FREEDOMSITE.US

op-ed

                                                                                                                        
To see the entire Freedomsite Blog or to enter your own content or comments go to our main blog site at ericsfreedomsite.blogspot.com.  The latest 20 postings to the blog are shown below.




























 

Guest Editorials

 

 

We have admired the work of  Chris Wilborn, and he has kindly submitted some of his thoughts for consideration here. We look forward to hearing from him, from time to time as he sees fit, with more of his thought -provoking comments.


A Turning Point


A Taxing Life

 
Obama is a Punk

 
Outraged 

Cry Baby


 
Other Authors:

        Socialism, Republican Style by Michael Tennant
        
 Seven Principles of Sound Public Policy by Dr. Lawrence Reed
         
 Union Busting by Dr. Tim Nerenz
        
  A Letter From Howard (Howard Croy on Taxes, Healthcare, etc.)
         Overwhelm the System by Wayne Allyn Root 
         The Fascist Threat by LLevelly H. Rockwell Jr.

 

 

 

 

Back to Home Page














 A Turning Point

by Chris Wilborn

 

A new day of sadness and darkness has fallen over our nation. We have witnessed -- in about 14 months -- the changing of our government from being one that adhered to the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, one that was supposed to represent the electorate, one was reasonable, relatively fiscally responsible, one that valued American business and largely left it alone with only minimal oversight, to a government that has started on the road to becoming a tyranny.

 


Our government no longer listens to the voice of the people, let alone pretends to represent the electorate. It has transgressed into one that is bent on doing what it wants no matter who or what gets in the way. We have witnessed the governmental take over of a large portion of the auto industry, many banking and insurance institutions, and it is now regulating the pay of the people in the banking industry. We have seen the take over of more than one sixth of our economy in the form of so called 'health care' legislation that has made no provisions for building hospitals or training doctors or nurses, but has provided funding for about 1,600 (or maybe it is 16,000) IRS agents to monitor your tax returns for your health care provider information. We have a government that wants to centralize all health records for its own benefit -- not yours, a government that is poised to enact further legislation to determine how much you can drive or travel and cripple our economy though a so-called Cap and Trade policy, a government that is the antithesis of everything our country represents and our ancestors paid for in sweat, labor, tears and, all too often, in blood.    

 


This is a government bent on the destruction of America was we know it. It is comprised of 1960's radicals who President Obama and Speaker Pelosi celebrate their victory after passage of Obamacare.hate government, free enterprise, freedom, and even the fact that humans inhabit the earth.

 


If you have never before been worried or frightened in your life, now is the time to become so. If left unchecked, this country will be so changed by 2012 that the damage may be impossible to repair for generations to come - if ever.

 


This November, vote for reasonable, responsible and hopefully Conservative people (and the fact that they may be running as Republicans is no guarantee that they are any of the prior), and send this group of miscreants home. It is time for the people of the United States to again take control of their elected representatives. After all, we still have a nation '...by the people, for the people, and of the people' and not a politburo of the USSR or Communist China, neither of which still exist in their former form, as they have seen the problems inherent in Socialism, Communism and Marxism and are now moving more toward Capitalism, as our so called president is attempting to move us toward Marxism.

 

And in the interim between now and November, you should take every opportunity you can to discuss this turn of events with your family, friends, neighbors, co-workers, people that you attend religious services with, and strangers on the street. And if you have even a dollar to donate to a few campaigns, donate to the extent of your ability.


Back  to Chris Wilborn Editorial index. 

To get the most from freedomsite.com, please return to the home page after reading each article to browse the introductions to other articles. Thanks.



www.freedomsite.us


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 








 

 

 A Taxing Life

by Chris Wilborn

 

Each have a finite span of time on the earth -- some very short and some relatively long, but still finite. This span marks the length of our lives. Most of us adults that are of sound mind and body spend a great deal of our finite time in the pursuit of doing something that will lend itself, directly or indirectly, to sustaining our lives and the lives of our families. Examples of those who do something directly to sustain life might be that of farmers or hunters, who often need no middle man, but provide, mostly or entirely, for their own needs.

 

However, most of us spend our time doing something commonly called 'work', and the largest percentage of those that work, be it doing something on their own - such as their own business, or working for someone else - are paid in money. Money is the compensation we receive for doing work, and that money is, in turn, used to purchase goods and services to sustain ourselves and our families. So the money we receive represents that portion of our lives that we spend at work.

 

However, we have something called taxes. Sales tax, excise tax, property tax, business tax, car tax (license fees), city and county tax, state and Federal income tax, and the list goes on. When the state or Federal government taxes you, you may think they are only taking a portion of your money. In reality, they are taking a portion of your life – the portion expended in acquiring that money. You are effectively having part of your life taken from you. Don't we make criminals pay for their crimes by taking part of their lives away from them as retribution for their crimes? How is this so very different? What did we do to deserve this punishment?

 

A typical American worker may pay between 20 and 50% in total taxes (all forms of direct taxes included) – and it is certainly a lot more than that if you include indirect taxes. But here, just for the sake of argument, let's assume it is just 20%, or about 1 day out of your 5 day, 40 hour work week. If I were to confine you for that day and prevent you from using it for your own benefit, I would be arrested for unlawful imprisonment. However, if you fail to pay your taxes, which represent the same portion of your life in this hypothetical exercise, you would be imprisoned.

 

Conclusion: It is illegal for a private citizen to hold another citizen against their will, but it is perfectly legal for our government to take a portion of your life, giving you no recourse in the matter. And each and every year, we are all having larger and larger portions of our lives stolen from us through taxation.


Back to Chris Wilborn editorial index.

 

To get the most from freedomsite.com, please return to the home page after reading each article to browse the introductions to other articles. Thanks.



www.freedomsite.us


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
















 

 

 Socialism, Republican-Style

by Michael Tennant
by Mic

"Socialism!": the rallying cry of Republicans opposing the "stimulus" bill just signed by President Barack Obama. It was also, late in the game, the rallying cry of John McCain and his supporters last fall, especially after the Joe the Plumber incident. They are undoubtedly correct that this law, and Obama’s plans in general, are leading us ever further down the road to serfdom, although from an economic standpoint it’s at least as much fascist as socialist – not that the distinction matters greatly for the two are the same in principle.

While it’s good to see some actual GOP opposition to government growth again, it’s very difficult to take it seriously. Here, for example, is just a sampling of the socialist programs and policies instituted and/or supported by a significant number of Republicans, with Ron Paul frequently being the lone exception:

Social Security. Republicans may not have started this program, and occasionally they will speak of its insolvency, but they seem to have no real problem with its continuation. The best we get out of them is Bush’s stillborn plan to give those of us forced into Social Security the option of diverting a small portion of the loot stolen from us into various government-approved investments. Given the current state of the stock market, we should be grateful that this plan never got off the ground. Imagine the bailouts to all the individual Social Security "investors" who expected to get ever-increasing returns on their investments! Name the last Republican who spoke of abolishing, rather than "shoring up" or "reforming" Social Security.

Medicare. Not only does the GOP not suggest ridding us of this blatantly socialist takeover of the health care system; but George W. Bush, with the support of many members of his own party, pushed through Medicare prescription drug coverage, the largest new entitlement program in four decades. Again there is talk of "fixing" or "saving" Medicare but none of ending it – all while Republicans try to convince us that they, and they alone, are standing between us and the Democrats’ plans to nationalize health care.

Welfare. Yes, we have welfare "reform," but where is welfare repeal? Add a few mild work requirements to the program, and the GOP is on board.

Faith-Based Initiatives. Getting religious charities on the government dole was another Bush policy that seemed to please much of his base as long as their preferred charities were the ones robbing the rest of us. Sure, it meant that those charities had to water down their messages, but it was worth it to see that "liberal" charities didn’t get their hands in the till. Proof of the socialist nature of these programs is that Obama intends to retain and expand them, in the process forcing charities to distance themselves even further from their religious underpinnings.

Public Education. In 1994 the GOP promised to rid us of the Department of Education. Instead we got Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act, greatly increasing control of the education system from Washington. Every once in a while some Republican will timidly suggest school vouchers or tuition tax credits to allow parents to send their children to the schools of their choice, but in these programs (especially vouchers) lie the same dangers for private elementary and secondary schools that private colleges and universities whose students accept federal money already have experienced. (See my alma mater, Grove City College, for a prime example.) In any event, Republicans seem uninterested in reducing federal control over the education system. For that matter, when was the last time you heard a Republican suggest curtailing or eliminating state control of any level of schooling?

Infrastructure. Where are the Republicans demanding that Uncle Sam get out of the road- and bridge-building business? Where are those demanding even a cutback in such spending? Republican President Dwight Eisenhower gave us the Interstate Highway System, a fact to which most GOP stalwarts point with pride. Even scarcer is the Republican at the state or local level voicing the opinion that perhaps the government of which he is a part is doing us all a disservice by continuing to maintain socialist infrastructure to the exclusion of all competitors.

Law Enforcement. Republicans are always the first to defend the police, the FBI, and other government agencies whenever any allegations of abuse or wrongdoing are lodged against them. They have shown great eagerness to increase local, state, and federal cops’ powers and immunities, especially if they can use the excuse of fighting wars on drugs or terrorism. They passed the PATRIOT Act with alacrity when the opportunity presented itself; and Bush aggrandized, with his fellow Republicans’ approval, much unconstitutional power to the executive branch, including the ability to imprison people indefinitely on the president’s say-so. They even granted retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that had assisted the Bush administration in violating the Constitution by eavesdropping on Americans’ telephone calls – with the assistance of noted socialist Obama. Give even the slightest hint that you think law enforcement agencies should be curtailed or certain criminal statutes repealed, and Republicans will be the first to denounce you as "soft on crime" or "with the terrorists." And don’t even suggest that private security could do a better job than government "security."

Financial Bailouts. Republicans maintained that the abuses at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could have been prevented by better oversight, which the Democrats opposed. They did not say that these abuses could have been prevented by abolishing Fannie and Freddie and various other government loan programs. Bush had, in fact, exacerbated the problem with his now laughably named American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003, which allowed people to obtain mortgages with no down payment and even without mortgage payments for the first two years. Bush, of course, also stumped for and signed into law the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which gave the Secretary of the Treasury $700 billion to hand out at will. Even Obama’s latest outrage on this front, yet another mortgage bailout, "originated with a Republican," writes Ilana Mercer. "Only a week or two back," she explains, "minority whip Sen. Mitch McConnell proposed a similar scheme whereby the government would lower home-loan interest rates and guarantee the loans." One doubts that Republicans would be crying "Socialism!" had McConnell’s plan come up for a vote.

The Military. This undoubtedly is the socialist program most beloved of Republicans. They may be willing to admit that in all other instances government is wasteful, inefficient, and bungling and that it usually fails to solve the problems it sets out to solve while simultaneously creating new ones; but when it comes to the armed forces, suddenly all that skepticism melts away into an infatuation worthy of Romeo and Juliet. Maybe the Pentagon does spend a wee bit too much on screwdrivers and toilet seats, and perhaps even certain actions taken by the boys in uniform (such as Abu Ghraib) have negative effects, but those are aberrations in an otherwise stellar record. Every good Republican knows that the U.S. military always acts in the best interest not just of America but of the entire world. As far as the GOP is concerned, "defense" spending must never be cut, no matter how out of proportion it is to the actual threats our country faces or to the spending of the rest of the world; and one must never, ever criticize the military. To cut the military’s budget or suggest that it might be just as wasteful, inefficient, and bungling as the rest of the government is to "hate the troops" and to "blame America first." One wouldn’t expect private defense to enter these people’s minds, but few Republicans are even willing to consider constraining either the Pentagon’s spending or its adventurism. All other government programs are fair game for cutting and criticism, but the military is sacrosanct.

One could probably make a list ten times as long of all the socialist institutions supported by the very same Republicans who now pose as defenders of capitalism. They are correct that Obama’s plans are socialist in nature, but they fail to see – or conveniently forget – that they, too, are guilty of giving America a huge push down the slope of socialism. While their opposition to the "stimulus" is welcome, it’s a bit like Bugs Moran’s criticizing Al Capone for bumping off his enemies. Unfortunately, we the taxpayers are the ones who were massacred on this St. Valentine’s Day.

February 24, 2009

Copyright © 2009 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

 

The original of this article, along with a link to the author, can be found at: http://www.lewrockwell.com/tennant/tennant34.html

 
editor's note:  The editors of www.freedomsite.us agree in part and disagree in part with the above article.  To see where we disagree, please read our editorial:  Drawing the Line


Back

 

 

To get the most from freedomsite.com, please return to the home page after reading each article to browse the introductions to other articles. Thanks.




























 



 

 Seven Principles of Sound Public Policy

by Lawrence Reed



Dr. Reed has stated that he believes these principles are the "pillars of a free economy", and believes their ability to guide society has been made manifest over the course of recorded history.

  • 1) Free people are not equal, and equal people are not free.

  • 2) What belongs to you, you tend to take care of; what belongs to no one or everyone tends to fall into disrepair.

  • 3) Sound policy requires that we consider long-run effects and all people, not simply short-run effects and a few people.

  • 4) If you encourage something, you get more of it; if you discourage something, you get less of it.

  • 5) Nobody spends somebody else's money as carefully as he spends his own.

  • 6) Government has nothing to give anybody except what it first takes from somebody, and a government that's big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you've got.

  • 7) Liberty makes all the difference in the world.

Lawrence Reed is the president of the Foundation for Economic Education


Back

 

 

To get the most from freedomsite.com, please return to the home page after reading each article to browse the introductions to other articles. Thanks.







www.freedomsite.us































 Obama is a Punk
by Chris Wilborn


"And for those Republicans and folks who are on the “repeal” platform, my attitude is, go for it. I’ll have that fight. We’ll have that argument. (Applause.)  We’ll take that argument across the country. If they want to let kids -- if they want to let kids be barred from getting insurance because of preexisting conditions, we can have that discussion. ..."  (from a speech given by President Obama in Miami on April 16, 2010)

"
Obama: ‘If They Bring a Knife to the Fight, We Bring a Gun"  (quoted from an article in The Wall Street Journal
  | June 14, 2008, | by Amy Chozick

Many other examples can be cited, and you can probably remember even more.  The point is: this person always goes to the bottom of the trash pile when speaking against someone or something he is against or that he thinks will not go along with his stated wants and needs.  There is no high ground to be found with him when faced with opposition - only the lowest possible ground. This is a very consistent pattern.

Past politicians (as least those I have been exposed to, and I don't live in Chicago so I can't address the 'norm' there) usually manage to remain silent or take a much higher position when making an address dealing with opposition.  That is the mark of someone who has had some training in public relations, higher education,   etiquette, simple manners, and someone who is an elected representative of some city, county, state or federal position and is expected to represent the people that elected him or her, and listen to them irrespective of whether or not they agree with the politicians views - as the politician was elected to represent all their constituents.

A collegiate, or professional, athletic director or coach normally doesn't talk in such terms; not even when facing one of their most dreaded rivals.  The words, 'play with all your heart' 'play to win' 'give it a 110% and similar phrases are used.  Not 'we're bringing knives' or 'we'll have that fight' or similar utterances from Obama. 

A President is supposed to be the leader of his or her nation, and all of the people in it.  This punk is no president, particularly when he finds it convenient to demean a portion of the population.  The words he uses are designed to connote aggression and intimidation of his target audience - whomever that might be at the time.  And his targets range from corporations, drug and pharmaceutical companies, health care providers and insurers, automakers, banking and financial institutions, and the worst is the words he uses against the citizens of the US who have chosen to use their Freedom of Speech to oppose his policies. 

Cindy Sheehan repeatedly used some of the vilest words against George Bush, and Bush managed to remain silent and aloof from the situation.  The punk Obama hears of people protesting against his healthcare policy and immediately decides to attack them -- and uses some very aggressive and demeaning words in that attack.

The words, actions and deeds that this punk uses are not those of a leader of any sort.  They are reminiscent of a petulant child or adolescent who strikes out verbally -- because he is such a punk that physical action would be of no avail -- anytime he cannot get his way.  Notwithstanding the fact that 'getting his way' is not the point: or at least shouldn't be.  The fact is, that in his capacity as president, he is supposed to be looking out for the welfare of the American people, and not being concerned about spending time calling them names, or making thinly veiled threats against them. 

There is nothing presidential about the person currently in the Oval Office, and there are certainly no leadership skills or traits -- the only form of getting what he wants is to resort to being a bully.  This person is nothing more than a petty street thug and punk, whose actions probably revert back to his days as a 'community organizer' and the speech and mannerisms that appeals to those people.  Now, unfortunately, he has proven his inability to learn, and reverts to punk time and again.  Petty Punk Barack Huessein  Obama.

                                                      _______________________________
 

 
Back

 

 

To get the most from freedomsite.com, please return to the home page after reading each article to browse the introductions to other articles. Thanks.
































                                                           _________________________________________________




Eric,


 I just spent a few wonderful hours reading most of the articles on Freedomsite.  What a great collection of essays, links and opinion pieces.  I find that we agree at least 80% of the time and the other 20% are mostly areas where my opinions are still in some flux.  Particularly I loved your section on taxes.  I have been harping about the collective and additive pathology of taxation for years.  Welcome to the most depressing party on earth.  It is almost impossible to calculate the total tax burden because it simply grows and grows the more you consider the problem.  For every good or service you purchase the taxes are hidden in layer after layer of production. Consider the tax on an metal widget of some sort. There are the  original materials in the ground where they were mined. So consider the property taxes on the land, mining permits, OSHA compliance, EPA inspections, mitigation fees, the miners wages including their Social Security taxes, mandated benefit packages, mandatory retirement contributions, unemployment insurance premiums, all that and you haven't dug a single rock out of the ground yet.  If you consider the taxes that built the roads leading to the mine, license for the truck, tax on the gas and oil it burns, the drivers employment taxes..... it just boggles the mind that ANYTHING can be actually made and sold at a profit on the free market.

 A further  consideration on health care.  I loved your dissection of the insurance debate and have a few thoughts of my own.  I think that the predictable costs of medical care can be mostly defrayed by a savings plan (Not unlike the very limited HSA plans available now) allowing people to save, tax free or deferred, for future expenses.  Using that great window of probable health from 20's to your 50's you could save a lot to pay for the inevitable costs of your health deteriorating in your more vulnerable years. Additionally the governments rules have artificially restricted the number of available health care practitioners. While I have personally benefited from this restriction it is essentially a "guild" system and artificially restricts the supply, inevitably driving up the demand/cost side of the equation. We could increase the number of practitioners by 50% in the country by simply decreasing the artificial barriers to the practice of FMG's (foreign medical graduates).  If they can pass basic English skills tests and the medical competency exams they should be available to see patients wherever they want to practice medicine. It is critical to keep some profit in the medical system or you will insure the death of medical innovation (and patients too).  This is particularly true on pharmacology and medical devices. For the last 50 years the world has essentially piggy-backed on the US as the R&D center of the world for medical technology.  Without having researched the actual numbers I am willing to bet that 90% of the medical patents of the last few decades are originated in US companies or universities. If you stop US innovation you stop the world.

About for the "worse than the N-word" teabagger obscenity, I agree wholeheartedly. The liberals have attempted to label any dissent as wild and radical.  This reinforces their insanity as the NORMAL state of affairs and co-opts all possible response by allowing them to not engage in a debate.  You are wrong because you are crazy, obviously we don't need to listen or analyze your arguments, you are crazy. How convenient for them.

As I was reading I was thinking that one of the reasons that people continue to believe in socialism is the lack of a double blind experiment showing how much worse the results are of socialism vs freedom on a country. (There are a hundred other reasons from intellectual laziness to fantasy fulfillment but for the relatively rational person, objective evidence might be a deciding factor.)  So I would ask people to consider the current state of Africa.  Various estimations exist but generally the consensus is that somewhere around 150 Trillion dollars has been dumped into Africa in the last 20 years in foreign aid of various kinds.  That is a HUGE amount of money.  It actually comes to several thousand dollars per person in the continent.  Despite that, extreme poverty, disease, starvation and despair continue to be the standard  daily fare of most of the people of this vast land mass. Why? A great book "The Road To Hell." outlines the huge and all pervasive damage that has been done to the people, economy and spirit of Africa by foreign aid.  To massively abbreviate the main ideas,  1) Total destruction of the market economy. If the UN brings in 20 tons of rice the local rice farmers find their crop is worthless.  Nobody can compete with FREE. 2) If people become persuaded that all solutions come from outside and that the arbitrary hand of government will either lift you up or swat you down as it sees fit, citizens stop trying to manipulate their own future or progress. Try to imagine a continent that simply waits for rescue. Waits through drought, through civil war, through the birth of their children and the death of their dreams.  Waits for that immutable outside force to show up with a handful of gruel, a refuge tent, a machine to drill a new well, a  camera crew to "globalize" your plight on late night TV. 
African governments tend to be structured as socialist enterprises.  Their practice runs from totalitarian to kleptocracy but manages to avoid democracy almost entirely. Once you have changed, for the worse, the "nature" of a peoples attitude towards something as basic as their future,  how do you correct that? One of our nurses just came back from a medical aid trip to Liberia. It was a disaster. Everything they shipped to the country was stolen in transit.  Everything that they brought personally, including their luggage, was stolen.  The funds they had to donate to the local NGO charity was subject to a 50% "tax" on foreign funds by the local bank. The people that they had agreed to meet and organize with were angry with them and told them to go home and come back when they had something to offer.  I believe that Africa is a hell-hole of immense proportions that will not likely even be headed in the right direction in our life time.

Let us all do everything in our power to keep our beloved country from being dragged down the same path...

-Howard-

 
Back  to Tying the Issues Together.

  to Tying the Issues Together.

 

To get the most from freedomsite.com, please return to the home page after reading each article to browse the introductions to other articles. Thanks.


























_____________________________________________________






 



 Outraged

by Chis Wilborn

I have been listening to the radio and reading news reports on the topics of health care, the [illegal immigrant enforcement] law that was recently enacted in Arizona, and a few other related subjects that come sluicing from the White House and related sources. The fact that I did listen and read at all is my own fault, but you do need to try to keep up with the latest babbling and dirty tactics that are being used, so that you can try to understand what is going on, and to begin to counter those assertions and outright lies.

My first comment here is on lib hypocrisy: We are told that we must have heath care under the new, probably unconstitutional, law passed by our rebel congress and signed by the president. We have no choice, we must purchase health care or be subject to fines and potential imprisonment - so our bodies are not your own to do with as we reasonably choose. Our bodies are now effectively controlled by the government and it will do with them (or not do with them, as by refusing treatment) as they choose.  However, when it comes to the topic of abortion, the phrase we all too often hear is "It's my body and I can do with it what I want!" A double standard? Absolutely! Your body is not yours to do with as you choose – unless you are having an abortion, and then it is. But note that, despite the chicanery surrounding this subject during the congressional health care debates, if you do choose to exercise your “right” to an abortion, the US Taxpayers will probably foot the bill.

New items under recent discussion: Limiting the amount of fats and salts in your diet. I suppose, to the twisted minds that cobbled together the health care bill, that this makes sense – if you are going to provide health care to the populace ('free' or otherwise), you certainly have the right to dictate what the populace, who you are controlling, can and cannot eat, drink, or otherwise consume. After all, the 'brilliant minds' have seen the need to control costs in the health care provided --so the monies can be squandered and wasted elsewhere, such as on the 'Louisiana Purchase' that was used to buy the vote of the moron from Louisiana -- so you need to pretend to control what may impact the health of those controlled, thus freeing up more money that can be but to good waste elsewhere.

And this governmental intervention in our private lives is not without precedent -- it is merely another step down the same road that has been traveled many times before. Haven't we already been told how much water could be flushed down our toilets? Why not regulate what the water is flushing? This is just another step to take control of the populace. Control the toilet, control the diet, control the amount of health care, control how far the people can drive to work, school, and so on by controlling the amount and price of energy. Total and absolute control. Inch by inch, step by step, law by law.

I believe it was this past Monday (April 26, 2010), that the self appointed savior of the world was addressing a crowd in Illinois. His speech was about how badly conceived the new Arizona State Law was, how it impacted families and would lead to profiling and a host of other supposed problems (no mention was made of US Citizens and the havoc that illegal immigration has rained down -- particularly in the Southwest, where the drug wars and massive illegal immigration have spilled over into the US, with US Citizens being killed on US soil by either illegals or drug cartels, with property damage to farms and ranches, with hospitals being closed down due to emergency room care costs exceeding any ability to stay solvent, and with the overall damage to the general economy, not to mention the ecological damage that a 'true environmentalist' should be concerned about when the hordes spill over the border. His speech has been echoed by many others -- I am loosely paraphrasing: "The outrage of being profiled, the indignity of having to carry 'papers' with you" and so on. On the topic of 'carrying papers' for proof of citizenship, that is part of US law since about 1940 -- anyone here on a passport, visa or temporary basis is required to keep the visa, green card, etc. on their person and make it available in the event they are stopped by the police in order to show they are here legally. And, don't we all need to have drivers licenses to legally drive a car or to board a flight within the US? We all need to provide a Social Security Number to do many things -- including getting a credit card or credit check. So what is the problem with providing 'papers' to prove you are a citizen or here legally.  And didn't the Hillarycare bill call for a national identification card (which was a subject of much protest by the so called 'immigration reform' activists, who didn't, and don't, want to prove their legality).

Unfortunately, both a drivers license and credit card are such weak and easily forged documents, that they are laughable as real forms of identification. Oh, and remember the bill Bush was trying to push for tighter restrictions on immigration? It was abandoned, in part because of the protests by the activists. Isn't it great that people from another country can come here and dictate what we are supposed to do, or march in our streets in protest -- and be granted the same, or greater, rights that legitimate citizens? And, according to some reports in the news, the Dems are starting to push for a National Identity Card -- with 'biometrics' such as a thumb print: All citizens would be required to carry this at all times (presumably as an adjunct to health care).

And moving to an illogical, but all too probable conclusion, I am truly surprised that the 'immigration reform' crowd doesn't seize on this as a major money maker. Just imagine the market for forged driver's licenses, SSN's and other forms of documentation. Just another case of 'immigrants' doing jobs that Americans won't do!

Further along on the legislation in Arizona, it is obvious that not one of the people who were discussing the new Arizona law had even skimmed it, much less understood what it was intended to do. There are revisions in the Arizona law to specifically prevent racial profiling and those have been amended since its passage to further strengthen against profiling). It also specifically states that there has to be reasonable suspicion (a well litigated and time proven standard) for enquiring about someone's immigration status -- obviously to prevent profiling and discriminatory practices and to also prevent the ensuing litigation that would inevitably follow. The law, as it now stands, would not allow a peace officer to initiate contact only regarding immigration status (it must be adjunct to a traffic stop, an arrest on other charges, or the like) AND there must be documentable reasonable suspicion NOT based on race at all (originally the law had read “not based solely on race”) separate from the original reason for the stop. The lack of border control, or enforcement of existing immigration laws has never been rigorously addressed by this administration, or any other, for about 50 years. Shame on the Rhinos in office, as well, on this issue. However, ignorance of the situation has not stopped Obama, and his friend Al Sharpton, from again playing the race card. Obama is one of the worst, though more obtuse, race baiters that has come along in a long time. But that can't be due to his spending 20 years listening to rev Wright -- as he swore he never paid attention. But then again, he has said a lot of things that we can't believe. We know that Sharpton has made a career of race baiting, so perhaps birds of a feather . . . ? But the race baiting is simply another means being used to 'divide and conquer' – similar to the tactic we have seen so many times concerning about insurance companies, auto makers, and so on. Only now it is being aimed directly at ordinary US Citizens -- not some 'Corporate' bad guy. So the stage has finally been set to turn against citizens, and States, of this nation. And favor is being granted to the rest of the world over this nation.

In addition, the Great Satan (I like that term, as it seems to fit given the background, speeches, rhetoric, and actions) also gave a speech where he specifically called for "African Americans, Hispanics, Women, and Young People to gather together …" I was under the impression -- obviously a wrong impression under this regime -- that a president represented all the people in America -- not just the ones he chooses to represent. But again, he is trying to appeal to his supposed base. He uses “divide and conquer”, “race baiting”, and every tactic possible to bring as much confusion, chaos, despair, and distrust as possible, in order to keep the populace off balance so they won't notice what else is going on. The only problem with that is, I, like so many others, can only distrust him and his motives, as so much of what he says is all too transparent; and the more he speaks, the more transparent it becomes. He is hoping that if he can create enough division, he can create disunity and total chaos so that his plans will move forward unimpeded. His intent is to have us all fighting amongst ourselves so we won't notice what he is attempting to do.

However, I believe that the American People are smarter than that. Those tactics may have worked when he was a neighborhood organizer, and they caught the public sleeping and gullible during his first presidential campaign. But I doubt they will succeed again with the general population of this nation. I think we are collectively smarter and more astute than that, and are basically very happy with our lives as they were before this jerk came along with 'hope and change'. I just hope for another change November 2010.

[EDITOR'S NOTE: In this article, Dr. Wilborn touched upon just a few of the many instances of increasing government control over every aspect of our lives. As we publish this, the Santa Clara (California) County Supervisors are in the process of passing an ordinance prohibiting a restaurant from giving away toys with food. Goodbye 'Happy Meals'! Is there no aspect of life that these people think should not be under the control of Big Brother? Like every other socialist intrusion, they justify it because “it is for the good of the people”. Goodbye Freedom!

And, just today, I read in the newspaper that Governor Schwarzenegger courageously vetoed a bill that would have banned smoking on all public beaches and in all public parks. The sponsor of the bill derided him, saying that it would have improved the public health, made the beaches and parks cleaner, and possibly even have prevented forest fires. Of course, those are all good things. But, as always, “progressives” absolutely fail to consider the ultimate consequences. They will pass a law to accomplish some goal without a second thought about taking peoples' freedom away. Unless we stop them they will not stop until we are all the mindless automatons of 1984. (Did you know that Orwell chose that date as the title of his book because it would be the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Fabian Society?)]

___________________________________________________________

   
Back  to Chris Wilborn editorial index.

 

To get the most from freedomsite.com, please return to the home page after reading each article to browse the introductions to other articles. Thanks.

















 

 Cry Baby
by Chris Wilborn 

It was about a week ago that Obama gave a graduation speech at the University of Michigan. In his address, he cautioned, "...partisan rants and name calling, under the guise of legitimate discourse pose a serious danger to America's democracy and may incite 'extreme elements' to violence."

That's a strange twist. Isn't he at the front of the pack when it comes to name calling and political rants? I think he has attacked, directly or indirectly, just about every group in the US that has either spoken against his policies and ideals, or that he wants to vilify in an attempt to show that they are 'bad' and only big government can make it better. He has gone as far as to refer to people participating in Tea Parties, as "Tea Baggers." If you don't know what that term really means, google it or go to wikipedia to discover just how vile and reprehensible his language is, and to understand his true sentiments regarding any opposition.

I was under the impression that there was a Constitutional right of free speech -- and when the libs and radicals were exercising it against Bush, it was lauded as 'a good thing' by many in our government. Nancy Pelosi encouraged demonstrations and acting out against the Bush administration. Now, it seems, that making any innuendo against Obama is considered to be a very bad thing. And the concept that rants and name calling, although certainly not the highest form of debate, undermines democracy is ridiculous. That is the basis of our democracy -- open discourse and debate, and sometime rants and name calling, all based on the concept of the free exchange of information: we do have the freedom to criticize our government openly and freely -- despite what Obama would tell us. And rants and name calling have become my recent favorites since Obama first started to unveil his radical agenda and to unleash his rants and name calling on the citizens of the US. However, when it is used against him, he doesn't like it at all -- a cry baby in action.

Don't overlook his comment on 'extreme elements' and violence. He didn't elaborate on that, but it doesn't take too much imagination to come to the conclusion that he means 'right wing radicals.' If that is not what he meant, then the conclusion is all too easily reached by remembering other such verbal denigration in the recent past that was aimed at those on the right. Presumably, if you are a left wing radical, that is acceptable and you are not prone to violence -- despite the history of leftists in this county and around the world.

Conservatives are usually too busy just taking care of life to be caught up in demonstrations, riots and violence, and it is only recently that the Tea Party movement was born out of frustration. If that is a demonstration, then so be it, but I don't recall any rioting or destruction of property caused by any participants.

Obama went on to say, "What troubles me is when I hear people say that all of government is inherently bad. When our Government is spoken of as some menacing, threatening foreign entity, it ignores the fact that in our democracy, government is us."

No, government is no longer 'us.' It use to be, but is not now. The concept of our government was completely changed when Obamacare was forced through the House and Senate, and signed into law -- against the wishes of the majority of the population. The reason people are now saying our government is a menacing, threatening foreign entity is due to the example sent by our one-term president. Our former government has been turned against us and used against us, and the rhetoric coming from the White House has been both threatening and venomous against we, the citizens. And it is indeed 'foreign' as our government has never behaved before in this manner; our government use to listen to the people, or least pretend to listen to the people; under this administration, we the people have been completely ignored and left out of the process. People now have a very good reason to distrust our government -- and not just those that wear aluminum foil on their heads and discuss endless conspiracies -- but the average citizen who has witnessed our government lurch left in the past 16 months.

Promises were made about 'transparency and openness' that have turned out to be outright lies. Meetings were held in secret and only the democrats were permitted to attend; there was no media reporting (another lie); back room deals were cut with our tax dollars; and we were lied to about the total costs for Obamacare for both the short term and long term. When your government lies to you repeatedly, fails to represent you, acts against you and calls you names if you speak out against what is happening, you quickly come to the conclusion that it is not your government -- it now belongs to someone else. So of course you view it as foreign and threatening as you don't know what it will do next. And the concept of 'democracy' is now seriously eroded as well.

I suggest Obama look up the word in a decent dictionary. What has happened is not a democracy in action - he has taken our democracy and has tried to destroy it, so that the concept of being answerable to the people has been temporarily ruined. It is now, at best, rule by fiat -- by arbitrary decisions that ignore our founding documents and principles and that leave the citizens out of the process.

However, Obama has nothing to fear from the 'right wing radicals.' It is the average citizen he needs to fear -- not physically, but politically. All the people he has denigrated, lied to, called names, threatened and the myriad of other dishonest and disreputable actions has taken against, are going to vote in November. And I strongly suspect that there will a transition of power from the liberals to the republicans -- hopefully Conservative republicans. Obama's secure majority will be gone, and we can start the slow process of taking back our country and government again and restoring our democracy. It is that very concept that he is starting to cry about now. A cry baby speech from the punk.



Back to Chris Wilborn editorial index. 

  

To get the most from freedomsite.com, please return to the home page after reading each article to browse the introductions to other articles. Thanks.

























 

 Gold Coin Sellers Angered by New Tax Law

Amendment Slipped Into Health Care Legislation Would Track, Tax Coin and Bullion Transactions

By RICH BLAKE

 

July 21, 2010—

Those already outraged by the president's health care legislation now have a new bone of contention -- a scarcely noticed tack-on provision to the law that puts gold coin buyers and sellers under closer government scrutiny.

The issue is rising to the fore just as gold coin dealers are attracting attention over sales tactics.

Section 9006 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will amend the Internal Revenue Code to expand the scope of Form 1099. Currently, 1099 forms are used to track and report the miscellaneous income associated with services rendered by independent contractors or self-employed individuals.

Coin Dealers Flipping

 

Starting Jan. 1, 2012, Form 1099s will become a means of reporting to the Internal Revenue Service the purchases of all goods and services by small businesses and self-employed people that exceed $600 during a calendar year. Precious metals such as coins and bullion fall into this category and coin dealers have been among those most rankled by the change.

This provision, intended to mine what the IRS deems a vast reservoir of uncollected income tax, was included in the health care legislation ostensibly as a way to pay for it. The tax code tweak is expected to raise $17 billion over the next 10 years, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.

Taking an early and vociferous role in opposing the measure is the precious metal and coin industry, according to Diane Piret, industry affairs director for the Industry Council for Tangible Assets. The ICTA, based in Severna Park, Md., is a trade association representing an estimated 5,000 coin and bullion dealers in the United States.

"Coin dealers not only buy for their inventory from other dealers, but also with great frequency from the public," Piret said. "Most other types of businesses will have a limited number of suppliers from which they buy their goods and products for resale."

So every time a member of the public sells more than $600 worth of gold to a dealer, Piret said, the transaction will have to be reported to the government by the buyer.

Pat Heller, who owns Liberty Coin Service in Lansing, Mich., deals with around 1,000 customers every week. Many are individuals looking to protect wealth in an uncertain economy, he said, while others are dealers like him.

With spot market prices for gold at nearly $1,200 an ounce, Heller estimates that he'll be filling out between 10,000 and 20,000 tax forms per year after the new law takes effect.

"I'll have to hire two full-time people just to track all this stuff, which cuts into my profitability," he said.

An issue that combines gold coins, the Obama health care law and the IRS is bound to stir passions. Indeed, trading in gold coins and bars has surged since the financial crisis unfolded and Obama took office, metal dealers said.

The buying of actual gold, as opposed to futures or options tied to the price of gold, has been a particularly popular trend among Tea Party supporters and others who are fearful of Obama's economic policies, gold industry members such as Heller and Piret said. Conservative/libertarian commentators, such as Fox News Channel's Glenn Beck, routinely tout precious metal on the air as being a safe, shrewd investment in an environment in which the financial system -- and paper money backed by the rest of the world's faith in the U.S. government's credit -- is viewed as increasingly fragile.

The recently revealed investigation by California authorities into consumer complaints against Goldline International, which has used Beck as a pitchman, and Superior Gold Group (which has not) has put a spotlight on what one liberal leaning politician, Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., calls the "unholy alliance" between gold coin sellers, such as Goldline, and conservative talk personalities, such as Beck.

Beck, who through his spokesman, Matt Hiltzik, declined to comment for this story, and Goldline marketers portray gold coins as a better alternative to owning bullion in the event that the U.S. government ever decides, as it did under FDR in 1933, to make it illegal for private citizens to own physical gold. At that time, the U.S. dollar was still pegged to the price of gold; the gold standard was abandoned during the Nixon administration.

Rep. Daniel Lungren, R-Calif., has introduced legislation to repeal the section of the health care bill that would trigger the new tax reporting requirement because he says it's a burden on small businesses.

"Large corporations have whole divisions to handle such transaction paperwork but for a small business, which doesn't have the manpower, this is yet another brick on their back," Lungren said in a statement e-mailed to ABCNews.com. "Everyone agrees that small businesses are job creators and the engine which drives the American economy. I am dumfounded that this Administration is doing all it can to make it more difficult for businesses to succeed rather than doing all it can to help them grow."

The ICTA's Piret says identity theft is another concern because criminals may set up shops specifically to extract personal information that would accompany the filing out of a 1099.

The office of the National Taxpayer Advocate, a citizen's ombudsman within the IRS, issued a report June 30 that said the new rule "may present significant administrative challenges to taxpayers and the IRS."

 

Back  to Tying the Issues Together 

 

 

To get the most from freedomsite.com, please return to the home page after reading each article to browse the introductions to other articles. Thanks.






















 

 

Tim Nerenz

 MARCH 09, 2011

Union Busting

While the Wisconsin media continues to obsess over the partisan standoff between Republicans and Democrats in Madison, the many other fronts in the war between the taxpayers and the taxeaters has received only glancing coverage.   

Idaho, Utah, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, and Vermont (yes, that Vermont) have all taken measures to shrink the size of their public sector unions or to restrict collective bargaining privileges. Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) has introduced federal Right-To-Work legislation which would guarantee all Americans in every state the right to work free of union impairment.   

Unionists, statists, and most liberals decry all of these measures as “union-busting”.  While most who oppose unions try to wiggle out from underneath the charge, I wear that label with pride.  Damn right we should bust them; just like we should bust all the other economic monopolies and cartels.  Unions could not even exist without the exemptions from federal anti-trust laws that they have purchased.   

Compulsory collective bargaining – key word compulsory – is incompatible with the principle of liberty.  End of argument.  If union enthusiasts would simply make membership voluntary, I would be out there stomping around with them.  But the “right” they insist upon is the right to deny the rights of others by force, and libertarians don’t swim in that end of the pool, sorry.

Whenever there is a barrier that prevents the exercise of a civil right, it should be busted. Every American has the right to work – period. It is the most basic of civil rights, to own your person and the fruits of your labors.  Nobody has the moral authority to deny you your person - nobody.  Right To Work is no more complicated than its title; it is the denial of that right through forced-union privilege that requires tortured justifications.   

Libertarians and conservatives are allies on Right To Work; this does not arise from a perfectly shared vision of a just society, rather from our common reverence for the Constitution.  Where in the foundational documents is the principle that one right can be imposed by the state at the expense of two other co-equal rights?  Where in the Constitution is the authority granted to government to force a person to pay a third-party tribute as a condition of employment? Show it to me.

You have a right to vote, and you are not forced to purchase that right from me.  You have a right to speak, and you are not forced to purchase it from me.  You have a right to worship, and you are not required to purchase it from me.  You have a right to bear arms, and you are not required to purchase it from me. You have a right to due process, and you are not required to purchase it from me.

But when it comes to your right to work, in 28 states you are required to purchase it from me, as long as I call myself the amalgamated brotherhood or fraternal order of whatever, and persuade 50% of your co-workers - once , and by any means necessary - to pay the toll. And there’s the rub.    

In the past, you had to pay a poll tax to a political party to exercise the right to vote; in forced-union states, you still you must pay a tribute to the parent company of a political party in order to exercise your right to work. The second case is no less corrupt and reprehensible than the first, but many who marched against the former offense in their bell-bottomed days are now marching to protect the latter offense in their loose-fit years.    

The civil rights movement of the 1960’s busted the hold of the Ku Klux Klan over the Democratic Party in the South and abolished the poll tax. Right To Work in the 2010’s will bust the unions’ even more powerful stranglehold on the Democratic Party in the north, and abolish the workplace toll.  Busting organizations whose sole purpose is to deny civil rights to others is a worthy and noble cause. Klan buster, trust buster, crime buster, union buster; it’s all good.      

It is the liberals who defend forced-union legislation that have the explaining to do.  They have abandoned their commitment to civil rights, trading their principles for box seats in the game of political power and control.  To continue to call themselves civil libertarians is dishonest.  They are civil rights sellouts, and we should not be squeamish about calling them on it just because they are nice.      

On one hand, they insist on a right for gay people to marry, but they would deny those same married gay people the right to work. They claim to be the defenders of women’s rights in the workplace, yet categorically deny women their most basic workplace right – the right to work.  They claim to be the protector of children, yet work tirelessly to deny children the right to work when they grow up.  The advocates for workers with disabilities will not lift a finger to help the disabled work free of union impairment.

They will yell themselves hoarse over a 5% minority religion’s potential offense over a mural with the Ten Commandments; but they find it perfectly acceptable to force the 49% of a workforce that voted against union membership to join it anyway and for employers to withhold the dues that will be used against their interests.

There are some of us who have concluded that the mobbed-up extortionists with initials on their windbreakers are vile; and we don’t believe we should be coerced into joining their ranks by the government that represents us. That wacky notion is called freedom of association. If you think it is a proper role of government to force people into associations against their will, all I can say is that you should thank your lucky stars that I am not the Governor of your state.    

It now seems clear that the unionists strategy in Wisconsin is to disenfranchise the whole state and nullify the November elections by keeping 14 Democratic State Senators in Illinois long enough to mount a nationally-orchestrated recall effort in selected Republican districts. That is our President’s impaired vision of representative democracy in a republic.    

There are over 5 million citizens in the state of Wisconsin.  The vast majority of us do not live and breathe politics 24/7/365. We like to stay generally informed, and then every two years, we would like to weigh in on the performance of our representatives and the direction of our state. Then we want to get back to important things like business, work, family, church, clubs, charities, neighbors, friends, entertainment, romance, hobbies, intellectual pursuits, music, education, and sports, sports, sports.       

But there is a tiny little minority who think they are so bloody important that they should hold the entire state hostage to their partisan sparring and self-absorbed tantrums.  Their arrogance and condescension would be infuriating if we weren’t so bored with it.

They think their passions are more important than ours.  They think their uses for our money for are more important than our own. They think the perks of their own jobs are more important than the hundreds of thousands that won’t be created here now that they have shown potential employers that we are a state run by folks who have lost their minds or folks who are losing their nerve.   

They have a right to their opinions. But far more importantly, the rest of us have a right to work.And this would be a good time for the new government that was elected last fall to protect our rights to show us the respect of actually doing it. Right To Work – right now.   

Moment Of Clarity” is a weekly commentary by Libertarian writer and speaker Tim Nerenz, Ph.D.  Visit Tim’s website www.timnerenz.comto find your moment and order his new book, “Tooth Fairy Government.”  

Back  to Tying the Issues Together 

To get the most from freedomsite.com, please return to the home page after reading each article to browse the introductions to other articles. Thanks.



  

www.freedomsite.us













































Website Builder