Month: July 2011

They’re Not Even Pretending to Be Representatives Anymore

I know that our “representatives” on Capitol Hill aren’t representing us in any way but at least they used to pay lip service to their title. For some time though these politicians have been getting more and more blatant about the fact that they view themselves as our rules, not our “representatives.” This becomes obvious when issues arise making it difficult for the government to grasp even more power.

Take the debt ceiling for instance, our government needs to be able to rack up the credit card some more in order to expand even further into our lives. As it sits the government’s credit limit is quickly approaching and no more money can be borrowed unless the government gives itself a credit extension. When you get to give yourself credit extensions they’re easy to obtain but sometimes you have to pretend it’s difficult. Right now there is a political pissing contest between those who want to rack up the credit card some more and those who are trying to salvage what they can of the American economy by reducing our ever increasing debt.

Well those who want to increase the credit limit have hit upon a plan, establish a 12 member “super” congress that would have the full authority to raise the debt ceiling:

The ongoing battle between the House, Senate, and President over the upcoming debt crisis has led establishment Congressmen in the Senate to propose the creation of a Super Congress to create and pass legislation allowing for the raising of the debt ceiling. Led by Republican Senator Mitch McConnell, and proposed on July 24th during the weekend debt ceiling meetings, this new bi-partisan gang of 12 would unconstitutionally allow for laws to be passed solely by the group, and bypassing what they consider the majority of ‘regular’ members of Congress.

George W. Bush is often incorrectly quoted as saying the Constitution is just a “goddamned piece of paper.” Although it’s highly unlikely that he actually said that the bitch of the thing is that the quote is accurate.

I know a lot of people get very upset when you mention that the Constitution is just a piece of paper with some writing on it. What I’m talking about in this case is the physical document itself, divorced from the ideals and rules that are described in the document. Physically the Constitution is a mere piece of paper with writing on it that declares a foundation for the federal government. As with any piece of paper the Constitution is unable to enforce any ideas that are written upon it.

Although the Constitution never mentions that the federal government has the authority to establish a 12 person “super” congress some people on Capitol Hill are seriously considering it. The Constitution also never authorizes executive orders, social security, public education, the highway infrastructure, or any of the other federally run government programs not outlined in the Constitution itself. What the Constitution does say in the Tenth Amendment is, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Thus if the Constitution doesn’t specifically grant the federal government powers they’re not supposed to have it. Yet they exercise verboten powers all of the time and nothing happens. Why? Because the Constitution is a piece of paper. The important parts, the ideas and laws set forth, are easily ignored because a piece of paper can’t enforce what is written upon it. That enforcement is up to people, and the people we’ve put in charge of doing that are disregarding their supposed duty.

Instead of performing their job of upholding the laws of the United States our “representatives” have decided it’s their duty to rule over us with an iron fist. They’ve decided this because unchecked power attracts megalomaniacs. The power to rule has been left unchecked in the United States because people no longer oppose blatant abuses of this power. The majority of the people in this country just sit idly by without raising a fuss and continue to re-elect those who keep grabbing for more.

The people of this country were supposed to be the teeth of the Constitution. If those who were sent to Washington D.C. abused their power the people who elected them were supposed to either recall the offender or prevent him from going back come next election cycle. The people of this country were supposed to use their power of jury nullification to toss out laws that were blatantly unconstitutional or otherwise bad.

When shit like this “super” congress come to light nobody puts up a fuss. As soon as this news became public there should have been angry letters and phone calls going to those supporting this idea with the threat of recall made absolutely clear. Instead the silence of the majority has lead to the creation of Leviathan, a monster created by power hunger madmen who conclude to increase the authority they wield of the people.

The reason I’m such a strong supporter of Ron Paul for president is because he’s one of the few politicians who not only promotes the idea of individual liberty but also votes based on those ideas. We need to get a man like that in the White House to keep the House and Senate in check. We need somebody who will like at a power play like this “super” congress and say “No way in Hell!” The guy sitting in the Oval Office should be liberal (using the definition of given, used, or occurring in generous amounts) with the use of veto powers.

To summarize what I’ve said to those not looking to actually read a long-form post, this shit needs to end. I’ve lost all belief that any government can be good but I still believe that it can be better than despotism. People need to look at news like this “super” congress and get pissed off. The people on Capital Hill are trying to control more and more of our lives and we need to say enough is enough. We have a chance at this by working to make Ron Paul is the Republican nominee and then electing him into the White House. With him in the White House there will at least be one check in the federal government working on our side and ensuring shit like this “super” congress doesn’t get through for four years (hopefully eight).

Because Everybody Else is Doing It

I understand that the AR-15 is a great rifle and producing one generates easy income. As I have this understanding I hold not ill-will towards companies that manufacture some kind of AR-15 pattern rifle, it’s good business, but I will also admit that it’s getting to be a complete non-issue when a new company introduces a new rifle. Why is it a complete non-issue now? Because every new rife announcement is yet another AR-15 pattern rifle and honestly it’s boring.

I’m saying this as Mossberg has introduced an AR-15. The fact that Mossberg has made this announcement isn’t the news item, the fact that they didn’t already have an AR-15 on the market is a news item. Every time another gun manufacturer announces that they’re producing an AR-15 I’m not shocked by the introduction, I’m shocked by the fact that a manufacturer still existed that didn’t have such a rifle on the market.

I love the AR-15 but honestly I’d like to see a new rifle announcement that isn’t yet another AR-15. How about a manufacturer drum up some hype about a new rifle they’re going to be introducing and actually introduce something completely new. I’m not talking about yet another AR-15 style rifle like the SCAR; No, I’m talking about something totally off the wall. I’m getting bored with all of these AR-15 announcements and damn it it’s the job of the gun industry to keep me entertained and excited.

Not Left, Not Right, Just Crazy

After the recent attack in Norway people on the left have been moving to accuse the attacker, Anders Behring Breivik, of being a right-wing extremist while the people on the right have been moving to accuse him of being a left-wing extremist. When you look at the available evidence though one thing becomes apparent, like most similar situations, this man wasn’t left, he wasn’t right, he was plain crazy.

This fact is reflect in a book that he wrote entitled A European Declaration of Independence [PDF]. You’ll notice that I’m hosting this file on my server. This isn’t because I condone any material in the book, in fact I firmly oppose this man’s viewpoints and manifesto, I’m hosting it because I feel it is required material to understand the fact that this man wasn’t left or right. I’m also guessing that there will be some pressure to have this document removed making any third-party hosting potentially unreliable.

The document is also quite long and thus I have not read it, I’ve only skimmed it to get a possible understanding of what “logic” was going through this man’s mind. The passages I’ve selected are purposefully selected to demonstrate the point that this man can’t be considered a right or left-wing extremist. Likewise the document is basically a criticism of Islamic religion which I’m not going to touch with a fucking cattle prod.

Others can accuse this person of being a religious extremist but I submit that a man who is willing to initiation violence isn’t right in the head to begin with. It doesn’t matter if a person is Christian, Muslim, Atheist, etc.; if you are willing to initiate violence in an attempt to advance your cause you’re not a sane individual. I don’t believe such people kill because of their religion but use religion to justify their desire to use violence as a means to achieve their goal.

Just think about most of the people who kill in the name of their religion, they select particular passages from holy books that seem to justify their actions but in the end what these people are always after is control over others. It’s pretty fucking easy to claim God, Thor, Shiva, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster told you that they were angry with the human race and have selected you alone to be their messenger. When these people are able to fulfill their religious crusades they always place themselves in a position of absolute power by claiming to be the prophet of whatever religious deity/deities they’ve chosen to use to justify their desire to rule over others.

Look at any secular state and you’ll notice that they’re generally run by one or, at most, a handful of people who have absolute authority over the populace. In the case of any secular state, unless those in power wrote the religious material, the holy passages they used to justify their rule can be countered in another holy passage of that religion. This is why I’m not going to touch the subject of religion here, I don’t believe it’s the religion that leads to violence, I believe a control-hungry person uses religion to justify their actions. Whether the person uses propaganda in favor for or against a religion is irrelevant as well, it’s still using religion as a justification for action.

Now that I’ve got that rather long statement out of the way let’s look at some of the entries that make this man appear right-wing:

I would personally say that the emphasis on the individual is our most defining trait as a civilisation[sic]. Both Muslims and internal collectivists hate our individualism the most, because it stands in the way of their ideologies.

Traditionally right philosophy is centered around the individual while left philosophy is centered around society as a whole. Stated that emphasis on the individual is a defining trait would lead people to believe this man was right-wing in his thinking.

The West has traditionally been a rational civilisation. We now have an emotional culture, which we see clearly in the immigration debate where emphasis is on whether you “feel good” and whether your “intentions” are good when you support mass immigration, not on rationally calculating the long-term consequences of your actions.

This criticism mirrors ones often made by the right against the left; that the left arguments are based around emotional instead of logical statements. It’s very common for somebody who identifies themselves are right-wing to accuse those identifying themselves as left-wing to be creatures of pure emotions and lacking any logical reasons for their arguments.

We are fighting for secular laws passed with the consent of the people, not sharia nor transnational legislation drafted by bureaucrats and technocrats unaccountable to the people. We do not want to be held hostage by international NGOs, transnational progressives or self-appointed guardians of the truth. Likewise, we are fighting for national sovereignty. No nation regardless of political system can survive the loss of its territorial integrity, but democratic states especially so. We pay national taxes because our authorities are supposed to uphold our national borders. If they can’t do so, the social contract is breached, and we should no longer be required to pay our taxes.

The idea of a country being independent of national organizations is generally considered right-wing, as is the concept of having strong border defenses. Likewise it is generally those on the right who state that we should withhold (or reduce the amount paid) taxes if our government is not doing the desired job.

It is insulting that two thirds of the Dutch, one of the founding members of the European community, voted against the proposed EU Constitution, and yet EU leaders will apparently just ignore this and force their massively undemocratic Constitution down people’s throats anyway.

Most people who identify a right-wing were against the establishment of the European Union Constitution as it was done without the consent (vote) of the government. Meanwhile many who identify themselves as left-wing claim the establishment of the Constitution was the right of the various states to form a more unified organization. As such a constitution promotes a unified European identity many large government advocates were in favor of its establishment.

Now that I’ve identified a handful of passages that establish this man as a proponent of right-wing philosophy let me bring up some passages that will establish this man as a proponent of left-wing philosophy:

Decrease global consummation through implementing protectionist policies.

Protectionist policies and other government interferences with the economy are traditionally left-wing ideas. Proponents of right-wing philosophy generally believe less government interference with the economy is better.

All globalist companies will be nationalised (a minimum of 50,1% ownership must bere- distributed to EF governments hands (combined) at any given time, for their respective countries).

Nationalization of means of production is a left-wing idea. Those who are identified as right-wing usually hold a strong hatred of nationalizing any business; instead they promote privatization of currently nationalized service.

Phase out diesel/benzin vehicles (and thus end our dependency on Muslim oil) and focus on commercialising electric cars/battery cells. This will be a lot more significant problem in the US due to their decentralised infrastructure but much easier in Europe. Larger vehicles (trucks/planes/ships) will in the unforeseeable future still have to rely on diesel/benzin/bunker oil until we have managed to develop battery cells with sufficient power. The development of these battery cells will be a prioritised task.

Trying to end our dependency on oil is generally a left-wing idea although the justification is usually environmental by nature.

First of all we have to ask ourselves. What population size can our planet support? This can be rephrased, in ecological terms, as “What is the carrying capacity of the planet”, as applicable to human populations, specifically. The carrying capacity is the number of individuals an environment can support without significant negative impacts to the given organism and its environment.

The idea that we need to control the human population is another idea that’s generally left-wing in nature. The justification, again, is generally environmental in nature. The desire to reduce the human population is another idea promoted by those who believe we need to move to a “green” society.

There are many more passages in this book that could be seen and either right or left-wing. My goal in this post isn’t to pull out every possible passage for analysis, it’s to point out the fact that this man can’t be seen as either a right or left-wing extremist. He’s fucking nuts, plain and simple. His book promote both individual and socialistic views which are generally incompatible. Although he views individualism as a defining aspect of European society he also believes in nationalization of global companies which is a very anti-individualistic view.

I’d also like to raise a huge fucking middle finger to those who started accusing this man of being a Muslim before any fact came to light. This type of jumping to conclusion is counter-productive and downright sickening. The reason I waited so long before making any statement about the Norwegian tragedy is because I wanted some kind of factual information at hand to make a judgement. The man wasn’t Muslim, quote the opposite is true, he hated Islam and blamed it for all the ills facing Europe.

As I said at the beginning on this article, a person’s religion is not what should be seen as the reason for his or her violent actions. All religions can be used by the violent to justify their actions. Claiming that some deity or deities demanded that you perform acts of violence is nothing more than an attempt to seek validity by these people. A majority of people on this planet are peaceful which is evident by the fact we have working societies. Most Christians, Muslims, Jews, Atheists, etc. are peaceful human beings whom hold no desire to harm their fellow people.

We need to stop looking at abstract groups as the source of violence and instead look at the individuals who commit violent acts. Just because a Christian, Muslim, Jew, or Atheist commits an act of violence doesn’t mean that their respective group is inherently violent. Let’s stop pointing fingers are groups and start holding individuals accountable for their actions.

As a final note I found this statement in the man’s book to be worth a brief discussion:

Needless to say, this is also why Muslims have such a poor track record in science.

I found the passage completely absurd and it demonstrates this man’s willingness to be very selective in his historical research. The portion of history often referred to as the Islamic Golden Age demonstrates that Muslims have a long history of scientific advancements. Islamic science made great contributions to the fields of mathematics, astronomy, medicine, geography, and many others. To say that Muslims have a poor track record in science is ignorant and a downright lie.

And Yet They Wanted to Raise Taxes

During the government “shutdown” many people were demanding that the government increase taxes on “the rich.” Dayton thought that sounded like a swell plan because as everybody knows the smartest thing you can do during an economic depression is steal even more money from productive people. Well that idea sounds even more ridiculous now that Minnesota already ranks seventh in the list of states with the highest tax burdens:

7. Minnesota
Taxes paid by residents as pct. of income: 10.3%
Total state and local taxes collected: $45.7 billion
Pct. of total taxes paid by residents: 75.5%
Pct. of total taxes paid by non-residents: 24.5%

Less than 25% of Minnesota’s tax revenue comes from non-residents and businesses. The state only collects average, or below average, rates on alcohol and tobacco, and has one of the smallest tourism economies in the country. This means the state relies heavily on income and property taxes from residents. Minnesota has the 21st largest population in the country, but it collects the 12th most in tax revenue each year. The state and local taxes collected per capita is the seventh highest in the country, as is the tax burden as a percent of income.

By Thor in Valhalla! We’re right behind fucking California. Minnesota is only the 21st largest state yet we collect the 12th most in taxes. That’s a fucked up ratio right there. And to top it all off we can’t even keep the government running at its current capacity without either generating a giant deficit or robbing people of even more money. Who in the fuck thinks this is a sound way to run a state?

Meanwhile New Hampshire, which has no income or sales tax, ranks number seven on the list of states with lowest tax burdens. Everybody who wants to increase the tax rate of anybody in this state can kindly go sodomize themselves with a retractable baton… and not by baton either, go buy your own fucking baton (and stop trying to steal shit from other people).

Monday Metal: Quutamo by Apocalyptica

This week’s Monday Metal entry is from a band called Apocalyptica. Apocalyptica is a band consisting of four cello players who started off covering Metallica songs. I’m not a huge fan of covers but eventually Apocalyptica moved on to creating their own songs which are pretty awesome. I admit that it’s a stretch to call much of their material metal but alas they did start by covering one of the most successful metal bands ever which I consider good enough. Sit back, relax, and have a listen to over of my favorite Apocalyptica songs, Quutamo:

Possible Site Maintenance This Weekend

Just to let everybody know this site may be unavailable at some point this weekend depending on how ambitious I get. I’m thinking about upgrading my web server to OS X Lion but won’t be sure until I’ve figured out some of the finer points (like how to get MySQL working on OS X Lion Server again).

If the site is unavailable I’m probably upgrading it, if it remains available I probably decided not to mess with it.

An Anti-Gunner Goes To a Gun Show

Anti-gunners are a unique breed, they rant and rave about a device that they usually know nothing about. Sometimes an anti-gunner feels the need to attend a gun show because there are no anti-gun shows. The author of this article decided to attend a gun show and her ignorance is gloriously displayed in the article:

They’re eager to get new members today, but not so eager to talk to me once I pull out my microphone.

NRA REPRESENTATIVE: I’m sorry. We don’t do media.

That’s the basic attitude I get even when I enter the large grey exhibition center.

SUPERVISOR (over radio): Who is she with?

SECURITY GUARD: KALW Public Radio.

SUPERVISOR (over radio): Copy. Let me check.

Why all the concern?

Why the concern? Because gun owners are used to having everything they say or do used against them by popular media. There isn’t anything we can possibly say to the anti-gun dominated media that won’t be twisted to fit their desires so we’ve just decided to stop saying anything. And there was this amazingly ignorant statement made by the author:

In case, you’re like me and your knowledge of guns is limited to whatever you’ve seen in movies or on TV, the “AR” in AR15 stands for “assault rifle.” They’re massive, Rambo-style guns.

The “AR” in AR-15 stands for Armalite, the company that first manufactured the AR-15. As the AR-15 was the 15th model of firearm manufactured by the company they called it the Armalite Model 15, or AR-15 for short.

Also AR-15s are not massive Rambo-style guns. I would venture to say many AR-15s are actually much smaller than most rifles considered by the anti-gun media to be of a hunting purpose. You can build some amazingly small and light AR pattern rifles. Of course, being anti-gun, the author jumps on a statement made by one of the dealers:

MAIDA: This is an 1887 – so probably cowboy age – revolver. This is pretty old, too. This is from the mid-1800s.

DILLING: That’s really small.

MAIDA: It’s a little … They would call this a gambler’s derringer, because unlike what people think about the Old West, you had to check your guns.

Even in the Wild West, they had rules about guns.

It was that the Wild West had rules about guns, the property owners did. If a property owner didn’t want you in your establishment with a gun strapped they told you to check the piece. These weren’t laws but private property owners decided what they would and would not allow people entering their property to do. Personally I have no problem with such things because a property owner should be allowed to set whatever rules they desire as it’s their property. Likewise if I don’t like their rules I can go give my money to their competition down the streets.

But I’m left wondering – why would that love of guns extend to wanting to own a tactical military rifle? I ask around, but find that even in a warehouse full of people aspiring to be straight shooters, it’s hard to get a straight answer.

It’s hard to get a straight answer because people who are opposed to gun rights generally don’t understand freedom in general. The reason I want to own a “tactical military rifle” is because I like them and I bloody can own them. It’s the same reason I drive a Ford Range instead of a small car, I like the Ranger. Because I want to own something is a perfectly justifiable reason because I put my labor and effort into obtaining that thing I wanted.

I don’t need to prove a need to own something and I don’t need to justify what I want to anybody by myself (and if you’re married, to your wife). The fact of the matter is I exchanged my labor with somebody else in exchange for something I wanted. Usually that something I traded for was money (well Federal Reserve notes technically) because it’s a general purpose item that I can exchange for many different things I want. If I want to use some of that money to buy an AR-15 then there should be nothing stopping me from doing so because it was my labor that allowed me to obtain that rifle. The product of my labor is mine and I have no reason to justify why I want whatever that product is.

Anyways that is the kind of dribble you get when anti-gunners go to gun shows.

City of Gould Looking to Ban Free Speech

Sometimes you read a story headline and you think, “No way that’s correct.” That’s what I thought when I read the title of this article but after reading the actual story I found it factually correct. The city of Gould, AK is looking to basically ban the freedom of speech within city limits:

Gould, Arkansas, is a small town of about 850 people. If the city council has its way, those 850 people will be barred from gathering together to discuss city matters without approval from the city government.

[…]

Last Monday, the council voted to ban groups from gathering or forming without city approval.

Sonja Farley, a member of the Gould City Council, said that no matter the group, if anyone meets to discuss the city, that meeting must be approved by the city.

“You can’t just come in here, get with four people and decide to start an organization,” Farley said, adding, “You will go through your city council with legal documentation and get approval.”

That’s certainly interesting because I’m pretty sure that violates an often ignored piece of the United States Constitution we refer to as the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Yeah the city’s ruling certainly does violate that particular piece of literature that our country is supposedly founded on. If you’re unfortunate enough to live in Gould it would be in your best interest to tell the city council to go fuck itself and continue gathering in groups. When a law is unjust there is absolutely no reason anybody should comply with it and any law other than those against harming others or the property of others is unjust.

Another funny thing about this story is the city’s name, Gould. Gould is also slang for the tyrannical protectionist race in Stargate SG-1, the Goa’uld. How fitting that a city banning the freedom of assembly should be named after a race of aliens bent on enslaving the human race.

German Ships Traversing Somali Waters Can Now Hire Private Security

Traversing the waters around Somali can be a pretty risky endeavor. Nothing will ruin your day more thoroughly than a bunch of pirates boarding your ship, holding you a gun point, and demanding a random for your release. The biggest problem has been in the fact most ships have been barred from having means of self-defense by the very governments that have been pretending to protest ships. Well Germany has finally admitted that they are incapable of protecting their ships and have authorized their serfs on the seas to hire private security:

State secretary in the economics ministry responsible for maritime affairs, Hans-Joachim Otto, said on Thursday that he could not answer the repeated calls from shipping companies for soldiers or armed police officers to accompany their boats.

Of course the government is going to allow any private security firms that itself hasn’t explicitly blessed:

“We don’t want desperadoes, so we are looking into a certification,” said Otto. He said security firms offering protection would have to meet certain standards. The government had until now always rejected such a solution, unwilling to give up the state’s monopoly on the use of legitimate force.

Being able to defend yourself shouldn’t require government’s permission. Government like to maintain a monopoly on the use of force in all situations and get kind of testy when us peasants decide to take measures to defend our own lives. If most of the ships traversing Somali waters were armed to the teeth the pirates would likely think twice about hijacking ships. Deterring all crime is impossible but if you raise the risk of criminal activity high enough it will deter many criminals. By raising the risks I’m not talking about increasing jail sentences either, I’m talking about people being able to defend themselves against assailants.

It’s good to see German ships will finally be allowed to hire security forces to keep the pirates at bay, but this entire problem could have been mostly avoided had no rule against ships being able to hire security been passed.

That’s a Lot of Money

The ill-named Government Accountability Office (GAO) finally performed a light audit (nowhere near the type of Audit that would have went down had Ron Paul’s plan been followed), the results of which can be found in this handy document [PDF]. It’s an incredibly long document and I’d be lying if I said I’ve read through it (I’m working on it though).

There is a pretty decent summary of the report here:

The U.S. Federal Reserve gave out $16.1 trillion in emergency loans to U.S. and foreign financial institutions between Dec. 1, 2007 and July 21, 2010, according to figures produced by the government’s first-ever audit of the central bank.

Last year, the gross domestic product of the entire U.S. economy was $14.5 trillion.

Of the $16.1 trillion loaned out, $3.08 trillion went to financial institutions in the U.K., Germany, Switzerland, France and Belgium, the Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) analysis shows.

I a span of less than three yeas the Federal Reserve printed up and loaned out more money than the gross domestic product of the entire United States. What the fuck? Oh, and it shouldn’t shock you who the biggest receivers of Federal Reserve money were:

Out of all borrowers, Citigroup received the most financial assistance from the Fed, at $2.5 trillion. Morgan Stanley came in second with $2.04 trillion, followed by Merill Lynch at $1.9 trillion and Bank of America at $1.3 trillion.

Yup, the Fed’s cronies all received some pretty wickedly large loans. I really have no additional comments to make, I think the presented evidence is enough for any intelligent person to figure out what’s going on.

Let me just say again, we need to end the Federal Reserve and return to a commodity-based monetary system free of all government interference.