POLITICAL: The Duopoly scam

Friday, January 27, 2012

http://lewrockwell.com/orig12/thomas-jeff2.1.1.html

The Political Party Illusion
by Jeff Thomas
International Man

*** begin quote ***

As stated above, the main difference between the feudal system of five hundred years ago and the feudal system that is developing in the First World today is that the packaging is more sophisticated. Instead of having identifiable kings whom we may all hate, we have the distraction of two political teams that we may “choose” between. While we praise the good guys (our preferred political party) and hope that they will vanquish the bad guys (the opposing political party), they are in fact one and the same, and they both work for the kings.

*** end quote ***

It’s the same coin. Just two different sides. When will “We, The Sheeple” recognize the scam.

Argh!

# – # – # – # – #


POLITICAL: Irish pensioners targets of revenue enhancement

Thursday, January 19, 2012

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Irish-pensioners-fury-over-new-taxes-137097448.html

Irish pensioners fury over new taxes
Previously “untouchable” state services get cuts
ByPADDY CLANCY,Irish Voice Reporter
Published Thursday, January 12, 2012, 7:57 AMUpdated Thursday, January 12, 2012, 7:57 AM

*** begin quote ***

Savage cuts to a host of previously “untouchable” state services are now being actively considered by the government as a result of Ireland’s dire financial position.

*** end quote ***

In the search for money to feed the Gooferment spending habit, the “pensioners” are a good target. They don’t “move” so quick. But they do vote.

Look for this idea to travel over the pond and get adopted here.

The USA Gooferment is in perpetual deficit, with an incalculable debt, the IRA / 401K total is about 14T$. Look for the politicians and bureaucrats to steal that.

You heard it. Steal it in exchange for an “enhanced social security benefit”.

Argh!

# – # – # – # – #

 

 


POLITICAL: Mitt Romney = Big Government

Tuesday, January 17, 2012

 

*** begin quote ***

Please read – or re-read – Carla Howell’s May, 2007 essay below. It reveals the unvarnished truth about Mitt Romney = Big Government. It is even more timely now than it was 5 years ago.

And please forward it to any Tea Partier, fiscal conservative, or libertarian who is even considering voting for Big Government Mitt Romney for President.

Small government is beautiful,

Michael Cloud  President and Co-Founder Center For Small Government 
Mitt Romney: Champion of Big Government
By Carla Howell

Is Mitt Romney the “economic conservative” he claims to be? Especially when it comes to tax and spend policies?

Now that he’s running for president, let’s compare his words with his deeds.

Taxes

Romney claims to be anti-tax. He even “took” a “no new taxes” pledge when he ran for Governor of Massachusetts in 2002. “Took” is in quotes because he refused to sign that pledge. His signature wasn’t necessary, he claimed. He assured us that he’s a man of his word.

But Mitt Romney has been a champion of new taxes.

Mitt Romney proposed three new taxes while campaigning for governor: a new tax on vehicles, a new tax on campaign donations, and a new tax on building construction. They didn’t get much fanfare in the media and were quickly forgotten.

Right before the 2002 election, he ran millions of dollars in ads portraying himself as a “no new taxes” governor. The media refused to set the record straight.

But that was only the beginning.

Each of the four years Romney served as governor, he raised taxes – while pretending he didn’t.

Mitt Romney denies that he raised taxes. He claims he only raised mandatory government “fees.” But government mandatory fees are nothing but taxes, and taxes are nothing but mandatory government fees.

Romney’s new tax-fees raised hundreds of millions of dollars in new tax revenue for the state government every year.

In addition to:
scores of new tax-fees,
Mitt Romney also increased several other taxes by:
“closing loopholes” to enable collection of a new Internet sales tax    passing legislation that enables local governments to raise Business Property Taxes    enacting a new tax penalty that raises Income Taxes on both individuals and small businesses. 
This, he claims, is not raising taxes.

I suppose you could say Romney merely enacted bills that force taxpayers to hand over billions of dollars – which end up in the coffers of the government.

Quacks like a tax increase?

In 2008, Romney boasted that he was the first presidential candidate to sign a “taxpayer protection pledge,” in which he promised to oppose “any and all efforts” to increase income taxes on people or businesses.

So he’ll call his tax increases “government fees” or “closing loopholes” or “penalties” or something else. But if Romney is elected President of the United States, the IRS will collect all this additional money from you, your family, your friends, and millions of Americans just like you.

Government Spending

Mitt Romney claims to have cut the Massachusetts budget by “$2 billion.” Sometimes he claims he cut it “$3 billion.” The media gives him free advertising by parroting this myth repeatedly. They repeat it so often that even many fiscal conservatives and libertarians assume it must be true.

But these “cuts” were merely budget games. Spending cuts in one area were simply moved into another area of the budget.

In fact, not only did Mitt Romney refuse to cut the overall Massachusetts budget, he expanded it. Dramatically.

The Massachusetts state statutory budget was $22.7 billion a year when he took office in January of 2003.

When he left office four years later, it was over $25.7 billion – plus another $2.2 billion in spending that the legislature took “off budget.” (Romney never reminds us of this fact.)

The net effect of budgets proposed and signed into law by Mitt Romney? $5.2 billion MORE in state spending – and a similar increase in new taxes and mandatory fees.

Every year.

He claims to have done a good job as governor of liberal Massachusetts in light of the fact that it’s a “tough state” for poor “conservatives” like him. He infers his hands were tied by the predominantly Democratic legislature.

But when it comes to tax and spend policies, he’s not only in lockstep with the Democrats. He leads the way.

Each of the four years Romney served as governor, he started budget negotiations by proposing an increase of about $1 billion in new government spending. Before the legislature even named a budget figure.

Romney initiated massive new spending – without any prodding.

The legislature responded with a handful of line item budget increases. Romney agreed to some of them and vetoed others. The media helped him out again by making fanfare of his vetoes and portraying him as tough on spending – after he had already given away the store!

The Romney-Kennedy Alliance

But his grand finale was the worst of all: RomneyCare, Mitt Romney’s version of socialized medicine.

By his own admission, he didn’t plan his socialized medicine scheme until after the 2002 election.

During Romney’s governor campaign, he convinced voters that his Democrat rival would be worse – because she would saddle us with socialist tax-and-spend policies, he said.

But soon after he was elected, Romney started the drumbeat for socialized medicine. Three years later, he signed RomneyCare into law.

Voters of Massachusetts did not vote for RomneyCare. Mitt Romney foisted the granddaddy of Big Government expansions upon them without warning. He championed it from the beginning. Again, without any prodding from his Democrat rivals.

When Romney ran for U.S. Senate in 1994, his campaign popularized the derogatory term “Kennedy country” to describe the devastating effects of Ted Kennedy’s “liberal social programs” on poor neighborhoods in Massachusetts.

Yet Mitt Romney stood proudly with Ted Kennedy while he signed RomneyCare into law.

Ted Kennedy has pushed for socialized medicine for decades. Romney fulfilled his dream. Kennedy lobbied the legislature hard to get Romney’s bill passed. It was a Romney-Kennedy alliance.

Welcome to Massachusetts: Romney-Kennedy country.

Romney’s socialized medicine law mandates everyone who doesn’t have insurance to buy it – or suffer income tax penalties. Both individuals and small businesses face steep fines if they refuse to give up their freedom to make their own health care choices. There’s yet another “off budget” Mitt Romney tax increase.

Romney’s mandate will cost individual taxpayers many thousands of dollars every year in health insurance premiums for unwanted policies – or force them to pay sizable tax penalties.

The total cost of RomneyCare in mandates and new spending? At least several billion dollars every year – to start. It will rise from there, as socialized medicine programs are wont to do.

Romney’s law went into full effect in 2009. It’s harmful effects were not felt  until after the 2008 presidential election was over. Romney’s time-release tax increase.

Romney’s Words Versus Romney’s Deeds

Smart moms tell their kids, “Believe none of what you hear and half of what you see.”

That advice saved me a lot of heartache. And it will do the same for Republicans who are leaning towards voting for Mitt Romney in the Republican presidential primary.

Candidate Romney campaigns for president with the words we’re aching to hear. Words we want to believe. Candidate Romney tells us that he is a: “fiscal conservative”    “friend of small business”    “tax cutter”    “waste fighter”    “opponent of runaway spending”    “tough leader who vetoes new taxes and needless government spending”

Let’s follow Mom’s advice: ignore candidate Romney’s words. Look at elected Governor Romney’s deeds.

What does he do when he’s elected?

Mitt Romney hits up taxpayers with a variety of new taxes – while pretending he doesn’t.

Mitt Romney jacks up government spending as much as any Big Government Democrat would.

Mitt Romney champions massive Big Government Programs – that made Ted Kennedy proud.

### Originally published May, 2007

Carla Howell sponsored the 2002 Massachusetts ballot initiative to End the State Income Tax – which Mitt Romney actively opposed. Her initiative nearly won with 885,000 votes: 45% of the vote. She ran the End the State Income Tax in 2008 and garnered 915,000 votes. In 2010, she ran a Massachusetts ballot initiative to roll back the sales tax from 6.25% to 3% – and garnered 967,000 votes. All opposed by Mitt Romney.

Carla Howell is Co-Founder and past President of the  Center For Small Government. She is currently on a leave of absence from the Center.

# – # – # – # – #

 


POLITICAL: Energy Department mulit-decade abject failure

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

https://secure.downsizedc.org/etp/energydept/

Shut Down the Energy Department

*** begin quote ***

Finally, the very existence of a Department of Energy sends the wrong message: That the Federal Government should have the authority to control energy production and distribution.

Markets provide a more efficient, less-costly method of producing and distributing the energy needs of producers and consumers. You wouldn’t want The State to ration your food, clothing, or shelter, would you? If not, then why should The State control energy supplies?

Some functions of the Energy Department should be transferred to the Defense Department. The rest should be eliminated altogether. Ending the Department of Energy will send the RIGHT message: Our energy needs are too important to be left up to the whims of political favor and unelected bureaucrats.

*** end quote ***

Dear Representative:

Please shut down the Department of Energy. End subsidies and cumbersome regulations. Allow a free market in energy.

Every President since Carter, that I remember, maybe as far back as Ike, promised energy independence. The Energy Department has NEVER accomplished its mission. So let’s stop.

“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” — attributed to Einstein

So, in addition to closing the Department of Energy, permit drilling anywhere and such pipelines as needed,

NOW!

/signed/

# – # – # – # – #


POLITICAL: Are id requirements “racist”? No!

Monday, January 9, 2012

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/asking-for-i-d-before-voting-is-racist-but-you-need-a-govt-i-d-to-buy-drain-cleaner/

Asking For I.D. Before Voting Is ‘Racist’, But You Need A Govt. I.D. To Buy Drain Cleaner?
Posted on January 7, 2012 at 9:57pm by Mike Opelka Mike Opelka

*** begin quote ***

Got a clogged drain? Before you can buy that liquid drain cleaner, I need to see some ID.

*** and ***

If it is considered “racist” or “discrimination” to ask a voter for a photo ID before they are allowed to cast a ballot, why is it not racist to ask for a government issued ID card when you want to buy drain cleaner or pay for your gasoline with cash?

*** end quote ***

What stupidity?

The ONLY reason not to have voter id requirements is that the duopoly wants the ability to stuff the ballot box.

The Dead Old White Guys were right. Gooferment, politicians and bureaucrats are not to be trusted.

We’ve already seen “dead people” vote, more votes than people, and “math errors” in elections.

And, candidates don’t have to prove they’re eligible.

SO why vote?

Democracy is mob rule. Might as well turn the process over to the mob as we did with the Seventeenth Amendment.

Argh!

# – # – # – # – #


POLITICAL: What the government is not

Thursday, January 5, 2012

http://lewrockwell.com/napolitano/napolitano34.1.html

The Case for Austerity
by Andrew P. Napolitano

*** begin quote ***

Government is not a jobs program, and government is not your caretaker. Government is an arrangement made by free individuals to protect their rights and their property.

It doesn’t take $3.6 trillion a year to do that effectively in America today. I doubt it takes a trillion. We must swallow the bitter pill of austerity now, on our own terms, while we are still the undisputed leader of the free world and while we still have a Constitution, so that we can restore our prosperity in a way consistent with personal liberty.

*** end quote ***

Certainly seems that the 15T$ national debt is OUR problem.

If we were all on the same page, then we could amortize that over generations.

Bet we could sell 50 year bonds!

But we’re not even on the same planet as some people.

The Tea Party and the Occupy folks were all screaming about the same thing. Crony Capitalism, Regulatory Capture, and Rule by the Effete Elite. (imho)

Time to cut spending. And get everyone back to work.

# – # – # – # – #


POLITICAL: Ron Paul’s 10 Principles

Friday, December 30, 2011

THE TEN PRINCIPLES OF A FREE SOCIETY, by Ron Paul‏

1. Rights belong to individuals, not groups; they derive from our nature and can neither be granted nor taken away by government.

2. All peaceful, voluntary economic and social associations are permitted; consent is the basis of the social and economic order.

3. Justly acquired property is privately owned by individuals and voluntary groups, and this ownership cannot be arbitrarily voided by governments.

4. Government may not redistribute private wealth or grant special privileges to any individual or group.

5. Individuals are responsible for their own actions; government cannot and should not protect us from ourselves.

6. Government may not claim the monopoly over a people’s money and governments must never engage in official counterfeiting, even in the name of macroeconomic stability.

7. Aggressive wars, even when called preventative, and even when they pertain only to trade relations, are forbidden.

8. Jury nullification, that is, the right of jurors to judge the law as well as the facts, is a right of the people and the courtroom norm.

9. All forms of involuntary servitude are prohibited, not only slavery but also conscription, forced association, and forced welfare distribution.

10. Government must obey the law that it expects other people to obey and thereby must never use force to mold behavior, manipulate social outcomes, manage the economy, or tell other countries how to behave.

# – # – # – # – #


POLITICAL: Excluding the “right” people

Tuesday, December 27, 2011

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/102133.html

December 24, 2011Yes, Virginia —Posted by Charles Burris on December 24, 2011 12:55 PM

*** begin quote ***

Let the Virginia ballot disqualification experience of Gingrich, Bachmann, Huntsman, Santorum, and Perry be an eye-opening object lesson to those dedicated supporters of Ron Paul who urge an independent or third party bid. The American electoral system is organized into fifty-two different sets of election laws (the federal laws and those of the 50 states and Guam). Each jurisdiction has entirely different ballot petition requirements for the Democrats and Republicans, as well as third party and independent presidential candidates.

These requirements are onerous, unduly burdensome, and chilling in their effect of squashing voters choosing candidates other than the Democrats and Republicans who draft and vigorously enforce these laws to protect their duopoly. I have been a litigant to several legal challenges to these restrictive laws in Oklahoma at the state and federal level, some cases reaching the United States Supreme Court.

*** end quote ***

So let’s understand this. Asking for id to vote is discriminatory excluding voters. But 50 or more ballot processes is OK.

It’s OBVIOUSLY OK, because it excludes the “right” people.

Participation by other than a “good kop / bad kop” candidate is VERY BAD to the status quo.

So the entrenched ruling class keeps the serfs down on the farm!

Argh!

# – # – # – # – #


POLITICAL: National Popular Vote would enable fraud

Tuesday, December 27, 2011

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=374709

Why National Popular Vote is a bad idea
Posted: December 05, 2011
Phyllis Schlafly

*** begin quote ***

Moving quietly under the cover of the presidential debates and the enormous publicity given to the Republican nomination race is a plan to change how U.S. presidents are elected. It would bypass the procedure spelled out in the U.S. Constitution, which has been used successfully for over two centuries.

The Constitution prescribes how we elect our presidents. It is a mirror image of the Great Compromise. Designed by the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the Great Compromise brought together the large and small states by means of a national Congress, with the House of Representatives based on population and the Senate based on state sovereignty.

Likewise, when the presidential electors meet in gatherings known as the Electoral College, each state’s vote is equal to the sum of its House and Senate representation in Congress. Our Founding Fathers understood that America is a nation of both “we the people” and a federal system of states, so it allows all states, regardless of size, to be players in electing our president.

The plan to change this system is called the National Popular Vote. It obviously has a lot of money behind it because it is sending highly paid lobbyists around the country to persuade state legislatures to adopt the NPV plan.

NPV is an attempt to achieve the longtime liberal goal of getting rid of the Electoral College. Instead of proposing an amendment that would first need to be passed by Congress and then ratified by three-fourths of the states (38), NPV is a scheme to deviously bypass the grand design of our U.S. Constitution.

Learn why it’s crucial to preserve the brilliant concept handing down from our founders — read George Grant’s “The Importance of the Electoral College”

*** and ***

Remember our national trauma as we suffered through recounts in Florida where the margin between Bush and Gore was only about 500 votes? If the election is based on the national popular vote and it’s close, NPV would induce recounts in many or most of the 50 states.

*** and ***

People who pretend that the Electoral College system is undemocratic are not only ignorant of the history and purposes of the U.S. Constitution, but they probably don’t even understand baseball. Basing the election on a plurality of the popular vote while ignoring the states would be like the New York Yankees claiming they won the 1960 World Series because they outscored the Pirates in runs 55-27 and in hits 91-60. Yet, the Pirates fairly won that World Series, 4 games to 3, and no one challenges their victory.

*** end quote ***

Can you imagine the corrupt political machines having even MORE power?

Argh!

How stupid can “We, The Sheeple” be?

Corruption in Chicago can out vote everyone?

It’s a joke!

# – # – # – # – #


POLITICAL: A “right” to travel?

Sunday, December 25, 2011

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/travel-is-a-human-right

December 21, 2011
Travel is a Human Right
Posted by James Wilson

*** begin quote ***

Quote of the Day: “The right to travel enables the free exercise of the other rights we most cherish. We should not have to check our constitutional freedoms at the curb simply because we decide to leave the house. Sadly, freedom of movement has been one of the most disparaged rights throughout human history, and our country is no exception. If we are ever to be truly free, then we must possess an absolute, uninhibited right to travel throughout America and the world free from interference by government.” – Judge Andrew Napolitano

This holiday season, countless innocent air travelers will be screened, patted-down, and interrogated by the TSA.

Let’s make next Christmas merrier for them. Tell Congress to abolish the Transportation Security Agency.

*** end quote ***

Clearly, the TSA is an unconstitutional agency. I believe that the Dead Old White Guys would call it a “private militia”.

I’m not a “political philosopher” by any stretch of the imagination. BUT, (and there is always a BIG butt), I’d opine that there are two components of a “right” — general human agreement and folks are willing to fight to have it.

ONE

Now, obviously, the slave master wants to keep the slaves on the plantation. Dialing it back a tad, the Feudal Lord wanted to keep the serf working. Back another tad, “sharecropping” was another attempt to control people. The “company store” another. It’s all about controlling people. It’s always about control.

Politicians and bureaucrats are no different.

Freedom to move is imho one of those “obvious” rights. It’s like saying you’re free to breathe.

TWO

Now the harder one, are people willing to fight?

imho the jury’s till out about that.

Now we know the TSA is “security theater” at best and a corrupt payoff to the Unions and gives the country a new voting set of bureaucrats beholding to the Gooferment for their livelihood. Like they’ll ever push for the TSA’s abolition.

There’s a problem in the USA: ½ the people are on the dole in one form or another, ¼ are in “public service”, and the other productive ¼ are “pulling the wagon” (i.e., paying for it).

So how can the trend be reversed?

We’ll have to see if the people are willing to fight for their rights. Any of them!

# – # – # – # – #