Will Lady Liberty Stand?

Federalist #6

Quite some time ago (starting nearly 4 years ago I'm ashamed to say) I started a chapter by chapter summary of the Federalist Papers. It got away from me and I stopped after #5. And now I continue but you may want to read the first 5. I think this is a good time to start again. This is to remind people of the principles this country was founded on even if some of them were a bit flawed. Certainly there can be no perfect system of government in this world but what America has produced has been the best so far.

Federalist #1
Federalist #2
Federalist #3
Federalist #4
Federalist #5

Author - Hamilton

"To look for a continuation of harmony between a number of independent, unconnected sovereignties in the same neighborhood, would be to disregard the uniform course of human events, and to set at defiance teh accumulated experience of ages."

I don't doubt at all that Canada and Mexico would be at war with us on occasion if the United States weren't so much more powerful than both of them. If the South had succeeded in breaking from the Union (as it should have been allowed to to d0) there might have been occasional wars there too. It's hard for us to see the history of Europe and them of it as a continent in conflict which it has been for most of its history. Now we only see it in light of current events with the EU and the Euro currency and France, Germany and England acting as if they've really just been like brothers punching each other in the arm rather than bitter enemies at constant war.

The unfortunate part of Hamilton's statement is that it takes government to for a cohesive union and government has an insatiable appetite for growth and power.

"The genius of republics (say they) is pacific; the spirit of commerce has a tendency to soften the manners of men, ad to extinguish those inflammable humors which have so often kindled in to war."

Wouldn't that be nice? But it just isn't so. Men are sinners and subject to the same jealousies, and bad behavior as everyone else in any other kind of government. While it's true that a strong Republic is less likely to be manipulated and used to satisfy the blood lust of any particular group of men, we've seen that it's certainly possible. In fairness, Hamilton was making a point about what other man say the genius of a republic is and doesn't particularly agree with it. He goes on to point out that not every nation is perusing benevolent ends for it's people and so conflict will arise.

Please bear in mind that when he's speaking here of having several unions instead of one united republic, there were still only the 13 states and the outlying territories not yet created as states going out to about the Mississippi river. I'll leave it to your imagination to decide whether it would have been best to have our current union split in to several nations as states were added on.

"Let the point of extreme depression to which our national dignity and credit have sunk, let the inconveniences felt everywhere from a lax and ill administration of government, let the revolt of part of the State of North Carolina, the late menacing disturbances in Pennsylvania, and the actual insurrections and rebellions in Massachusetts, declare------!"

That doesn't sound entirely unlike what we have going today though we've yet to face any insurrection. I think we're on the verge of serious civil unrest.

Static Thinking About The Market

I've heard from several people who are arguing that the government must do SOMETHING to help us out of this "crisis" we're in with the credit markets, toxic assets, etc. If the people telling me this were normally of a socialist bent I could understand and I'd let it pass without comment but they're generally very conservative leaning Republican types.

Their thinking goes like this: We need some sort of government intervention in this market because it's so broken that the market can't fix itself. This is what we pay our taxes for. I don't like the bailout but its better than ending up in a depression. They don't care that there's no Constitutional authority for it, the market is too corrupt to be left on its own.

Is the market corrupt? Sure, sometimes. But ask yourself, what's more corrupt, the market or the government? Here's what people don't seem to get; if the government wasn't involved, the market would have a different nature than it does now. If we have a market that the government can so easily usurp, then we don't have a free market to begin with.

The government needs to step away and let it reform itself with a lighter regulatory framework. Risk will be priced in to the investments. If there is fraud, prosecute. But to break stupid regulatory rules that aren't actually fraudulent only inhibits the market and prevents true market reform from taking place.

I'm not just pointing to this crisis. Start thinking in terms of drastic change in the very nature of the market. Think of it as a swap meet for investments. Sure, some people are going to lose, but the market will take care of that by drying up funds for it. The competitors will keep an eye on each other and bark loudly when someone is out of line. The market would actually simplify and be easier for amateur investors to understand.

This is the problem when you're talking about reform of any system. We can only seem to picture tweaking how things are now. We can't imagine such serious change that the entire current model has to be thrown out. Who'd have thought 30 years ago that electronic trading would be available to people sitting at home in their underwear? Who'd have imagined that the transaction cost of a trade would be so low? Despite the heavy regulations, the market found a way.

Change your mode of thinking. Things can change. Government does not have to be involved to fix problems (even this big). We just have to stop accepting the lies and the vomitus spewing that comes from the media and the politicians. They don't know how to control a market, they only know how to destroy one.

Teresa Artohofer Is Wrong

Who is Teresa Artohofer? I have no idea, but she will now be memorialized in this blog for as long as it exists for being so wilfully, blitheringly, stupidly wrong that she should be absolutely ashamed of herself.

What did she say to provoke me thus? Well, it seems that a VFW Post in Montrose, PA has a message on its answering machine for telemarketers saying, "Hi, you've reached the Montrose VFW, Post 5642. We are an English-speaking, American establishment. If you do not speak English or believe in America, please hang up."

Artohofer apparently thinks that is unconstitutional. From the article:

Teresa Artohofer of Montrose said the VFW post's message contradicts the Constitution's protection of free speech.

"Does it say English speech? It just says freedom of speech. No where in there does it say freedom of English speech. It just says, freedom of speech," Arthofer said.

Apparently Artofhofer thinks that the people at the VFW should be forced to listen to people they don't want to listen to. Apparently Artohofer doesn't realize that an answering machine can't possibly violate anyone's freedom of speech since no speech was actually restricted. Sure, people have the right to say what they want but no one has the right TO BE HEARD except a citizen addressing the government for cause.

So Ms. Artohofer, PLEASE go read the Constitution of the United States of America and point out to me the section that forces me to listen to any sort of speech that I don't care to tolerate no matter what form it comes in.

**Side note for Eleanor: I'm not an ANGRY MAN, just dumbfounded at the ignorance. ;)

SCOTUS SCROTUM Is At It Again

The Supreme Court of The United States which I refer to as SCROTUM: "Stupid Court Repeatedly Orders Treacherous Unconstitutional Mandates" will begin deliberations this week on what is considered indecent broadcasting. Apparently, there are a lot of people out there who go running to the FCC every time someone says a cuss word on live television.

If the viewers would contact the networks and voice their displeasure I could accept that. If they contacted the advertisers, I could accept that. But the default position for far too many people is to seek a government solution to the problem.

Why do we need an FCC? We don't! Existing property laws could govern signal stealing, etc. We don't need the government to regulate the content. Viewers and potential viewers are capable of doing that on their own.

But, but, but, DIFSTER! If there is no regulation, the airwaves will be filled with nothing but pornography! I disagree. Sure, there will be some. However, not as much as you would imagine. There has to be a market for it. Yes, I'm quite a aware there is a market for porn. However, many companies would not be willing to spend their advertising dollars on those shows. Parents will block the naughty channels so their children cannot watch them. Parents will complain bitterly to the broadcasters. Other broadcasters will market themselves as "smut free" and brag about higher standards, etc.

The free flow of information is far more important than using government to protect the eyes and ears of our young ones. That job is up to the parents. Instill the values you want your children to have. For the most part, they WILL listen. We do need to control the media content that enters our homes, but it's up to us to do it.

The additional problem I'm having here is that once again SCROTUM is trying to make laws for us rather than simply interpreting it. Let Congress define decency if they think they can but stop treating us like children who can't protect ourselves and our families.

A Modern Day Hero

A man in Knoxville, TN has been arrested for shooting out red light cameras.

He apparently made some mistakes, but hopefully he'll serve as an inspiration for others. I'm not advocating illegal activity here, really I'm not but, if someone really wanted to know the best way to take out traffic cams and I was to offer my advice, this is what it would be. What I am about to describe is ILLEGAL. Do not attempt to do this. This post is for informational purposes only.

1. Do NOT make your first target a cam you've been given a ticket from. Maybe your 4th or 5th if you make it that far. As it is, the police are going to comb the list of 'criminals' that have run red lights in that city or county. Preferably you should never target a cam in your city at all. But you can bet that if all the surrounding cities have their cams shot out and your city doesn't, they'll narrow it down a bit. Just don't be obvious.
2. ONE SHOT - ONE KILL! It doesn't matter if you miss or just 'wound' the thing. Do not EVER take a second shot. There can be no exceptions to this rule.
3. Take your shot from as far away from the cam as you can while maintaining your accuracy.
4. Scope out your target at least a week in advance. If this becomes a Federal issue, they're going to have to review a lot of footage from surrounding surveillance cams to look for suspicious behavior. I don't credit the police with an overabundance of brains but there's no reason to make it easy for them.
   
5. Do not use a weapon traceable to you and only use that weapon to take out the cams. If you use a variety of weapons you have a greater probability of getting caught.*
6. Do NOT brag about what you've done. Someone will turn you in. Do what you're doing for ideological reasons; there is no reason to brag about. Get it done and keep your mouth shut.
7. Know when to stop. The longer you keep doing it, the closer they'll get to catching you.
8. Watch your background. Don't shoot at a cam that has housing or a building with lots of windows behind it. You're only trying to kill a cam, not a person.
9. If you can, always have an alibi; preferably a different one for each act. Letting a potential alibi know why they're an alibi makes them an accessory. People like that will turn on you in a heartbeat if it keeps them out of jail if/when the cops get close.
10. Be very observant of all your surroundings at all times during planning and execution.
    

Yes, I think that red light cams and the dearth of other surveillance cams invading our privacy are a detriment to our liberty. It's not just the cams either. It's the increasing thirst of bureaucrats for information about our lives in the interest of "security." One day, all of this stored data will be dumped in to some sort of quantum computer and you'll be categorized, ranked and rated for your overall threat level to society, yourself, your children, etc. Whatever the government deems merely inappropriate will be the law of the land because it will become increasingly easy to enforce their will and catch those that are not in compliance. As it is, if the technology existed today to capture all of your thoughts and store it in a database, the government would insist on doing it and say that it's for our own good.

Technology is encroaching on our freedoms daily. The answer is not less technology, it is, as always, less government.


*Some of you might suggest using as many different weapons as possible to disguise the fact that it's just one shooter. As far as I'm concerned it's better that they know they're looking for just one person and that the media knows it too. They would figure it out anyway.

Family Friendly Education

...but only if you're a homosexual family.

In May of last year, I wrote about a bill introduced in to the California Senate which was ultimately defeated. Not only is it back with a vengeance, it's the law of the land.

Our Not-So-Beloved Governor Schwarzenegger signed SB 777 in to law. He should be recalled as governor immediately. This bill was authored by Representative Sheila Kuehel, an activist lesbian.

This law is nothing short of forced homosexual indoctrination of our children. Please have a vomit bag handy before continuing.

Here is the full text of the bill under question.

There are two major things that this law accomplishes:

1. It removes the definition of "sex" (biological sexual trait) and replaces it with "gender" which is one's own perception of sexual identity regardless of actual biological sexual assignment.
2. It defines atheism and agnosticism as religions in the educational code.

From the bill:

SECTION 1.  Section 200 of the Education Code is amended to read:
  200.  It is the policy of the State of California to afford all
persons in public schools, regardless of their  sex, ethnic
group identification, race, national origin, religion, mental or
physical disability, or regardless of any actual or perceived
  disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity,
religion, sexual orientation, or any other  characteristic that
is contained in the definition of hate crimes set forth in Section
422.55 of the Penal Code, equal rights and opportunities in the
educational institutions of the state. The purpose of this chapter is
to prohibit acts which are contrary to that policy and to provide
remedies therefor.

Notice what was changed. 'Sex' was replaced with 'gender'. 'Mental or physical disability' was replaced with the nebulous 'disability', and 'national origin' was replaced with 'nationality'.

• Gender For Sex - 'Sex' is a biological definition. There are two sexes; male and female. Yes, there are some people born with both traits but it's very rare. Replacing sex with gender opens us up to how any individual perceives his/her/its sexual identity. The law now says that we have to accommodate that persons perceptions.
• Disability - This is a suspicious change. Why take out "mental or physical" from that list? Section 210.1 was added to the code to define disability as mental or physical but the change still concerns me. If some of you have ideas on how this can be manipulated, I'm open to suggestions.
• Nationality - 'National origin' indicated where some one has come from. Having that term replaced with 'nationality' tells me that it's ok to come here, use our public resources, supported by taxpayers without any regard for integrating oneself in to American culture and society. It's a minor change I realize but it was changed for a reason. Again, it makes me wonder what it leaves open for legal manipulation.

Back to the sex vs gender deal. Look at this:

210.7.  "Gender" means sex, and includes a person's gender
identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not
stereotypically associated with the person's assigned sex at birth.
 SEC. 5.  Section 212 of the Education Code is repealed. 
  212.  "Sex" means the biological condition or quality of being a
male or female human being. 

Why the change? What mischief does this open us up to? The term 'sex' was completely stricken from the code. Biology is no longer legally relevant. Boys can wear dresses to school and use the girls bathrooms and locker rooms because they want to act female. Brianna can force her teachers to call her Bob and dress like a boy. Girls can run for homecoming king, boys for queen, etc. Does this also mean that a boy who's perceived gender identity is female can join the girls soccer team? You can bet it will happen. And what happens when other students, who have moral and values that view cross-dressing and homosexuality as wrong speak up and refuse to accept the new gender definitions foisted upon them? If Andrew starts wearing dresses and makeup to school and the other kids tease him, will they be forced in to "sensitivity" classes? You can bet that various districts will be proactive and start forcing children in to these classes anyway without parental consent.

Given the non-discrimination clause, this means that homosexuals, transsexuals and bisexuals must be positively portrayed in textbooks etc. There is wide speculation that the terms "mom" and "dad" will be eliminated from the text books because those terms are seen as discriminatory toward same sex couples with children by the homosexual activists. There are way more implications to all of this than I can even begin to explore here. Please add your own thoughts in the comments.

One of the more troubling aspects of this law isn't even being mentioned by anyone else.

SEC. 25.  Section 66262 is added to the Education Code, to read:
  66262.  "Religion" includes all aspects of religious belief,
observance, and practice and includes agnosticism and atheism.

Make no mistake here. The Republik of Kalifornia has just codified atheisim and agnosticism in to law as religions. Non-belief is now a religion according to the law. This will be used as the final push to get any religious references out of the schools (particularly Christianity). Now, people who don't believe God exists can sue because they simply have to say that atheism is their religion and they're being discriminated against.

This should be, but sadly won't be the the death knell of the public school system, or, as I like to call it, the Collectivist Education Camps. Please go read my post from two years ago about shutting down the public school system completely.

This also has national implications, so don't think that because you don't live in California that this won't affect you and your children eventually.

Freedom Of Association

An apartment complex in San Antonio, TX has a policy barring people with piercings and tattoos from renting an apartment. Good for them.

Some people are upset about it but so what? It's private property and they should be able to rent to whomever they want. As far as I'm concerned, people should be able to discriminate over anything they want to.

If a property owner only wants to rent to blacks, whites, Jews, women, homosexuals or whatever, that should be their prerogative. That's part of what PRIVATE PROPERTY means. It means that on my property I can do whatever I want. No one has any inherent right to force me to surrender all or part of my property to anyone I consider undesirable.

The same principal applies to employment. No one has an inherent right to a job at my place of business. If I find any reason that I don't want someone working for me then I should be allowed to exclude them from my business.

I don't encourage discrimination. Sometimes, it's monumentally stupid to discriminate based on certain things but there shouldn't be any laws protecting people from their own stupidity.

Why were the Jim Crow laws passed in the South? It's because employers were acting in their own best interest and giving jobs to black people and encouraging them to patronize their businesses. Those laws were an attempt to force people to be racist. Anti-discrimination laws are no better. Why should we be forced to put our private property to a use which we find objectionable?

In case you're not already aware of it, you discriminate every day. When you make any choice you discriminate.