instead, the gun haters had the school put up signs saying, “Open season on our kids!” It took 20 minutes for the police to show up. This guy could have done the dirty deed with a baseball bat. Do the gun haters care? No. They want more dead kids so they can ban guns and open up their gulags and gas chambers.
Umm. No. I don’t think they have the moral high ground. They present arguments based on hatred and ignorance and the world will be the worse for it.
An armed society is a free society. An unarmed society is a slave society. Freedom is messy. Slavery is unacceptable.
PS: Do you know that the origin of gun control in the United States was to keep blacks from arming themselves against the Ku Klux Klan in the South? If you are a gun grabber, you travel with a fine crowd. Chew on that.
Change the title of the Speaker of the House to the President of the House. Change the title of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to the President of the Supreme Court. Add Article 0, “The federal government shall consist of three separate and equal branches.
The head of the Senate is already the President of the Senate and I earlier recommended getting rid of the Vice President position so the President of the Senate would become a full time, real position now filled by the majority leader. It’s harder for the president to act like a king when there are four presidents in the government and the constitution explicitly states that none are subordinate.
And by that, of course, I’m actually referencing the movie of that name.
The premise of the movie is that the Founding Fathers laid out an intricate puzzle of clues all over the world leading to the discovery of a King’s Ransom on steroids. Yeah, they probably weren’t that smart. And even they in the 18th Century could probably have figured out that many of the structures that existed then may or may not stand long in a growing city. Of course, the movie use Revolutionary vintage buildings because those were the ones that weren’t torn down.
So do I think there is a Great Treasure sitting under my feet. Hardly. If I did, I wouldn’t be writing about it to my ones of readers. I’d be having a date with a shovel.
The Federal Empire, formerly known at the Federal government has become in frightening ways every bit the oppressive overlord that King George III was when the Founding Fathers said, “Time to move on.” Not sure what KG III was into? Try reading the entire Declaration of Independence. It’s only one page long. <cue Jeopardy music> I’ll wait </cue> Notice any similarities?
There have been various stories about different Founding Fathers being transported to the current day to see what they had wrought. I think it would be safe to say they would be blown away by the size and scope of the technological wonders. Cars racing down paved roads at speeds unknown in their day except by bullets and arrows. Buildings bigger than the pyramids. Airplanes. Smart phones.
But then there is the issue of what they would think of the size and power of the federal government. Any ambiguity they may have had about the benefits vs. the cost in liberties would probably be resolved after being fondled by the government appointed sexual predators of the TSA. Would they be shocked? Would they be despondent? Would they wail about how their experiment in self-government went so wrong?
I think not. First off, the Founding Fathers were not a bunch of weak kneed whiners. I think after the initial shock of the sexual assault, they would draw themselves up, recompose themselves, look at their hosts with some disdain in the knowledge that their hosts allowed this to come to pass in the first place and go, “So now what are you going to do?”
I don’t think they would be shocked because I think they suspect it would come to this…again. Governments accumulate power. That’s what they do. Trees grow. Birds fly. Fish swim. Governments become oppressive.
So now what are you going to do?
Huh? What? Where did that come from?
Sounds like a job for a parable.
A hundred people find themselves stranded on a previously deserted island (because it wouldn’t be deserted after they landed).
They have a group discussion and agree that they should make all major decisions democratically. The rules would be: All issues shall be decided by simple majority vote; all shall abide by the Will of the Majority; and all shall have the right to be heard. Everyone swears an oath to support the Covenant.
Labor is divided, shelters are built, food is acquired and the community slowly pulls itself away from the dire straights it was in on Day 1.
Of course in every group of people, there are those who don’t feel they should have to work as hard as others, or they feel that others aren’t pulling their weight. Some feel they shouldn’t have to work as hard as others, that they are entitled to special treatment.
One influential individual starts to organize those people, building on their grievances and eventually gets fifty members of the community to join his project. He has some of his group call a community meeting. At the meeting, a motion is made that a minority of slackers need to be made to carry their weight. Those slackers would have to do what the majority said they needed to do and that the majority would identify the slackers after the vote. This would be to ensure equality.
Obvious result – a minimum of 51 yeahs. Doesn’t really matter how the rest vote. Once the motion passes, the 51 enslave the other 49. The 49 are required to do all of the work of supporting the community. Everything they make will be redistributed to the others. When the 49 start to complain, loudly, the majority tells them that they may not complain. When the 49 insist on their right to speak under the Covenant, the majority says they are free to speak what the 51 tells them they can say because the Equality Law said so. Dissent against Equality was a betrayal of their sworn oaths to abide by the Will of the Majority.
This is what
GrouchoKarl Marx* meant by the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. This is what the Scottish philosopher Alexander Fraser Tytler meant when he wrote, “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.” And the public treasury is of course, other people’s wealth, labor and capital.
<sigh> Unfortunately, the United States is there. The Democratic “Party of Slavery” has managed to get a majority of the community to enslave a convenient minority in the name of Equality, Redistribution and Entitlement.
The good thing is that the Democratic “Party of Slavery” has brought us to this point…again. And that means that it may be possible to pull back from the brink…again.
The greatest days of the United States’ power an glory were after 12 years of FDR’s “Progressivism”**.
* I always get them confused. Neither could be taken seriously.
** “Progressivism” in scare quotes because there is really nothing progressive about the Political Left’s agenda.
Here’s an idea for improving the popular representation in Congress.
The House of Representatives shall consist of 400 members. Each member shall stand for election every two years. Representatives shall be selected in the following way: Each Party filing for the House of Representatives shall submit a slate of 400 electors listed by priority. The number of electors selected in order of priority from each Party for seats in the House shall be proportional to the popular vote for that party.
I’ve heard people propose ratifying the first constitutional amendment proposal in order to increase their “representation” in Congress. The first proposed amendment would fix congressional districts at one congressmen for each 30,000 people. That would be a House of Representatives of over 10,000 members. If Congress has to meet in a football stadium, you are not getting represented. Few representatives would even get opportunities to speak. The chamber would be completely dominated by a handful of “congressional leaders”, kind of like the current seniority system. Ultimately, such a useless body would simply contribute to the growth of an Imperial Executive.
The current House elected by district may only represent a little over half the population. I haven’t had a representative in Congress for most of my adult life. Proportional representation says any group that makes up 1/4 % of the voting public gets a representative, or about 150,000 people on big election days. Of course the slate of candidates would be affected by the term limits.
Proportional representation is the best way to break the stranglehold the Binopoly on power held by the two big parties. There were more than enough votes for third parties to get substantial representation under the district system but it never happens because the votes are spread all over the country. Proportional representation fixes that.
As a secondary effect, proportional representation makes it harder for the corrupting practice of “bringing home the bacon” to work because for the most part, individual representatives would not have a home district to send bacon to. Now a big area, like New York City could create a local part (call it the NYC Party) whose whole purpose is to steal for the City. They could conceivably get enough votes to hold a number of seats in the house (one seat for each 150,000 votes). But they would have to influence all the other representatives, many without clearly defined constituent areas, to steal from their own constituents to give to New York. Politics would ensue, but that’s what legislating is all about.