Unless you have been living under a rock you have probably heard of a tax reform plan called the FairTax. Rep. John Linder (R., Ga.) along with 65 co-sponsors in the house has introduced HR-25, The FairTax act of 2007. This bill has created quite a stir in the recent months.

At present six Republican presidential candidates, and one Democrat, have endorsed the plan. Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee’s endorsement of the Fair Tax played well among the crowd and brought him a second place finish in the Republican Iowa straw poll several weeks ago. In addition, the GOP’s newest candidate, Fred Thompson, has said that he would sign the bill if it were passed by Congress.

Libertarian radio host, Neal Boortz, has discussed it in detail and has answered the multitude of questions from callers on his syndicated show. This, along with the massive success of his book, The FairTax, written along with Linder, more and more Americans are becoming familiar with the FairTax and H.R. 25 everyday. They seem to like what they see. Those who have read the book and have studied the FairTax website want to know what they can do to bring about this tax reform. Alas, due to its popularity, more and more of the Washington insiders whom make their livings off the present tax system have become quite nervous.It is not surprising that the proposal has met stern opposition. Many individuals owe their livelihood to the complexity of the current tax system. K-street lobbyists earn six figure fees for obtaining tax breaks for various entities. By some estimates more than one-half of the people earning a living in Washington lobbying congress do so by requesting tax breaks for clients. In addition, every elected official in Washington has an advisor on staff whose function it is to keep their congressman or senator current on the latest tax legislation. When asked for an appraisal of the FairTax do you really expect them to praise a plan which would send them looking for another source of employment.Then, of course, there are people who pontificate daily about the advantages and disadvantages which accompany changes in our tax code. With the tax code reduced to 123 pages, the simplicity of H.R. 25 would quickly force these individuals to become experts in some other field.Clearly not everyone would benefit from simplifying the method we use to fund our federal government. Those who would be hurt are on the attack in an effort to save their jobs. There are those like Giuliani, claiming to have read the book, spouting erroneous information proving his ignorance concerning the bill. Then there are those who knowingly lie or spread misinformation about the plan. Bruce Bartlett, former assistant secretary to the U.S. Treasury and current columnist for the Wall Street Journal appears to be of the latter.Mr. Bartlett wrote a column several weeks ago attacking the FairTax. Reading his article it becomes obvious that he did not even make a casual attempt to research the issue. He begins his diatribe with an easily refuted claim that the FairTax was originally devised by the Church of Scientology in the early 90’s. This is absolutely absurd.Years before the FairTax was developed a group called Citizens for an Alternative Tax System developed a plan for a national retail sales tax. The plan was wholly different from the FairTax in that it called for an exclusive, rather than an inclusive sales tax, it did not eliminate payroll taxes, it had no provision to rebate taxes paid on life’s essentials and it left the corporate tax structure in place. Bartlett’s FairTax-Scientology connection is ridiculous.  A Scientologist member spoke with an individual in Texas who dismissed him out of hand. Sometime later this individual in Texas, who was not a Scientologist, became involved with Leo Linbeck and Robert McNair; the fathers, if you will, of the FairTax movement. Bartlett’s assumption is that since some Scientologist once talked to a person now associated with the people who created the FairTax, the FairTax must be a Scientologist plot. Just to make it clear, neither Linbeck nor McNair have had any connection whatsoever with Scientology. I’m not sure of neither McNair’s nor Linbeck’s religious affiliation, but it is definitely not Scientology. By the way, Congressman John Linder, the author of H.R. 25, the FairTax Act, is an elder in the Presbyterian Church and Neal Boortz happens to be Episcopalian I believe.Bartlett’s attacks on the FairTax (see beyond the basics) don’t end with the Scientology angle. Bartlett misrepresents the FairTax as an exclusive tax added to the price. The FairTax is an inclusive tax, as are the income taxes the FairTax is designed to replace. Every item you buy has embedded taxes. The government has taxed that item every step of the way. The FairTax removes these embedded taxes and replaces them (and others) with an inclusive 23% tax on new items. (Used items are not subject to the tax)

Bartlett insisted on quoting the income tax as inclusive while at the Treasury. Why does he refuse to quote the tax that seeks to replace the income tax the same way? He also plays with the math. I’m not the smartest guy in the room (and I’m alone with Dusty, my deaf, albino Blue Healer), but I understand that out of every dollar paid 23 cents goes to Uncle Sam. Remember, the cost of the taxes paid during production, corporate taxes, payroll taxes, etc. have been eliminated. So, the cost to bring the item to the public is reduced. If an item costs $100 now, it will cost about $100 after. We have removed the embedded taxes on each step of the process, (the average is around 24%) plus the payroll and corporate taxes the retailer pays. The retailer can still sell the item for $100 and make the same profit as before, (if not more) and still give Uncle Sam his $23. If the item costs $50 then $11.50 would go to Uncle Sam. Remember, you also get to keep your entire paycheck, so not only will you be paying roughly the same, you will have increased your buying power. It is also highly probable that due to competition you will be paying less.       In a column on FairTax.org, Neal Boortz states that Bartlett completely (intentionally?) mischaracterizes the FairTax prebate, the FairTax provision that insures that no American family would pay the FairTax on the basic necessities of life, by stating in two columns that the government would have to track individual family incomes to implement the prebate plan. Boortz continues, stating that a sixth-grader could read the bill or The FairTax Book and understand that the prebate is predicated on the size of the family, not the family income; yet Bartlett continues to insist that income must be tracked! Is this out of desperation, carelessness or ignorance? Bartlett also states “Since sales taxes are regressive — taking more in percentage terms from the incomes of the poor and middle class than the rich — some provision is needed to prevent a vast increase in taxation on the nonwealthy. The FairTax does this by sending monthly checks to every household based on income.” The prebate takes care of that. As stated above it is based on the size of the family and covers taxes paid up to the poverty level. Bartlett claims deception on the part of FairTax supporters. Well, it is obvious that the deception lies within Bartlett’s outlandish accusations. He continues his attack by stating, “The federal government would have to pay taxes to itself on all of its purchases of goods and services. Thus if the Defense Department buys a tank that now costs $1 million, the manufacturer would have to add the FairTax and send it to the Treasury Department. The tank would then cost the federal government $300,000 more than it does today, but its tax collection will also be $300,000 higher.” Again, nothing is added. The FairTax is inclusive. The million dollar tank would still cost about a million dollars. Another “deception” by Bartlett concerns the non-existent rise in spending by the government, “the proposal only works if federal purchases are cut by 30%, close to $300 billion — the increased cost imposed by the FairTax.” As I have stated earlier, there will not be any price increase. All corporate, payroll taxes etc. are removed as well as the cost of compliance. The services of tax lawyers and accountants are not cheap. Yes, services, including medical will be taxed. But, consumer costs will remain the same. You always have to remember that all operational taxes are gone, so our prices will remain the same.He also poses these questions, “What possible incentive would the states have to be vigorous in their federal tax collections? What is to stop them from slacking off and giving their citizens a tax cut at federal expense? What about states with no sales taxes? What’s to stop people from bypassing retail outlets and buying their goods from producers or at wholesale, tax-free?” 1. The incentive would be to maintain the federal funding states receive. 2. If the states could do so, why not now with federal gasoline taxes, or liquor and other “sin” taxes? 3. What’s to stop people now from bypassing retailers and going straight to the producer or a wholesaler? Convenience and the fact that most producers and wholesalers only sell in bulk quantities. That would not change.Bartlett’s claim of difficulty in collections at the counter is without merit as well. Businesses are used to collecting sales taxes in most cases and those that aren’t can hire a 4^th grader to handle it. Gee, we sold $100, 000 so, hmm, uh, duh, how much does Uncle Sam get? I’m not going to do the math for you, but my first grade step-daughter just answered it.

Bartlett insults proponents by stating, “The biggest deception in the FairTax, however, is its promise to relieve individuals from having to file income tax returns, keep extensive financial records and potentially suffer audits making April 15 just another day. Yet, all but six states now have state income taxes. So unless one lives in one of those states, this promise is an empty one indeed.” There is no deception here. Once the national system is up and running the states would probably follow suit, thus making April 15 just another day. Bartlett concludes by getting in one more shot. “In short, the FairTax is too good to be true, and voters should not take seriously any candidate who supports it.” If Mr. Bartlett would have done a little research he would realize it is both good and true, and any candidate who supports it believes the power belongs to the people. Power belongs to the people? What does the FairTax have to do with empowerment? Politicians will not be able to use taxes as an election or money raising tool. Class warfare will come to an end. We have lost control of our government and this is the first step in getting it back. Bartlett has illustrated one fundamental truth about the FairTax. It is easy to elicit emotive bias. The FairTax seems to have alarmed advocates of big government. They have resorted to absurd attacks such as the Scientology conspiracy? (Ooh, where are the black helicopters?) You would think FairTax opponents would base their attacks on the FairTax with solid and defensible criticisms or objections and not easily refutable and angry fear mongering. Could these baseless attacks be evidence of concern that the idea has wings? Self preservation over the good of the nation is how these attacks by Bartlett, et al appear. In upcoming pages I will illustrate how government uses our current tax system for their self interests and to retain and expand their power. Also, even though the courts have decreed that our income tax system is constitutional, many of the projects and programs our money is spent on are not.

Simply Annoyed

It’s a Simply Annoyed Nation

This is what we all know. This will make or break Hillary. After being defeated on the first attempt, she has made this personal. Everything she has worked for or suffered (the humiliations put upon her by Bill) has led her to this moment. If she is not able to bring her baby to term she will be done, forever a footnote to history. To her credit though, she has learned a few lessons. Instead of the massive bill she put forth the first time, she has whittled it down. If she can get this less extensive version passed the other components would fall in line.

Mouth pieces for each side have been giving the partisan spin. The Liberals are playing down the costs while playing up the “poor, downtrodden working class” angle. The Conservatives are playing up the “actual” costs and Constitutional issues while playing down the problems with our current system.

Well, after some study I have to side with the Conservatives here. Let’s skip over the Constitutional issues for now. Hillary claims this program will cost 100+ billion to implement. Economic think tanks have determined this number to be well off the mark. Heritage.org reported that the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) estimate of the annual cost of the 1988 drug benefit jumped from $5.7 billion when the bill was passed to $11.8 billion just twelve months later. The CBO raised the cost of a new skilled nursing benefit from $2.1 billion to $13.5 billion, or by 642 percent, in just 14 months. The revisions were prompted by new assumptions based on the final version of the bill. Every social program since FDR’s “New Deal” has cost at best a minimum of twice what was stated. At worst, exponentially more. I do mean every single one. Do not take my word for it. Look it up.

Hillary’s plan calls for every American to purchase health care through private or public avenues. Mandates are not only unconstitutional but not necessary. You can not force anyone to buy anything. I’ve heard comparisons to car insurance. It’s the law in every state that if you drive you must carry liability insurance. So, according to those people you are forced to buy insurance. No, no you’re not. First, liability only covers damage to another’s property or injury to another. Health insurance does not protect those around you. You can choose not to drive. You can make that decision for yourself. You can not decide to never get sick.

If you choose not to purchase health care, then you will be punished though the loss of tax deductions, denial of employment and others. Her plan will require every “citizen” (what about the illegal aliens?) to provide evidence of coverage before applying for employment. You must go to the government to acquire coverage before you can get a job. Talk about stomping on my rights.

“Our present system is outdated, ineffective, and unsustainable. But we know we can spend far less and create an efficient, high-quality health care system for all Americans,” the New York senator said in remarks prepared for delivery at George Washington University. This statement is ridiculous. History shows that the Federal Government has never been involved in ANY venture where they proved to be more efficient than the private sector. (With the possible exception of mailing checks) As for “spending far less”, again our government (the legislature) has never exhibited any self control on spending. Why should we believe this instance would be different? It can not be.

“The key is to modernize our health care infrastructure and demand a better return on our investment.” Clinton criticized health insurers for steering clear of Americans with expensive, pre-existing conditions, and called for ending insurance discrimination. Under the plan, a “guarantee-issue” system would allow anyone to join an insurance plan and would bar insurers from carving out benefits or charging higher rates to people with health problems. So, according to Hillary why should I pay for coverage until I get sick? This sounds a lot like bailing out flood victims who build in a flood prone area. You purchase insurance in advance of an incident. I am offended when the government spends my money to bail out the stupid or the ill-prepared. Oh, gee I have a rare blood disease that costs thousands of dollars to treat. I could have obtained health coverage before but I wanted the plasma screen, cable, my cell phone, spinners on my rims and a six pack every night. So, now that I’m sick I want my neighbor, who obtained his coverage and waited on the plasma, etc. It’s not fair that they won’t insure me at the normal rate or at all even they know it’s a loss for them and will raise the rates of others. The government will take care of me, why worry about it myself. What a load of crap. We are responsible for our own lives. It is not the job of government to save me from myself. That’s a discussion for another day.

The 14-page plan also outlined proposals to improve outcomes of the chronically ill, who usually incur catastrophic expenses and are a key driver of rising health-care costs. I thought we had a plan for the indigent. It’s called Medicaid. Every poor individual in this country can apply. That brings up another point. The liberals speak as though people are refused treatment everyday for lack of insurance. That is not true. Hospitals do not, due to local laws and ethics, refuse treatment to anyone. Even illegal aliens receive treatment.

Clinton would require that all employers offer coverage, that all residents buy it, and that Washington dictate its price and content. She would levy higher income taxes on the wealthy and hidden taxes on everyone. Clinton still equates reform with less freedom. Gone is the freedom to choose whether to purchase health insurance. The freedom to purchase the insurance you want. Gone is the freedom to run a competitive business. To hold on to your earnings. To make your own health care decisions. Gone, gone and gone.

But how big is the free-rider problem, really? First, we should note that not all free riders are uninsured. In fact, people with insurance consume almost a third of uncompensated care. Second, not all care received by the uninsured is paid for by others. Analysts at the Urban Institute found that the uninsured pay more than 25 percent of their health expenditures out of pocket.

So how much uncompensated care is received by the uninsured? The same study puts the number at about $35 billion a year in 2001, or only 2.8 percent of total health care expenditures for that year. In other words, even if the individual mandate works exactly as planned, it will affect at best a mere 3 percent of health care expenditures. The Cato Institute’s health policy work is designed to show that the only way to make health care of ever-increasing quality available to an ever-increasing number of consumers is to put consumers in charge of their health care dollars and decisions. With that in mind, Cato has worked to familiarize the public, media and policymakers with the free-market alternative to managed care and single-payer plans—health savings accounts (HSAs).

A comprehensive market-based approach to controlling health care costs was first developed by Cato’s scholars in the 1980s and set forth in a book in 1992 called Patient Power: Solving America’s Health Care Crisis. The condensed version of Patient Power sold 300,000 copies and is credited with playing a pivotal role in the defeat of the Clinton administration’s plan to overhaul the U.S. health care system. Cato scholars took the initiative to outline the health care reform debate before the Clinton administration issued its proposal, thus helping to avert a national policy disaster.

Other Cato publications have focused on the right and wrong ways to reform Medicare, tax treatment of employer-provided health insurance, and prescription drug costs. In particular, Cato has been a longtime advocate of deregulating the health care industry so that consumers can afford the health care insurance and treatment of their choice. Various Cato publications have documented the heavy costs associated with government regulation of insurance, drugs and medical devices, health care professionals, hospitals and clinics, and the medical malpractice system. A recent Cato Policy Analysis, “Health Care Regulation: A $169 Billion Hidden Tax,” by Duke University professor Christopher J. Conover found that the costs of health care regulation outweigh the benefits by two-to-one and make health insurance unaffordable for roughly 7.5 million Americans.

Something else that the liberals fail to mention is that much of the cost of healthcare is due to compliance with government regulations. We are not permitted to shop out of state which limits competition. Policies must carry mandated coverage. A couple of examples include my policy which covers me if I get pregnant or decide to get a hysterectomy. The women in my office are covered in case they have a problem with their testicles, prostate or decide to get a vasectomy. We are not allowed to purchase a plan based on our needs. This would bring the cost way down. But, alas the government will not allow that.

Do not mistake the intentions behind this ludicrous idea. Hillary and the others do not care about your health. They do not care whether you are covered. They do not care how much or little you spend. They care only about power. The more we have to rely on the Federal Government the more power it gains. Politicians, in this case liberal democrats pander to fear. They know this gets them re-elected. We hear how horrible our lives are, how unfair this or that is, how the evil rich must pay their share (most middle class or poor do not pay income tax, I get all my withholding refunded each April and so do most of you, the wealthy are paying the vast majority of taxes in this country. Again, that is a topic for another day.) They need us to depend on them to survive. They try to scare us to death so we go running to the polls. What we need is for our government to stay out of our lives and get back to their duties as laid out in the Constitution.

A Simply Annoyed Nation
 

Rule by Law or Mob Rule

We Can’t Be Both

Benjamin Rush said on the ratification of the Constitution on July 9, 1788 “Tis done, we have become a nation.” And just after the completion and signing of the Constitution, Benjamin Franklin replied to a woman’s inquiry as to the type of government the Founders had created, “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

Sorry Ben, we have failed to keep it.

Not only could we not keep it, most people do not even know what kind government the Founding Fathers created.

• A Republic is representative government ruled by law (the Constitution).
  
• A democracy is direct government ruled by the majority (mob rule).
  A Republic preserves the inalienable rights of individuals while democracies pander to wants or needs (sustenance of power).
  

Our Fore Fathers warned us of the inherent dangers found within a Democracy and a Government left unchecked. They demonstrated the import of jealous guardianship as they chose to restrict our Republican (not to do with the party of the same name) Government very carefully to those ends. Their thought processes are there, archived in their personal diaries and official documents found in public and private libraries. With great purpose of intent they placed safeguards throughout The Constitution. This makes it even more lamentable that we have not adhered to their design.

Democracies, without fail have always self-destructed when the non-productive realize that they can obtain their sustenance from the productive through the power of force enjoyed by the government. Pandering to these groups, the candidate promising the most booty looted from the public treasury must adopt an ever-increasing tax and spend policy to satisfy the ever-increasing desire of the majority. Oh, but it’s ok. As you know, they only tax the evil rich. Well, what you never hear is that if you make 30k a year you are one of those evil ones. You never hear that corporate taxes punish small businesses much more than the major corporations. Tax breaks, incentives, loopholes, and subsidies provide a protective cloak. The expense of those inescapable assessments is remunerated by the people in the form of higher prices.

As Federal tax rates increase, the incentive to produce is decreased, causing many of the once productive to be forced out or to drop out. By joining the non-productive, the cycle continues, eventually leading to a point deficient in producers to fund the legitimate functions of government. At this point the Democracy will join the precedent Republic in the fields of Appomattox. Then, as history instructs, it will be followed by a Dictatorship.

Welfare instills a fundamental dependency within the individual on the government. The individual is lost to complacency and social dependency. The welfare system is an incontrovertible failure. It has doomed generation after generation to social servitude at the feet of PHARISAICAL
leadership. The system does not promote a desire for achievement and in reality a contrary product is realized. Welfare was promoted as a temporary relief fund which provided long term assistance only to the (truly) needy. Instead, we have an inept system based on rewarding negative behavior, supported (under duress) by the productive. The “profiteers” of “class warfare” perpetuate the system retaining their power. Feigning concern, they hold the masses uninterrupted in their dependency on the government.

“Thou shalt not covet” means that it is sinful even to contemplate the seizure of another man’s goods — which is something which Socialists, whether Christian or otherwise, have never managed to explain away.”
- John Chamberlain, “The Roots of Capitalism” [1965]

The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money.
- Alexis de Tocqueville

In the author’s opinion this could be corrected thusly:

• The repeal of the 16^th Amendment and instituting HR 21 “The Fair Tax”.
  
• A return to State’s Rights by repealing the 17^th Amendment.
  
• Limit voters to those literate in words and subjects relative to a nation.
  
• Granting the privilege exclusively to Citizens or long term legal residents.
  

A Republic is based on a system of laws. Laws, according to those who created our Nation were to be made only in the interest of preserving freedom. That is the provision for Liberty. According to the Founder’s personal notes and diaries they conclude that laws affecting individual lives were to be left to the “Several States”. Management of local institutions, schools, social programs, local commerce, prohibitions, etc was to be left to the individual state. For instance, the people of Idaho are uninterested in the needs of the people in Carroll County, Georgia. Florida residents have the right to limit their personal individual freedoms locally if they find it necessary. However, they were not given the right to decide on limiting the freedoms of North Dakotans. Freedom is sense of choice. Only if an individual’s voluntary election of choice “makes violence” (does direct harm) to the freedom of another should there be a prohibition of that act.

Federal Lawmaking is to be a slow, deliberate process in our Constitutional Republic requiring the approval of the Three Branches of Government. The Founding Fathers were clear on this. Federal laws were not to affect an individual’s freedom with the exception of interstate or international matters. The Constitution itself lists the Federal Government’s responsibilities and plainly states that everything else is left to the “Several States” or to the individual. They were never meant for local social, economic, or penal control. The loss of State’s Rights has resulted in Governmental regulations intruding on most aspects of American life.

Lawmaking, in our present Democracy occurs rapidly requiring only the pandering to the whimsical approval of the majority. The vote is awarded to the promise of an additional loaf of bread. An important, historically defined result of this policy is an overwhelming welfare state disinterested in being productive, complacent to survive from the teat of government. They will be willing to shed a few freedoms for a little more security.

A Democracy leads directly to pandering. Political power under a Democracy relies directly upon the popular vote/opinion. Thomas Jefferson explained that those illiterate in letters and government, those unknowledgeable in generalities or the working of a nation, and those whose lives are economically subsidized by the people voluntarily forfeit the franchise. Those who are oblivious to anything slightly removed from their immediate day to day lives will cast their vote for those who slander the productive and reward the disinterested. The present Democracy applies very few standards to America’s voting pool. As in anything else, it’s the quality not the quantity that’s important. An illiterate and uninformed voting pool is dangerous to a Nation.

Incredibly, nearly every politician, teacher, journalist and citizen believes that our Founders created a Democracy. The Founders knew full well the differences between a Republic and a Democracy and they repeatedly and emphatically state that they had founded a Republic. The Constitution, not once mentions the word “Democracy”.

In addition, nowhere within the body of The Constitution nor the original 10 Amendments can you find “The Right to Vote”. The 15^th, 19^th, 24^th and the 26^th Amendments state that you can not be denied your right to vote due to race, sex, religion etc. The only problem is you can not lose what you never had in the first place. Those Amendments should read as you can not be denied “participation or designation as a qualified voter due to race, sex, religion, etc” That would be more aligned with the original intent of Jefferson, et al.

Article IV Section 4, of the Constitution “guarantees to every state in this union a Republican form of government”. This is the only mention regarding the form of government established in the entire document. That statement made it clear. There was no need for further discussion. However, for those who want to argue that the statement is “vague” I suggest reading the personal writings of the authors as they leave no question as to their intent. This is true for many other sections defined as “controversial to the intent”. The Constitution is not as vague as some members of government want the general population to believe. There are many resources on-line or in your local libraries to educate yourselves.

Madison warned us of the dangers of democracies with these words,

“Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths…”,

The historical lifespan of a Democracy is around 200 years. It has been approximately 140 years since Lincoln drove the Republic’s final coffin nail and established (under immoral and unconstitutional methods) the Democracy we live in now.

“Democracy is indispensable to socialism.”
- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin“Democracy is the road to Socialism.”
- Karl Marx“Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.”
- H.L. Mencken

“A wise man will not leave the Right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority. There is but little virtue in the action of masses of men.”

-Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862)

Previous to the 1930′s our military training manuals used to contain the correct definitions of Democracy and Republic. Franklin D. Roosevelt in conjunction with the installment of his socialist programs had them removed from circulation, confiscated from servicemen and destroyed. The manuals which followed make no mention of The Republic and have altered the meaning of Democracy. The following comes from Training Manual No. 2000-25 published by the War Department, November 30, 1928.

DEMOCRACY:

• A government of the masses.
  
• Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of “direct” expression.
  
• Results in mobocracy.
  
• Attitude toward property is communistic–negating property rights.
  
• Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.
  
• Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.
  

REPUBLIC:

• Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.
  
• Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.
  
• A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.
  
• Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy.
  
• Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.
  
• Is the “preferred form” of government throughout the world.
  

On a side note, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, touted as a hero by many was not the great benefactor school children are lead to believe. About the same time as the aforementioned action FDR made private ownership of our lawful money (US Minted Gold Coins) illegal. Shortly after the people turned in their $20 gold coins, the price was increased from $20 per ounce to $35 per ounce. Almost overnight, F.D.R., the most popular president this century (elected 4 times) looted almost half of the individual wealth of the Nation, while convincing the people that it was for their own good.

Many of F.D.R.’s policies were suggested by his right hand man, Harry Hopkins, who said, “Tax and Tax, Spend and Spend, Elect and Elect, because the people are too damn dumb to know the difference”.

It is time to return to our Republican roots

There is no excuse for political illiteracy. No matter the flavor of your politics there are sources readily available. Newspapers, Network News, Public Radio, and most Cable News outlets relay a similar view to the public. Talk Radio, Many Internet Sites and one Cable News outlet express an opposing view. Exceptions are noted. The former tend to color the information with the popular opinion. The latter groups lean on original Republican views and the Constitutionality of the issue. Whatever the spin, the information is out there. These sources and those more traditional (libraries, etc) give every individual the opportunity to prepare themselves for participation in The Great Experiment. The eventuality of study in these areas, if made with the honest intention of education will lead to these basic conclusions;

• The Democratic system we have strayed into is not survivable.
  
• The Constitution (the Law) is disregarded in many situations.
  
• The present Tax system provides for the corruptions of government and society.
  
• Government regulations and subsidies are political tools and do not necessarily “Promote the General Welfare”.
  

Under a Democracy there is only the illusion of Freedom. Your personal sense of option is predicated on the opinions of the majority. Your economic freedom (property rights), personal freedom (every day choices or life changing decisions), and moral freedom (personal accountability of right and wrong) are all subject to popular attitudes.

Under a Republic there is genuineness to Freedom. Your personal sense of option is predicated on your opinion with the understanding that you may not intrude upon that of another’s. Your economic, personal and moral freedoms are subject only to local or individual attitudes.

Under a Democracy the issues of a local community or individual state are governed by the whole. The Federal Government regulates the individual.

Under a Republic it is the responsibility of the local community or individual state to govern from within. The Federal Government regulates interstate and international concerns.

Under a Democracy, every member of the government is obligated to pander to the majority.

Under a Republic, only Representatives are obliged to listen to the majority. Senators represent the state and the President the Nation (As was originally defined in the Constitution).

Under a Democracy, members of the Supreme Court bend the Constitution to their ideals. When an individual freedom is impeded upon they explain why it’s permissible due to social sentiment.

Under a Republic, members of the Supreme Court adhere to the letter of the law (Constitution). When an individual freedom is impeded upon they explain why it’s never permissible.

Simply Annoyed

SimplyAnnoyed.net

They are upset because children watch several hours of commercials a day designed to instill a desire for their “unhealthy” product. According to them Toucan Sam, Snap, Crackle and Pop, Dig ‘em and the rest are directly to blame for obesity in children.

Well, Kellogg’s in their infinite wisdom decided to click their heels and fall in line with these totalitarian demands. They will either change the composition of their products or market them to an older demographic.

It’s true that America’s children are obese. Lack of physical activity, video game addictions, lack of parental supervision and parental laziness are leading causes. Obese parents raise obese children, (hint, it’s not always heredity, it’s the double quarter pounders and the all you can eat buffet). Take a walk through your neighborhood. Observe the children playing outside. They are running around, playing ball, playing tag and enjoying themselves. “Come on mom, just a little longer” I know most of you have said that many times yourselves as children. Anyway, take a close look at these children. What do you notice? Not a fat one among them, huh? Maybe one in a hundred, but that’s the exception. Yeah, I said FAT. If it offends you then I’m happy. You must be fat or the parent of a fat child. Remember, one right no one has is the right to not be offended. However, that’s a subject for another entry. So, where are the fat kids? You know where they are. They are inside sitting in front of the computer, the video game or the TV. In whichever of these it may be you are assured there are potato chips, candy, colas or some other comfort food being consumed.

Not only is it the inactivity of the child which is to blame. It’s the laziness of the parent as well. “I don’t have time to prepare a good breakfast.” “We’re always in a rush, so we have to pass through McDonald’s or the like”. I hear these and other ridiculous statements explaining why their children are fat tubs of jiggle fat. I have two words for these people. Bull Shit! How about you wake your lazy ass up 30 minutes earlier and make these kids a decent meal instead of giving them these sugar coated cereals or shoving a Pop Tart in their hands as they run out the door. “Oh, but I would be tired all day”. Well, how about turning off the TV and going to sleep instead of watching Letterman. And for the other excuse, it’s a shame that all these fast food joints have to eat is fatty, greasy hamburgers, French fries and milk shakes. What’s that? You say they have salads? What? They have broiled chicken? They have water? They have juice? Why don’t you shut the hell up and have a carrot. “Oh, but they ask for these foods, it’s all they want”. “They won’t eat healthy foods.” Um, guys….YOU the FRIGGIN’ PARENT!! Act like one. Do you give your kids everything they want? Of course not. In the immortal words of Nancy Reagan….”Just Say NO.” If they don’t want the food you put in front of them, let them go hungry. They will not starve to death and eventually they will eat what you offer. Our mothers decided the menu, prepared it and presented it. If we didn’t want to eat it, there was no alternative offered. We ate it or went with out.

If your child is FAT and you continue to provide him/her with these unhealthy foods then YOU ARE A CHILD ABUSER! You are no better than someone who beats their child, burns their child, ties their child to the radiator, locks them in the basement or sends them to a government school (another entry to come). If you do not get your fat ass child involved in outdoor activities instead of sitting on their fat ass next to your fat ass in front of the TV, then YOU ARE A CHILD ABUSER.

The health and welfare of your child is your responsibility. Once you have a child, your comfort, relaxation, wants, needs and desires take a back seat to your child’s well being. You are not your child’s friend. You are their parent. If you are fat, you do not make your child fat so you can feel better about yourself.

It is not the responsibility of others to regulate the health of your child. It is not the responsibility of food manufacturers, advertising agencies, the courts, or the government’s power of force to see to it that your child does not become a fat ass. Food manufacturers are in business to make money. They owe it to their investors to sell their product to whoever will buy it, which includes weak parents who can not stand up to their children. Advertising agencies are paid to present their clients product to those who would desire it. They owe it to their clients to use known weaknesses of the intended audience to promote the product. It’s the responsibility of the audience (or parents of such) to use their best judgment as to which items are purchased and which are not. As for the courts, only the weakest of the weak would need the courts to save them from themselves. Government regulation? When are we going to realize that anything and everything that the federal government controls is inept? Government involvement always, always, always makes whatever the case may be much worse.

Now, if you are still with me you will remember that I mentioned taking another bite out of freedom. I have a real problem giving away any form of freedom. These Freedoms that our Founding Fathers gave to us, Freedom that they made us responsible for protecting are fading. People have a tendency to confuse Liberty with Freedom and our Politicians enjoy this confusion. The Founding Fathers provided Liberty by releasing our physical selves from the bonds of abuse of the English Empire. Freedom was inherited by us so that we may choose how we live. An individual sense of option is the definition of Freedom laid out by Jefferson and his cohorts. Did you notice that I said the “sense” of option? It’s the sense of option that makes us free not the exercise thereof. This concept is detailed more thoroughly in my previous semi-plagiarized entry entitled “Freedom” which you will find in my archives. Freedom in simple terms is the option we have in our lives. At every turn we are faced with options, some good, some bad, some healthy, some unhealthy, some beneficial to others, some beneficial to our selfishness. However, we are responsible for the exercise of the option chosen. The exercise of option is not a freedom and can result in the loss of Liberty. But the very fact that we have the sense of option is Freedom and as long as our choice of option does not impede on the rights of others to choose their options we are free to choose for ourselves our course.

When government gets involved because an individual’s exercise of option offends, offers other individuals an additional sense of option (which they don’t think someone should have or that they can’t control in others or themselves), results in benefits that others’ exercise of option did not, or in other situations where one’s exercise of option falls short of impeding another’s Constitutional rights or their exercise of option is Totalitarian at best, Socialism at worst. Limiting our sense of option or making it so that no matter what exercise of option one has made he is placed on the same level as everyone else is not freedom and a revocation of Liberty.

The Republic along with State’s Rights died at Appomattox. Lincoln was not the great savior our government schools have lead us to believe. (Ooh, wait till you read that upcoming post). Since then we have become more and more a true democracy (mob rules). A major culprit in this is the theft of State representation in Washington. There has never been a successful Democracy in the History of the world. “Democracy will only survive until the people discover they can vote for themselves the treasury” Thomas Jefferson. “There will always be those who are willing to give up a little freedom in exchange for a little security. These people deserve neither and will eventually lose both” I forget for the moment which Founding Father said it. Look it up if you need to know.

This is the lifeline of a Democracy….Bondage-Liberty-Abundance-Complacency-Apathy-Dependence-Bondage. Democracy has never veered from this. Where are we? It’s obvious that we are between apathy and dependence. If we do not get back to our Republic roots we are doomed. Yeah, I know, I’m a fool, an idiot, a fear monger. The problem is I am right and these groups that I have berated above and others like them are speeding us along to our country’s demise. With any luck I’ll be dust by then and my great, great grandchildren’s children will deliver themselves from bondage as our Founding Fathers did.

God Bless America

Our Founding Fathers, in their wisdom created a Republic with limited government power. They named it “The Republic of the United States of America”. However, a very sad thing happened on the way to liberty. Our Republic was taken away and replaced with a Democracy with a government which decides for itself the extent of its limits. The difference between a Republic and a Democracy is subtle, but severe. In the original Republic, states had rights. The state legislatures appointed Federal legislators to one house to represent their interests, just as the population voted for legislators in the other house to represent their interests. Now both houses are elected by the people and the states have no representation in Washington. “What’s wrong with this?” you ask. It sounds like a good thing, doesn’t it? Now, the people have control of both houses. The legislators are committed to the will of the people. What could possibly be wrong with that?

I will tell you exactly what is wrong with that, Pandering. The original reason a bill was to pass through both houses, was to ensure its benefit to the people and the states. If a small group of farmers were unsuccessful in making a profit and asked the government for a subsidy to keep their “business” going, the elected official sees new votes if he rewards their failure with the money of the successful citizens. He panders for these votes and agrees to the bill. Meanwhile, the legislators appointed by the state governments owe nothing to the individual voters. Their allegiance is to the general welfare of the state and say nay to the bill. Our money is saved from being wasted on unsuccessful endeavors. These farmers have to move on to more profitable ventures. Our economic freedom is saved.

However, it is not that way today. Both houses are elected by the population at large. This is why we now have subsidies for sheep farmers (which was to promote wool production for uniforms in WWII), welfare (which was supposed to be temporary assistance), bridges to nowhere (really, Alaska has built or is building a bridge higher and longer than San Francisco’s and New York’s to an Island with almost no population, which can be reached with a short ferry ride and took precedence over New Orleans’ request to divert some of those funds to repair a storm damaged bridge important to the infrastructure of the city) and billions and billions of dollars in other wasteful spending follies.

This is a direct result in our being transformed into a Democracy. The Mob rules. “A Democracy will only survive until the people discover they can vote the treasury for themselves.” That is exactly what has happened.

The reason for this lesson is to illustrate my main point. Both, the Republic and States Rights died at Appomattox and our freedoms have slowly passed away, one by one ever since. Lincoln was not the great savior everyone has been taught in school, but that’s another entry. As government expands year after year our basic freedoms are shrinking. Now, with the proposed immigration bill, Democracy will die as well. The welfare state will increase exponentially, which will lead to more pandering, which will lead to more taxes on the evil rich (which, if you make 30k a year, you are one of….it’s their nasty little secret), which will lead to the failure of small businesses and layoffs and the exodus of larger corporations, which will lead to more welfare recipients, which will lead to more dependence on government, which will lead inevitably to the total loss of freedom and complete governmental control. “Those who are willing to give up a little freedom for a little more security deserve neither freedom nor security and will eventually lose both”.

Our government leaders are still trying to pass a bill that is not healthy for this country. Thanks to conservative talk radio shows, the people were educated on the content and the loopholes of this bill. They responded with a unified “HELL NO!” and the bill was defeated and on life support. Now at the President’s insistence the bill is being revisited. He is pushing for the passing of a bill that the Nation has said no to. By the way, 212-456-1111 or 212-456-1414 are the Whitehouse numbers to tell Bush how you feel about this bill. Help save your country. Help defeat this bill.

God Bless America

Simply Annoyed

From research completed in 2004, it has been shown that there is a little bit of a difference between the US economic contributions of the Criminal Aliens and the drain they place on legal, social and economic programs. Just a few dollars. About 80 billion annually actually. So, um….how much does a bus cost these days anyway?

First off,  political pundits who claim that the illegals contribute much more than they cost Americans by their criminal presence are lying through their teeth. They have read the reports, they have access to the same economist and still spout that drivell. They understand that the average American will not check for themselves. The rule is, say something loud enough and often enough and people will believe it. That goes for the old line “They only take jobs others don’t want”. In the agricultural sector, illegal immigrant and migrant workers only constitute about 20 to 30 percent of the labor force. So, 70 to 80 percent of agricultural workers seem to want those jobs. If those jobs open up, there will be workers to fill the positions. Also, tell those out of work painters, carpenters and landscapers that they really didn’t want those jobs anyway. Our legislators are sworn to defend the citizens and the Constitution of the United States, not their political party or their careers. If they truly wanted to do what’s right for America they would have enforced the laws already in place.

I was under the impression that we currently have laws on the books concerning illegal immigration. From deportation once found to felony charges for those who hire them. The first question of many has to be, “Why haven’t we been enforcing the laws we already have?” The second, by logic would be, “Why should we believe the government will enforce them now?

We have sanctuary cities who thumb their noses at federal law. They refuse to turn in these criminal invaders, enforce zoning laws, enforce traffic laws (illegals only, if you’re a citizen you are going to pay), illegals caught driving under the influence are released the next day and many more attrocities and where are the feds? As one who strongly defends state’s rights and believes the federal government has extended past it’s Constitutional limits, the federal government does have the authority in this matter. These cities (and states if they condone it) should lose any and all federal funds. Highway funds, education, etc. Any civil servant, elected or not, participating in this illegal activity should be arrested and permanently barred from public service. 

The new legislation under review states, according to the politicians, that the first thing to be done is the securing of our borders. Again, according to the politicians “this must happen before anything else takes place”. Well, gee….didn’t these guys approve a substantial amount of fencing to be installed last year? Um, where is it? A few miles actually went up right away, then……

 If they truly wanted what’s best for America the first order of business would be the securing of the border. There should be legislation solely on that matter. It is a subject unto itself. If not to curb the criminal invasion (see below) then to defend against terrorist entering our country. If they want to put these criminals on the fast track to citizenship, then let them build the walls and install the fencing. One year, unpaid labor with no benefits, then one year on minimum wage with no other benefits moves you to the front of the line, (they still have to conform to certain standards for entry). I believe that’s fair. Heck, if they do that, let them bring their spouse and children with them.   

Again back to the myth that “Criminal Aliens” contribute to our economy. Consider this, in 2003, former President of Mexico, Vicente Fox stated that remittances of Mexican nationals in the United States, both legal and illegal, totaled $12 billion, and were the largest source of foreign income for Mexico. In 2005, the remittances from Mexican nationals worldwide was $18.1 billion. So, how is the fact that $12 billion gets spent in the Mexican economy considered a contribution to the US economy.

Illegal immigration is the number one reason our healthcare system is on life support. Hospitals and emergency rooms across the United States are closing, but they are shutting down in the areas with the highest rate of illegal immigration..if we removed illegal immigrants from the equation, the number of “uninsured Americans” the media keeps touting would plummet, because 76 percent of naturalized citizens and 81 percent of native-born Americans have employment-based health insurance.

The proposed plan allows illegals to retain public lawyers to facillitate their citizenship process at the expense of the American tax payer. Not only is this another cost we will have to endure due to the ineptitude of our government, but it will put a drag on civil litigations. Oh, wait…we can borrow money from social security and hire more lawyers. (That was sarcasm in case you didn’t recognize it).

The (Socialist) Democrat Party’s sole interest in this matter is constentuancy. They believe (rightly so) that through giving these criminals citizenship and allowing them to vote will increase their voter base. A voter base primarily consisting of social elitists and low income minorities. More beings that they can care for from the cradle to the grave. Those very same less fortunate democrat voters should be the ones to complain the loudest. The Democrats’ claims of caring and wanting to help the “less fortunate” are proven false by their actions in this matter. Paul Samuelson, a Nobel-prize-winning economist from MIT, asserts that there is no unitary, singular effect, good or bad, that arises from illegal immigration, but instead a variety of effects on Americans depending on their economic class. Samuelson states that wealthier Americans tend to benefit from the illegal influx, while poorer Americans tend to suffer.

As for the Republican party, I do not see the logic in allowing anything remotely close to amnisty to be passed. I’m not sure what their thought is here. I do not see a benefit in this for Republicans. If we allow these criminals, who count in the tens of millions, to remain, the Republican Party will not win another election for a very long time. The Socialist Democrat Party has to be drooling at the prospect.

You may have noted that I have used the word “criminal” throughout this piece in reference to this group. What word would you use to describe them without just trying to be politically correct They are criminals, period. They have shown an obvious disdain for our country and our laws. They state it in their rhetoric and show it in their actions. They protest in the open, knowing the authorities will take no action. They make demands that only citizens have the right to make.

They cross the border knowing that they are breaking the law. Border guards are assaulted and killed protecting their country and families from invasion (I’ll get to that shortly). Once they have crossed they find a place to live. (The Mexican government actually hands out a comic book outlining how and where to cross, where to find housing, work, how to take advantage of our social programs, etc.) The places they live are illegal. Usually zoned for single family dwelling, these domiciles will contain several families and other individuals. They will inhabit an area, turning it into a “little Mexico”, (every town has one) destroying property values. They pay the rent with funds earned illegally. Once they have earned a little money, they purchase a vehicle (no license neccessary?) and drive without a driver’s license or insurance. If the police stop them for any violation, they just let them go. “There’s nothing we can do with them. The Feds won’t come get them and the ACLU gives us hell if we hold them.” They work illegally, which entices employers to break the law with the lure of cheap labor. Every action, no matter how benign, taken after crossing the border makes them a criminal.

Researchers debate on the actual figures, but somewhere between 48% and 64% of criminal aliens do not work. So, how do they survive here? Some live off of their families, some commit other crimes, many belong to gangs and many of these recieve wellfare (legally and illegally). Everyday in this country 25 citizens are killed by criminal aliens. About half of those are from violent crimes and the other half from drunk drivers. So, ask me again why I use the word “Criminal”.

Ok, I’ve used the term “invasion” several times as well. In my opinion, that’s exactly what this is. A Mexican invasion of the United States. When I speak with one of these criminals or when one of their “leaders” speaks on TV, they bluntly state that they don’t care about American citizenship in the same sense that other immigrant groups do. They have no interest in becoming Americans. They only want to work here, have the same rights citizens have, collect their money and send it home. They believe we are a “stupid people” because we have let them practically colonize certain areas. I have heard many say that “our politicians are so busy pandering for potential votes that they are giving away our country”. We are in the middle of an invasion and our leaders are traitors if they make any concession to these criminals.

Make no mistake about it, it is an invasion. It was set in motion by Mexican President Luis Echeverría Álvarez. During a speech he gave at National Autonomous University of Mexico in 1974 he said, “We are a proud people, the Mexican. We work hard, but our efforts prove non-effective. The gringos from the north have stolen everything from us. They have taken our lands, our resources, our music, our foods, our culture and our women. They have infiltrated our government, our schools and our religion. They have tried to steal our pride, but a true Mexican will never give this up. It is time my people. It is time to take it back. It is time to take it all back. We must convince our poor to seek the gringo’s riches. We must assist them seeking to cross through their sleepy borders. We must help them find shelter and employment. We must convince them it is best to send their monies back to their homes for their families to invest in our economy. We will infest, as does the insect their towns and their cities. We will disrupt their economy, their government and their schools. We will take back our lands through this “counter attack” without firing a shot. These people, believing they are good samaritans will hand them back to us. Once we hold the majority in these areas we control the votes. We will infest their home as does the cockroach and the weak stomached gringos will leave it to us. My proud people, my brothers, my sisters, it is time to take our pride back. It is time.” This man, man of vision (as much of a bastard he actually was) set all this in motion. He made deals with Drug Smugglers to smuggle human contriband along with their poison. He also commisioned them to map crossing points and border patrols. He helped design a support system to aid their “settlement” and colonization.

His vision took 30 years to reach the verge of realization, but it’s here. If we don’t force our legislators to act accordingly and immediately it will be realized.

Regardless of the possibility of Echeverria’s vision coming to fruition, our legislators have to take action that promotes the “general welfare” and provides for the “common defense” of our nation.  Anything contrary to this is treason. If our “servants” do not comply then they must removed from their seat of power.    

                            The Simply Annoyed Nation

A Simply Annoyed Nation

Original Global Warming Researchers Changing Opinion?

What do you believe is the reason that several of the original global warming research scientists have now changed their opinion and denounce the movement as “hysteria verging on a religious zealousy”? We humans do have a history of messing up nature. We also have a history of making things worse by trying to do the right thing. Especially when we involve the government. Records show there are warming and cooling cycles. How do we know this isn’t the case now. Images of melting glaciers don’t do it for me. I’m pretty sure glaciers melt from time to time. Lightbulbs are all the rage, but why would I want to replace a standard lightbulb for another environmental hazard. If you break one, you’re involved in an environmental clean up. Can I afford that? I understand other countries hare already realized their mistake. Come up with safer technology and I’ll gladly use them. As more and more independent scientists come forward aginst the movement why should we react as if the sky is falling?

                                     A Simply Annoyed Nation

Pay taxes? hah, they take taxes.

I’m not willing to pay taxes at all. The government seizes my earnings. My will does not come into it. America, the country I love more than my life, has become a country of taxation in a land founded to avoid taxation. “He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation… For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent…. We, therefore… solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States.” ~The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies, 1776People who complain about taxes can be divided into two classes: men and women. The government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it. “I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.”, Thomas Jefferson.I believe the problem to be in two parts; First, we have politicians, not leaders (with few exceptions) in Washington. Politicians by definition can not be leaders. Politicians have to pander for the vote in order to maintain their position. This leads to foregoing what’s actually, best for the Republic and bending to mob rule, (special interest groups). The second part, US. Yep, we have allowed this crap to happen. We let the roots of socialism take hold and now the majority have been placated with either, The Democrats- Tax the evil corporations and give to the “less fortunate” (poor choices, not luck lead generation after generation to the position they find themselves). BTW, I live a razer’s edge above the poverty line, so don’t start. The Republicans- The economy is great, the stock market is high, enjoy your plasma TV, (don’t pay attention to the debt behind the curtain). By each appeasing to their share of the masses, they have been able to create class warfare. And, in the same manner in which the Race whores keep racism (which people need to learn the definition of) alive, the politicians reak havoc upon our economy and our wallets by abusing the very citizens they claim to be helping, keeping the two party system in complete control. Hey Dems, Yeah, I don’t have much, but please for the love of God, quit trying to save me. Hey Repubs, “The party of smaller government, right, constitutional government, right. There has been nothing but defeats for the Republicans for the last 100 years. They have never reversed any socialist program that the dems have put in place. At times they have even defended them. They can’t bring themselves to let go of the power either.The Chinese can really screw up our economy by calling in their loans. They are building a new armed force with billions of dollars in trade from the US. Government. The government needs to get out of our pockets (we need to implement the Fair Tax), our personal lives, business (free trade), State sovriegnty, (local governments meet the local needs), Return to having our Representatives appointed by our state legislature. The whole point of the constitution was unite several states, by allowing the peoples of the different states to choose their manner of life, “as long as it doesn’t interfere with the right of another to choose his manner of life”. States cannot have rights if they have no representation.But sadly, the chances of our reversal of this trend is minimal at best. One of two things appear likely to happen in the future. An Orwellian, omnipotent government, or an all-out rebellion (if they haven’t finally taken all our guns). The founding fathers actually warned us of this, they took a look at history and knew what was likely to happen. They put in the second amendment, not so much for personal protection from each other as for the protection from a overreaching, tyrannical, or any other action or attitude taken by of our federal government which would be detremental to the freedoms promised to us and our grandchildren’s grandchildren. You have to read their statements concerning the various issues (including taxes) of the day. Their intentions are very clear.“When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny.”
— Thomas JeffersonSource(s):

http://www.foundingfathers.info/…
http://www.simplyannoyed.net/freedom/ind…

From the “Native American” to the Colonialists, from the European migration to the exodus from Cuba, immigration has shaped the face of America.

The first immigrants walked across the land bridge which was eventually washed away and is now the Bering Straights. They migrated throughout the Americas and lived secluded from the rest of the world for many years.

Shortly after the “discovery” (can’t really call it a discovery if millions of people already knew about it) of the “New” world, the Europeans (mostly puritans) began migrating to the northeastern parts of what later became the USA. The Puritans, who would probably be called “fundies” today, came to America to freely practice their rigid form of Christianity.  Their British leadership saw this as a win-win. They relieved themselves of the religious enmity found within England while extending their empire and possibly filling the coffers. The life was harsh. Many couldn’t survive the elements. Many more gave up and left for the safety of England. The strong willed and the lucky survived and went on to form our Country.

At the end of the war for American independence, the French began pouring into the Gulf Coast region. New Orleans’ ports became profitable and the region was purchased by the US. The French that inhabited the area predominately chose to remain.

You also have to included the “accidental” immigrant in this discussion. The slaves did not choose to immigrate to the Americas. They were obviously brought here against their will. However, once Abe Lincoln saved the South from themselves, (right. conversation for another time.) they were essentially like any other group of immigrant. They differed only in manner of arrival, set of roadblocks and advantages (of white guilt). But, like most other groups they helped to define American society.

One step above the slaves were the Chinese rail-workers. For only the promise of a better life, and the freedom offered by the land of liberty, these individuals endured horrific conditions and treatment. Many were brought here, quietly as slaves, working off family debt or due to a crime committed. They suffered a great number of casualties bringing the Iron Horse across the country, bringing the East and West together.

The potato famine brought another wave. Poor Irish farmers, among others came to America in response to the land grants offered in the sparsley inhabited areas of the country.

Ellis Island served witness to the European exodus. Immigrants from the poorest regions of Europe and many from throughout the world poured through the gates of Ellis Island. 

Immigration changed after this. Most of these groups integrated their culture into the American way of life, learned to speak english within a generation (with the exception of the Chinese), were proud of their American citizenship and held it above their national heritage.  Above all, they were Americans.

Since then, we’ve had the Jewish (whom do not fit in with my catagories) from the WWII era.

Then we have peoples from the Caribbean islands, eastern Europeans, Russians among others including Mexicans, but these groups have remained mostly among themselves. However, given time they will probably assimilate into American society as those did before them.

Immigration has been good for America. It would not be a world leader without it. Immigration resulted in the formation of American culture, art, music, literature, business, economics, innovations, and every other aspect of American life.

Legal immigration, that is. With relatively few exceptions, the immigrants came to America according to the laws of that time. They produced and contributed. They asked only for a way to provide for their family and the freedoms enjoyed by it’s citizens.

Which brings us to our present situation. The Mexican issue has gotten out of hand. It’s estimated that over 200 thousand Mexicans immigrate legally, but over 800 thousand pour across the border illegally each year. This is putting a strain on our social programs, hospitals, schools and among other things, the patience of the average American.

Let’s clarify one thing. These people are not illegal immigrants. They are criminals, period. People who hire them are criminals. Communities which harbor (sanctuary cities) these criminals are committing a criminal act. Individuals or groups that facilitate these criminals are committing felonies. 

They are stealing tax dollars meant for the benefit of citizens. The receive free health care, food stamps, education and a slew of other benefits which are supposed to be reserved for legal residents of the country. Meanwhile, their only contribution being cheap labor. Most of the money earned here is sent back to Mexico, not spent in our economy.

Not only do these criminals break the law entering the country, they continue to break the law once here. These crimes are being overlooked. Either through frustration with the hopelessness of the situation or the ineptitude or disinterest of the Federal authorities. They break local ordinances by having multiple families live in the same small house. Through my job I have witnessed as many as 27 people living in a 2 bedroom 1200 sq. ft. house. Their employment is illegal. Those that employ them are committing felonies. They take, in this area mostly construction jobs. “But they only take jobs others do not want.” What a load of crap. Go up to an out of work painter, roofer or carpenter or someone who’s landscaping business went under because they refused to commit a crime by hiring these criminals. Approach these individuals and tell them that. See if they don’t kick your ass.

I asked a local sherrif’s deputy why they just didn’t go to the local staging area and round them up. He informed me that when they did, they would sit in their jail for weeks and the Feds would never pick them up. They would have to release them after spending our tax dollars housing them in lieu of over crowding the jail. Not only that, but if they see a criminal alien committing traffic violations they do not bother to stop them. It does no good to write tickets, because they just disappear. They do not have drivers licsense. If they take them to jail for that, then the ACLU is all over them. The same for insurance. If you do not carry full coverage and are involved in an accident with a criminal alien you are out of luck. Drunk drivers are let go after sobering up with no further actions.

That’s in the southeastern US. At the border, it’s worse. You have drug dealers and hardened criminals attacking border agents, who have had their authority practically stripped from them. Pregnant Mexicans cross the border, give birth which makes their child a Naturalized citizen. When this child turns 18 he can bring, if they’renot still here, his family. They send their children across to attend our schools, cross for medical treatment. Some, who receive food stamps cash these in and take the money back into Mexico. This situation has to be controlled.

These are not evil people. Most illegals I have met are genuinely nice people. I do not blame them for this problem. They are taking advantage of our screwed up political atmosphere to their benefit and our detriment. Would some of us not do the same if fortunes were reversed?

Good people or not, this has become a severe drain on our economy and our way of life. The Mexicans recently demonstrated and made demands of our government. Criminals demanding of us? Well I, along with the majority of Americans demand the Federal government uphold the laws already in place. We demand the closure of our borders, for our physical, social and economic protection. We demand that these criminals are rounded up and sent packing. We demand that any community illegally harboring these criminals be stripped of all federal funding. We demand that before any discussion of amnesty takes place, these actions must take place. What good will it do to grant amnesty with the borders still wide open. We demand the Federal government do it’s job (another discussion for another day),  protect it’s citizens and the American way of life.

Copyright 2007              The SimplyAnnoyed Nation