The Paths That Lay Before Us

I know that I promised over twitter that I was going to post this last night, but I found that I was still so angry over SCOTUS’s that most of what I had to say would have been extremely emotionally driven and counterproductive to an intelligent conversation.

Let me start of by saying that I think SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) really dropped the ball on this one.  Not only did we have Justices that should have been required to recuse themselves (Kagan is a prime example) due to a conflict of interests, but we also had Justices that decided that in order to make the law valid, they would effectively rewrite the law to make the penalty that fell under the commerce clause a tax instead.  Of course everybody knew from the start that it was a tax but the language in the law stated that it was a penalty and that the commerce clause was what gave the authority to enact said penalty.  Well, the Chief Justice (Roberts) decided that while the current wording made the law unconstitutional, he would rule on it as if it were a tax and effectively renames it as a tax in the written statement that was presented with the Court’s decision.  Effectively, this is a declaration from Chief Justice Roberts that the Supreme Court can now use judicial activism to rewrite laws in order to fit whatever personal agenda the members of the Court have but that is not the only fall out that will come with this horrible (and in my opinion if the Justices could be held accountable, which they can’t be, illegal) decision.

The second major piece of fallout from this decision effectively gives Congress the ability to tax your actions or lack thereof.  SCOTUS basically said that by making this penalty a tax, Congress can tax you for your choice not to buy health insurance.  Taken to its logical conclusion where does this end?  Not in a good place, that’s where.  If Congress can tax you for not buying something like health insurance, what is to keep them from taxing you for not buying healthy food?  What if they want to tax you for not buying Brussels sprouts because the poor Brussels sprout farmers aren’t making enough money to cover their employees’ health insurance? (By the way, health insurance costs are going to skyrocket.) Let’s take this one step further, what if they want to tax you if you don’t vote?  What if they want to tax you if you don’t buy the exact make and model of car that they feel everyone should be forced to drive?  Do you see where I am going with this?  SCOTUS has just given Congress the power of tyrannical rule through taxes.  They have declared that Congress has the ability to tax citizens for anything that they wish as long as it is just that, a tax.

Well, now the question is, what can we do about it?  The way I see it, we only have a few options, one of which is preferable, the others are not so preferable. 

The first and best option is the one I would really prefer to have happen.  It starts with electing Romney (as much as I dislike the man I will take him over the commie in the White House right now) and gaining the majority in the Senate while maintaining the majority in the House.  Romney then will need to repeal Obamacare with the help of the Senate and the House.  After that, several Constitutional Amendments need written and put up for a vote.  One of those Amendments needs to limit the taxing powers of Congress in such a way that this can never happen again.  The next needs to limit the powers of the Supreme Court to restrict the use of Judicial Activism to rewrite laws in order to make them constitutional.  The third needs to make it to where the Justices are held accountable to the will of the people. (I personally like Tom Kratman’s approach with the amendments ate the end of “State of Disobedience” where all the justices are on the ballot during every Presidential election and the one that gets the most votes is removed and the new President gets to replace him/her with a new Justice.) Forth, we need an Amendment that states that any laws that Congress pass apply equally to the members of the ruling body.  In order for get all of that done we would have to have politicians in office with the guts to pull of that kind of bold legislation… unfortunately I don’t think politicians like that exist anymore.  After those Amendments are written, then we the people need to go and vote them in.

The second option which I don’t like as much because it would be even harder to do is to forget about winning the Presidency.  Focus only on gaining a veto-proof House and Senate, and then have them enact all the steps I laid out in the first option.

The third option I like even less.  That is revolution.  I don’t like this option because of the potential for bloodshed, but it wouldn’t be the first time blood has been shed for our freedom.  To be quite honest, the prospect of a second American Revolution frightens me, but I see it as a potential future that will become necessary in order to preserve what little is left of this once great nation.  I really hate to say that but that is one of the only ways we have left.  I hope and pray that it never gets that far.

The fourth option I dislike as much as the third.  This option involves all of the conservative states that still believe in the American Ideal of freedom announcing their succession and forming their own nation independent of the liberal states.  I dislike this option because I see another Civil War happening.  Like the first Civil War, it would be about a multitude of reasons with State’s and Citizen’s rights being at the forefront. 

I know none of these options are particularly great, but the way I see it they are all we have left aside from becoming complacent in letting our freedoms slip away faster and faster.  I was going to go into how this law is going to hurt everyone that the Libs are saying it would help but I have ran out of time for now so I will have to take that up at another time. 

Thank you for reading and remember to vote this November.  Aim for Option #1 with me please.

It's A Dog Eat Dog World

Ok, the silliness that has gotten started about the whole dog thing between Romney and Obama is starting to get on my nerves.  Yes, in 1983, Mitt Romney took a 650 mile trip with his family to their vacation home.  Yes, their dog was on the roof of the car the whole way, but he was in a carrier that was strapped down and had a windshield to protect the dog from the wind.  Yes the dog got sick during the trip, but it was because he had gotten into some human food that disagreed with him before the trip, not because he was so terrified from being on top of the car.  The dog was used to traveling in that fashion and, if he is like most dogs, he more than enjoyed it.  The fact that people would suggest that this is a valid concern in the upcoming election is just stupid.  The fact that Obama would use this as an attack against Romney is stupid.  Why?  Because there are more important issues to worry about than if some carries their dog in a kennel that is strapped down to the top of their vehicle.

As for this retaliation from the Romney camp about the fact that Obama grew up knowingly eating dog… So what?  Yes Obama knew it was dog when he ate it.  Yes, he was a young man at the time living in Indonesia with his step-father.  Yes, dog is a common dish over there that people eat.  But I must reiterate, once again, that is not an important issue. 

The fact that these two candidates want to attack each over issues dealing with dogs when there are much more important issues at hand is just ridiculous.  I know Obama can’t run on the real issues that plague our nation today because it would just highlight his failures, but he could run against Romney’s plans that he has presented.  It’s not a perfect plan but it would stick to the issues at hand when it comes to his opponent.  As for Romney, he really needs to call Obama out on all the failed policies of his administration that have gotten us to the point that we are at now, highlight the failures and present reasonable solutions to get us to a better place both fiscally and globally. 

Seriously, is too much to ask to our presidential candidates to behave adults and cut out the childish behavior by addressing the serious issues that face out nation in an open and honest fashion?  Is it?

Obama's State Of The Union 2012 Part 6

Part 6

“We can also spur energy innovation with new incentives. The differences in this chamber may be too deep right now to pass a comprehensive plan to fight climate change. But there's no reason why Congress shouldn't at least set a clean energy standard that creates a market for innovation. So far, you haven't acted. Well tonight, I will. I'm directing my Administration to allow the development of clean energy on enough public land to power three million homes. And I'm proud to announce that the Department of Defense, the world's largest consumer of energy, will make one of the largest commitments to clean energy in history - with the Navy purchasing enough capacity to power a quarter of a million homes a year.”

This whole statement makes me laugh.  I mean, come on, everyone knows that Global Warming, err, that is to say, Climate Change, is a myth that has been propagated by years of falsified data and research.  I am not saying that we shouldn’t try to be good stewards of the planet, but we don’t need to base what we do on lies that have been spread by people who have an agenda to promote their cause by falsifying information.  As for the rest of Obama’s statement here, I just find it funny.  I’ll let you figure out why.

“Of course, the easiest way to save money is to waste less energy. So here's another proposal: Help manufacturers eliminate energy waste in their factories and give businesses incentives to upgrade their buildings. Their energy bills will be $100 billion lower over the next decade, and America will have less pollution, more manufacturing, and more jobs for construction workers who need them. Send me a bill that creates these jobs.”

Wow, he is delusional.  Oh well, I guess that is why they call it a wish list.  That is what this entire speech is, a wish list.  It sounds good but you know none of it is feasible nor will it ever get done.

“Building this new energy future should be just one part of a broader agenda to repair America's infrastructure. So much of America needs to be rebuilt. We've got crumbling roads and bridges. A power grid that wastes too much energy. An incomplete high-speed broadband network that prevents a small business owner in rural America from selling her products all over the world.”

Actually, our infrastructure is not that bad compared to the rest of the world.  A lot of people like to show pictures of a bridge that collapsed in the central northern US to say we need the Federal Government to invest more in American Infrastructure then they off set it with pictures of brand new bridges built in Germany and China.  What they don’t tell you it the American bridge collapsed when there was an earthquake (something that doesn’t often happen in that region) that was worse than the bridge was designed to withstand.  Meanwhile the Chinese and German bridges are not typical bridges that are seen in those nations.  If you were to take the percentages of bridges that are advanced in design and in good repair compared to the ones that are not, you would see that despite the fact that China and Germany spend 4 times as much money (percentage wise) on infrastructure as the US does, the US is far better off.

“During the Great Depression, America built the Hoover Dam and the Golden Gate Bridge. After World War II, we connected our States with a system of highways. Democratic and Republican administrations invested in great projects that benefited everybody, from the workers who built them to the businesses that still use them today.

In the next few weeks, I will sign an Executive Order clearing away the red tape that slows down too many construction projects. But you need to fund these projects. Take the money we're no longer spending at war, use half of it to pay down our debt, and use the rest to do some nation-building right here at home.”

How about use all of that money to pay down the debt and let the states worry about their own roads and bridges.  The only money that the Federal money that is needed is for the interstate road way systems, which is already over funded though you wouldn’t know it due to the wasteful spending of the people who run it.  Why not take the existing money and (as Obama puts it) clear some of that red tape away.  I think that then they would find out that they have more than enough money for what is needed. 

“There's never been a better time to build, especially since the construction industry was one of the hardest-hit when the housing bubble burst. Of course, construction workers weren't the only ones hurt. So were millions of innocent Americans who've seen their home values decline. And while Government can't fix the problem on its own, responsible homeowners shouldn't have to sit and wait for the housing market to hit bottom to get some relief.

That's why I'm sending this Congress a plan that gives every responsible homeowner the chance to save about $3,000 a year on their mortgage, by refinancing at historically low interest rates. No more red tape. No more runaround from the banks. A small fee on the largest financial institutions will ensure that it won't add to the deficit, and will give banks that were rescued by taxpayers a chance to repay a deficit of trust.”

This really does sound good, as a homeowner myself that has been effected by the housing decline; I can see the benefit of this.  But, I am hesitant to believe this or to trust that it will truly help.  The reason for this is the money that will fund this has to come from somewhere.  The unfortunate truth is that it is most likely going to be gained by raising taxes or cutting the tax breaks that home owners get.  Either one of these is almost guaranteed to be worse than what we currently have to pay, effectively not saving us, the homeowners, anything.

Let's never forget: Millions of Americans who work hard and play by the rules every day deserve a Government and a financial system that do the same. It's time to apply the same rules from top to bottom: No bailouts, no handouts, and no copouts. An America built to last insists on responsibility from everybody.

“We've all paid the price for lenders who sold mortgages to people who couldn't afford them, and buyers who knew they couldn't afford them. That's why we need smart regulations to prevent irresponsible behavior. Rules to prevent financial fraud, or toxic dumping, or faulty medical devices, don't destroy the free market. They make the free market work better.”

What Obama is saying here is true, but it is also misleading.  Rules and regulations do help the free market to work better, but only when they are used in moderation.  The biggest thing that is hurting the free market today is overregulation.  This is the whole reason that we had the trouble that led to the recession and the housing market collapse.  When you overregulate, things either can’t get done that need to get done or the multitude of rules gets abused by playing the rules against themselves.

“There is no question that some regulations are outdated, unnecessary, or too costly. In fact, I've approved fewer regulations in the first three years of my presidency than my Republican predecessor did in his. I've ordered every federal agency to eliminate rules that don't make sense. We've already announced over 500 reforms, and just a fraction of them will save business and citizens more than $10 billion over the next five years. We got rid of one rule from 40 years ago that could have forced some dairy farmers to spend $10,000 a year proving that they could contain a spill - because milk was somehow classified as an oil. With a rule like that, I guess it was worth crying over spilled milk.” 

Actually, over all, Obama has approved passed more regulations in his first 3 years then Bush did in his 8.  As for his administration reforming regulations that are out dated, Obama has shown in the past that he isn’t really interested in true reform of these regulations; he wants to expand upon them.  If, he is telling the truth (and I doubt it, though I will admit I don’t know the truth about this claim.  I cannot find anything to reference his claim) about the rule for dairy farmers that he talks about here, then I say, good for him, but there is so much more that needs to be done.  Also if he is telling the truth, then how many regulations did he impose to offset that rule’s removal?  I bet the answer is more than one.

“I'm confident a farmer can contain a milk spill without a federal agency looking over his shoulder. But I will not back down from making sure an oil company can contain the kind of oil spill we saw in the Gulf two years ago. I will not back down from protecting our kids from mercury pollution, or making sure that our food is safe and our water is clean. I will not go back to the days when health insurance companies had unchecked power to cancel your policy, deny you coverage, or charge women differently from men.”

Ok, where to start… I guess I will start with the gulf oil spill…  Obama, you really dropped the ball on that one.  You took over 90 days to respond to it all the while, blocking all outside help that was trying to lend a hand to help contain and clean it up.  That spill was your Katrina and you just used it to play class warfare politics by taking the opportunity it presented to you.  You used it to shut down a good portion of the industry that refines oil, hurting thousands of families in the process, and to promote your environmental agenda that does not take the US citizen into consideration. You could care less about clean air or clean water, all you care about is if promoting them promotes you and your agenda. 

Also, stop lying about the health insurance companies; I am sick of hearing you tell the same lies about them over and over.  As for the health insurance companies charging more for women over men, (and I know I am going to catch flak for this one, but bear with me) they should charge more.  Women have more expensive testing (and they are tested more often than men) that they need to have done simply because they are women.  Men’s healthcare, in general, is less expensive; therefor they should charge less for men.  It isn’t that men are better than women or vice versa, it’s just that our bodies are made differently therefor testing is done differently and costs differing amounts. 

So on that note Mr. Obama, shut your mouth, you will be more honest that way. 

More in Part 7.

SOPA and PIPA - The Path To Obstruction

Ok, I know I am a little late to the game with this piece, but I feel this needs to be said therefor I am saying it.  The subjects I am going to talk about are the now infamous SOPA and PIPA bills that have yet to be presented in Congress.  Luckily SOPA has been set on the back burner for now while congress tries to figure out a way to change the language so that it is not as intrusive as it is in its current form.  At least that is the story that is being fed to us.  I believe that Congress is just waiting for our short term memories to forget about SOPA so that they can try to pass it again under a different name.  PIPA is still up for a vote soon unless something drastic happens.  Hopefully, the internet wide protests that occurred when SOPA was about to be brought up will have had an impact on PIPA, if not, then maybe we will have another protest only wider spread.  Ok, I guess since not everyone out there keeps up with current events, I need to start out by telling you all what SOPA and PIPA are.

I will start with SOPA, which stands for “Stop Online Piracy Act”.  Of the two bills, SOPA is the more extreme in its language and potential execution.  It intended to help fight copy right infringement on foreign websites.  One of the tools SOPA provided allowed the U.S. Department of Justice could seek court orders requiring Internet service providers such as AOL, Comcast and Charter to block the domain names of “infringing sites”.  For example, Comcast could prevent its customers from accessing megaupload.com.  Luckily, this was one of the parts of SOPA that was dropped due to the opposition as well as the impracticality of actually enforcing it.  The other tool would allow rights holders to seek court orders requiring payment providers, advertisers and search engines to stop doing business with an “infringing site”.  Because of this, the rights holders would also be able to request for funding to be cut off from an “infringing site”, and that all search links leading to the offending site be required to be removed. Then site in question would have five days to appeal any action taken against them.  Also, SOPA defines an “infringing site" as any site that is "committing or facilitating" copyright infringement, this blankets both domestic and foreign sites.

Now on to the subject of PIPA.  PIPA stands for “Protect Intellectual Properties Act”.  For the most part, PIPA is almost identical to SOPA with the main difference being the language.  As I said before SOPA is the more extreme of the two.  Whereas SOPA is very broad in its reach when it comes to a site that is committing or facilitating" copyright infringement, PIPA only target sites that have “no other significant use other than copyright infringement”.  What this mean is, if any website has any purpose other than providing copyrighted material it should be safe from the ramifications of the bill, though a site will still have to prove that it is for other uses other than pirating.  Sites that fileshare such as Rapidshare should, in theory, be safe from prosecution because they remove copyrighted material as soon as the owner of copyright requests it, while sites like Megaupload and PirateBay would be targeted due to their attempts to obstruct any attempts to force the removal of copyrighted material. 

Speaking of Megaupload… want to see something that should terrify you?  Go to megaupload.com and then come back here, I’ll wait…  See?  That is terrifying.  Why?  Because, Megaupload is based out of Hong Kong and the owner of the site was arrested from his home in New Zealand when the FBI had the site brought down.  Yeah, anyway, Megaupload is supposedly NOT a victim of the fallout from upset bureaucrats over the dismissal of SOPA, yet I find the timing very suspicious.  But I digress.

Now that I have given you some info on SOPA and PIPA I am going to tell you about my opinion of these two bills.  SOPA and PIPA both are good in their intentions, they are.  The main problem with them comes in the language that is used in the bills.  I am all for protecting an individual’s intellectual properties, I am, but this hits a little close to home with me in the aspect of writing, therefor I am going to approach this from that viewpoint.  After all, if someone stole the novel I wrote and distributed it without my permission and I, then, was unable take make any money off of it due to that, I would be upset.  I know some people think that authors that get published make tons of money on their books, but unless an author is extremely prolific or well sold, such as Stephen King, they are not going to make a lot of money off of their writing (unless they are very lucky).  When someone takes their book and uploads it to a site so that it can be distributed illegally that cuts into the sales of the book which cuts into the profits of the publisher and the royalties of the writer.  Lack of sales creates lack of prints which then, if taken to its ultimate end, creates lack of work for the author.  There are some companies that have found a way to profit from allowing books to be downloaded free of charge on select titles (Baen is one of them) but once again I digress.

SOPA and PIPA, like I said before are written with good intentions but they take the anti-piracy laws that we currently have and hype them up on steroids creating monstrous blanket laws that will infringe upon everyone’s life negatively in some way.  I don’t care who you are, once these laws go into effect no one will be safe from them, and if taken to the extreme that everyone is afraid they will be taken to, even the owners of the properties that these laws are meant to protects will be harmed by them.  Imagine an internet without ANY copyrighted material on it.  That is the most extreme that these laws could potentially be taken too.  I doubt they would go that far but dumber things have happened, after all look at who we currently have as President.  

A realistic example of what is most likely to come out of either of these laws being passed is something along these lines…  If you like to read or write fan fiction (fan stories based on intellectual properties such as popular books, games and TV series), you would no longer be allowed to write and distribute your stories nor could you receive and read the stories of others.  Sites like YouTube and Deviant Art would have over 90% of their content stripped from them if there were not shut down.  You could no longer read movie or book reviews online because they are based off of intellectual properties.  Keep in mind, this is a realistic scenario.  Sites that offer services like Netflix could be shut down at the whim of someone who thinks that they are not getting paid enough for the rights to be displayed by those services.  The internet as we know it would go away. 

SOPA and PIPA don’t need to just have the language changed; they need to be completely retooled in order to help strengthen our current anti-piracy laws instead of trying to override them with blanket laws that are so vaguely worded that they can be interpreted however anyone wants to interpret them to suit their desires.  As it is, the laws we currently have are not effective, but I would take what we have over having our freedoms online striped from us almost completely.  When we go down the path that SOPA and PIPA inadvertently will place us on, we will be brought that much closer to a communistic society. 

Here in America we should realize the value of freedom and work to defend that freedom.  For too long we have let the politician that sit in Washington slowly strip us from our natural born freedoms while telling us that it is for our own good.  Hell, we currently have 32% of the population of this country who are happy with a President that has effectively said he wants to be our Dictator and will do what is necessary to become said Dictator (more on that in my next post where I tear apart Obama’s State of the Union speech.) if re-elected.  We need to stand up and tell Washington DC “NO MORE!”  and then start pushing for a real change that preserves and restores our freedom to where it should be.