Archive for February, 2012

Obama’s plan

Posted by Troy on 15th February 2012 in Current Events, Political

I will never understand why people still like Obama.  I will say, he is the most polarizing President we have ever had.  Half the people love him, and half the people literally hate him.  There is no in between ground with this guy, nor can there be.  In the mean time, he wants to cut the military, control the Internet, cut our nuclear warheads down to 20%, bow down to China, appease middle eastern dictators, pass the children’s rights treaty (where rich countries will be financially obligated to provide food and housing to the poor of other countries–making us the only country in history to choose to self-destruct for the benefit of other countries), pass some sweeping cap and trade style environmental bill, pass a small arms treaty which will force all owners of small arms in America to be registered, and translate Obamacare into a full single payer system.  This fails to include all the stuff he has already done.  I would like to see an approval poll which is done only by those above 100 IQ (the average).  I bet you that he has a pitiful approval rating among those who can think for themselves.  Let’s not forget that he has started 2 new armed conflicts (without Congressional approval), shelled out money to his supporters via “stimulus,” taken over sectors of the economy, supported an Arab Spring which will turn out to be a winter of despotism, cracked down on free speech via the Internet, passed socialized health care against the will of most Americans, passed a law that gives the government the right to see records of everything you’ve purchased with a credit card, and passed a law allowing the military to imprison Americans without due process.

How can you suppor this guy?!

Long Live the Constitution!  Long Live the Constitution!  Long Live the Constitution!

Whitney Houston, Tony Bennett, and Legalization

Posted by Troy on 14th February 2012 in Current Events, Political

Tony Bennett is coming under fire for saying that legalizing drugs would have prevented Whitney Houston’s death.  In fairness, there was probably no way legalizing anything would have saved her.  Initial reports claim that it was medically prescribed drugs that did her in.  However, let’s examine the argument for legalizing drugs.

Do I have the right to eat dirt?  Do I have a right to eat glass?  For that matter, do I have a right to eat the greasiest cheeseburger I can find?  The number one killer in America is heart attacks.  If food Nazis are to be believed, this is a direct result of people eating the food they enjoy.  I am sure that nutritionists could come up with a diet for each individual which would maximize their health.  So why don’t we do that?  You can get by on the prescribed diet, so why should you have the right to decide what goes into your body, and how is this different than drugs?

Bill O’Reilly uses alcohol as a lesson as to why drugs should be be legal, since 10% of the population have problems with alcohol…so we should naturally deny the other 90% the option of using alcohol?  Regardless, his argument works against himself.  We tried making alcohol illegal, and we figured out it was a huge mistake and reversed ourselves.  We wound up with criminals making money bootlegging booze.  We round up with people getting sick from alcohol that was not made properly.  Does this sound familiar to you?

Right now, the main source of income from gangs and terrorists is drugs.  The mark-up on cocaine is 17,000%.  You are not going to get rid of a product that has a 17,000% return!  It is impossible.  However, if drugs were legal, people could grow it themselves for free (in the case of marijuana) or American farmers could make a clean product and actually cut the price for the end consumer.  The gangs would lose their source of revenue.  With no revenue to back them, they would fall apart pretty quickly, which would go a long way to ending gang violence.

Of course, I do not propose all drugs be legalized.  As with most Libertarians, I have an arbitrary rule.  For me, drugs that are natural products are okay.  If you have to add other chemicals to make a product, it should be illegal.  This would, in effect, make crack and meth illegal, and I believe these are the most dangerous drugs.

The main problem I have with drug laws is I don’t want to spend $50,000+ a year to put someone in jail for smoking pot.  I think that we need to take this into consideration when making laws and enforcing them.  I don’t think a pot user injures society $50,000 worth.  We spend billions of dollars every year to jail drug users and fight the “drug war,” and we only cut the drug supply by about 10% (which I am sure drug dealers up their production about 10% to compensate…there doesn’t seem to be a drug shortage here).  This is a bad investment, especially considering that we could be earning tax revenues from legalized sales and saving billions of dollars in salaries and equipment costs for the DEA and other agencies.

The final problem I have is that people seem to act as though, if drugs were made illegal, 80% of the population would go down and start using drugs.  Alcohol is legal.  How many people get drunk every day?  Right now, you can go down and buy a tube of glue and a paper bag and get high as a kite, yet we don’t do it.  Why?  Because most people realize it is not in their best, long-term interest.  People who like drug laws are worried about the symptom, not the problem.  The problem is that the American family has broken down.  I would hazard that, if you were to examine most drug users, you will find that many of them had home problems: be it abuse, an absent authority figure, or just apathetic parents.  However, dealing with symptoms is always easier than dealing with real problems.

Here is a link to additional research.

http://www.cedro-uva.org/lib/levine.alcohol.html

Long Live the Constitution!

Contraception Mandate

Posted by Troy on 13th February 2012 in Current Events

I’ve been asked to comment on the President’s contraception mandate.  As you may have heard, the Catholic church has come out steadfast against the measure.  This is particularly interesting since Catholics voted for Obama in 2008 and typically vote for Democrats.  Obama has tried to walk it back by saying that Catholic institutions don’t have to pay for contraception but the insurance companies that the  institutions contract with will pay for the contraception.  Of course, this is a meaningless shell game.  If the insurance companies are on the hook for contraception, they are going to factor that in when computing the institution’s premiums.  As such, Catholics will be paying for contraception as they are paying the insurance company that is required to provide contraception.

First, I would like to discuss how this particular issue is a good indication of how the Left views religion.  To them, religion is a fine thing for people to believe in as long as those beliefs do not interfere with their agenda.  In this, they view religion as a harmless fairy tale that some people indulge in–silly, but harmless.  It is perfectly fine to give lip service to freedom of religion, but when they speak of it, they interpret the Constitution as providing freedom FROM religion.  This is to say, under their definition of freedom of religion, you must be free from being exposed to another person’s religion regardless of the vehicle for that message.  This is shown when they will not allow a valedictorian to mention God in their speech.

The classic example of when people freak out about religion is when it comes to a sick child.  This is where my views differ vastly from the mainstream of Americans.  Most Americans believe in freedom of religion…until it offends their sensibilities.  When these cases occur, people on both sides of the political fence demand that the family subject their kids to medical treatments which are against their religion.  They don’t even consider who is to pay for this treatment.  I wonder if people would be so willing to force these treatments if the taxpayers were to bear 100% of the costs.  Of course, in the not so distant future, this will be the case under Obamacare.  People who believe that the children should be taken away and forced into these treatments will claim that children do not have the ability to choose a religion for themselves.  They are too young to make up their own minds.  However, in these things (religion, beliefs, values), we have always allowed parents to choose what is best for their children.  Here again, we are saying that people have the right to choose what values to instill in their children…as long as it does not offend our sensibilities.  Here is the question though:  These people believe that medical care is prohibited by God.  Receiving this care damns their soul to Hell.  So…what if it turns out they are right?  You have just damned their souls to Hell against their will.  Maybe it is God’s will.  Maybe the kid you save is the next Hitler, and God was taking him out of the world.  Regardless, the one truest test in someone’s belief is to face death itself.  Perhaps God is asking a sacrifice from the parents much in the way that he asked of Abraham.  Sometimes proving your faith means dying, and if you are religious, your belief in God should trump your fear of death.

The last thing I would like to point out is how this is a clear indication as to why Obamacare is unconstitutional.  The government cannot have the power to tell anybody that they have to buy any product just by virtue of being alive.  In the face of this power, it is clear that all other rights must fall to the wayside or only exists at the discretion of the ruling class.  This is called tyranny.  If you live under a king that allows you to dance, you are admitting that the king has the ability to tell you that you may not dance.  Living under the rule of a benevolent dictator is still living under the rule of a dictator.  Just because you may approve of the king’s decree doesn’t mean he is any less tyrannical.  I’m sure that there were many people in Germany that thought Hitler was doing a great job just like there were plenty in North Korea that thought King Jong Il was a fair man or that Saddam really stood up for Middle Eastern values.  They were still tyrants.

I want to give my congratulations to the Catholic Church and all Catholics who have stood their ground.  Never give up your rights.  ”Once Liberty is lost, it’s lost forever,” John Adams.

Long Live the Constitution!

Anger/Wrath

Posted by Troy on 12th February 2012 in Human Nature

There’s no real need to point out why anger or wrath is a deadly sin.  How many murders have happened in the heat of the moment?  The fact of the matter is, anger destroys a person’s ability to make a rational decision.  That being said, there are appropriate times to be angry.  Anger can also counter fear.  As such, sometimes anger is a good emotion.  I think that is why wrath is a better description of this deadly sin.  Wrath is making another feel your anger.  You can be angry and not take an action against someone.  Wrath, however, is when someone gets angry and decides to do something to the other person to make up for it.

In addition to the obvious drawbacks to wrath (such as dead bodies stinking up the crawlspace), wrath also poisons the spirit.  It turns someone into a cruel person.  It also shortens their lifespan.  It destroys relationship and hurts the psyche of those around you.

Guns, Germs, and Steel

Posted by Troy on 10th February 2012 in Entertainment

http://www.amazon.com/Guns-Germs-Steel-Fates-Societies/dp/0393061310/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1328924666&sr=8-1

This is an excellent anthropological study about why some societies were able to dominate the globe while others fell beneath the swords of their conquerors.   While the author can come across as more sympathetic to the societies that were crushed over those who were dominate, this is a very interesting book.  The main takeaway from the novel is that geography, not genetics or any other factor really, determines which societies will dominate the others.  The book discusses the effects of geography and climate/environment on the evolution of human society and how the advantages conferred by these blessings allow them to create guns, germs, and steel which allowed them to defeat their enemies.  However, I do think that the author threw in steel at the end just to have a more pleasing sounding title.  ”Guns and Germs” just doesn’t have the same ring.

The War on the Constitution

Posted by Troy on 8th February 2012 in Current Events

Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg said that she would not look to the US Constitution if she were writing such a document today.  She believes the Canadian and South African Constitutions are superior to ours since they include references to “Human Rights.”

First of all, what could be more inclusive of human rights than the Ninth Amendment, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”?  I would be very wary (as the Founding Fathers were) of a document that sought to detail what rights belong to you as it also means that any not listed do not belong to you.

Second, she is a Supreme Court Justice who must uphold the Constitution.  She should hold it above all else in this world.  If she does not have such love for the document, she should step down.  Not that I want her to step down at the moment because Obama would only replace her with another anti-Constitution nut job.

Third, if people think that the Constitution is old and would like to have more rights listed or whatever, guess what, they can amend the Constitution!  Yes, the Founding Fathers gave us a way to do that.  The enemies of the Constitution never point out this fact.  The reason they just want to completely trash the Constitution is because they know that their ideas would never have enough support to actually amend the Constitution.  In this way, the Constitution is protecting us in the manner the Founding Fathers intended.

Finally, I would like to point out that the reason we are in all this trouble now is because we have not followed the Constitution since Woodrow Wilson.  The Federal government was meant to only have very limited taxing powers (which would completely prevent corporate cronyism and entitlements), war should only be declared by the Congress (ending the constant wars and “police actions”), and we should only have sound money (ending inflation and the fiat monetary games).

This is just a sign of the war on the Constitution.  When I was young, we were taught to look upon the Constitution with love and to love capitalism and shun communism and socialism.  Now, the media and schools are teaching that the Constitution is flawed and old and that capitalism is unfair.  These are dangerous time.

http://news.yahoo.com/ruth-bader-ginsburg-trashes-constitution-she-impeached-232200921.html

Long Live the Constitution!

Is Marriage a Right? / Bill O’Reilly is an idiot

Posted by Troy on 7th February 2012 in Current Events

In discussing the defeat of Proposition 8 (dealing with gay marriage), O’Reilly asked the question, “Do you have a right to be married?”  To this question, his response was “Of course not.”

I disagree!  Per the Tenth Amendment, any right not given to the Federal government is granted to the states and the people themselves.  My memory may be fuzzy, but I don’t think that there is an Article giving the right to be married to the Federal government.  Ergo, this right must rest with the people themselves.  You may also ask questions like, do we have the right to eat?  Do we have the right to breathe?  Do we have the right to learn?  Do we have the right to have hobbies?  Do we have the right to own pets?  Yes, of course we do.  The state may regulate things, but the right still exists.  To deny that we have a right just because you are against something (in this case, gay marriage) is foolhardy.  If I don’t want people to be able to exercise because it makes me feel bad about how I look, I would be foolish to claim that they have no right to do so  it because it is not spelled out in the Constitution.  That argument could give the government room to argue that I have no right to pick what foods I eat because that’s not spelled out in the Constitution.

This is where I am going to get into trouble.  The fact of the matter is that the California government granted the ability of gays to marry.  The state has the right to regulate the affairs of their state.  They can state that first cousins may or may not marry and the like.  This is a fair use of their powers.  However, the people do have the right to overrule their government by use of referendums and other measures.  This should be a defeat of the bill, and gays should dust themselves off and try again.

I am a Libertarian at heart.  I am also a Tenther (a person that believes in the Tenth Amendment).  I believe that states have the power to decide who may and may not be married in their states.  I don’t believe that the Federal government should have any involvement in the matter.  If people want to enter into a strong, committed relationship, then I believe that is their right (regardless of whatever whoever calls it).  If you and your lover call yourself married and live as such, then you are married (losing the married filing joint status anyway).  However, I feel like this issue is fashionable.  I think people want the aura of marriage and aren’t thinking about the total commitment it takes.  If you are for this issue because you enjoy acting self-righteous, then you are a fool.  If you are against it because you think that it will cheapen marriage, then you are also a fool.  A committed gay couple does good for the institution of marriage.  What cheapens it are spouses that cheat, divorces at a drop of a hat, marriages of convenience, and all the other travesties that we have applied to marriage in the last fifty years.

Long Live the Constitution!

Eastwood – Norris in 2012

Posted by Troy on 6th February 2012 in Current Events

I would love a Clint Eastwood/Chuck Norris ticket in 2012.  The campaign just writes itself.  ”Kicking ass and taking names in 2012.”  ”Make my day.”  ”The only thing the debt fears is Chuck Norris.”  etc.  Just goes on and on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FSP15OIwn4&feature=related

However, there are a lot of people upset over the Chrysler ad by Eastwood.  They think that is supporting Obama.  If you know anything about Eastwood, he is a Libertarian and tends to vote Republican.  He has also said that he was not impressed with Obama.  If you listen to this ad, it is pure Eastwood.  It is about fortitude and resilience and a love of the American Spirit.  Of course Chrysler will be in favor of the bailout that helped keep them alive, but nothing that Eastwood says can be taken in any way shape or form to be pro-Obama unless that’s just what you want to hear.

Eastwood/Norris 2012, “You feel lucky?”

Greed

Posted by Troy on 5th February 2012 in Human Nature

This is a sin that the Leftists in the 99%/OWS crowd and get behind.  As Milton Friedman said, “Of course, we’re not greedy.  It’s always the other guy that’s greedy.”

The most popular reason that greed is a sin is because there will not be enough to go around if people just take and take and take.  This stems back to when we were hunters and gathers and the early days of agriculture when famine was a prominent threat.  However, there is another reason why this is a sin.  Greed corrodes the soul.  There is a law of diminishing returns.  The more of you have of something, the less good it does you.  The first car you have gives you the most utility.  If you have a fleet of 20, you’re probably not getting much use from the 20th car.  When you continue to accumulate, you appreciate what you have less and less.  Most people would continue to accumulate, not understanding why their money fails to make them any happier.  They will focus on earning more and more possessions, hoping that the next thing they own will grant them happiness, but it fails as well.  In the end, this leaves the soul vulnerable to despair and attack from evil.

Status Update

Posted by Troy on 4th February 2012 in Uncategorized

Greetings followers,

While the Swamp Fox can evade government agencies, Leftist ninja agents, Anonymous, Soros, and other threats, it would appear that it can be taken down by a simple hardware failure.  Unfortunately, my IT department was otherwise occupied, leaving me to fend for myself in the matter.  After much determination, however, I succeeded in bringing us back online.  However, since the hour is late, I will wait until tomorrow to start the insightful commentary you have come to know and love.