Happy Fathers Day Jensen Family


It’s been 10 years since Parker Jensen was “diagnosed” with cancer. He hasn’t been to a hospital since. He is healthy and happy and just got married.

The news isn’t quite remembering the significant fact that if Parker had undergone the 45 weeks of mandatory chemo therapy he’d most likely be sterile today, and may not be celebrating a wedding because of it.

The article also fails to help us remember that the Jensen’s had a warrant for their arrest, were in the process of getting their parental rights taken away, and also charged of kidnapping their own son.

Had they not fled to Idaho this story could be much different today. Parker would simply be a sterile un-married suposed cancer survivor suffering the life long effects of the treatment.

May God continue to bless the Jensen family.

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=25601811&nid=148&title=parker-jensen-cancer-free-10-years-later

Capitalism, Corporatism and Socialism

From our corporate-controlled media outlets an old idea has been gaining momentum. This idea that capitalism has failed and that socialism is the answer is making a convincing argument, albeit in sound bites, to the general public; however, if one would only scrape a little off the new paint job they’ve given socialism all the rust and corrosion that history has taught regarding this thief would be revealed.

But let us first take a look at this pretty paint.  The false assumptions sound something like this: “Capitalism and its greed caused the boom that overinflated the real estate market. If capitalism were better regulated, more of the money would stay with the poor. We need more liberals (by liberals, they mean socialists) in office to create more programs to give to the less fortunate. This would elevate the lower-class and establish more equity.”

These would all be valid arguments if what created those problems was capitalism, but it wasn’t. These are the by-products of an oligarchy in the form of corporatism.  These are not the makings of free-markets and mutually beneficial exchange.  This is evidence of monopolistic companies gaining their success and superiority by turning the head of government.

We are currently dealing with three philosophies: capitalism, corporatism and socialism. The problem is that while capitalism and socialism have been battling it out corporatism has been sitting back having a good laugh all the while counting the money.  Most people think we have been living capitalism. We have been living corporatism disguised as capitalism. If it walks like a duck and quack likes a duck stop calling it an eagle.

In the debate between socialism and capitalism I have to agree with Ayn Rand when she wrote in 1962, “As far as superior productivity and speed of economic progress are concerned, the question of any comparisons between capitalism and socialism has been answered once and for all –for any honest person- by the present difference between West and East Berlin.”

Let’s not forget the lessons that history has taught us. Changing the name of socialism to progressive or liberal does not change its consequences. It is part of our humanity and religious nature to want to help when others are in need.  Kindness, love and charity are not to be marginalized; however, the way these goals are accomplished does matter.  If I believe in a cause I should, from my own pocketbook, act on that belief.  If a government believes in a cause I should not be forced to act on their belief.  Forcing money from me in the form of taxes to contribute to a cause that has petitioned the government is socialism. You may agree with those causes, but it is still as Frederic Bastiat put it “legal plunder” and opens the door for other causes not as worthy.  The notion that one is uncaring or heartless because they don’t join the ranks in petitioning politicians for government-funded aid is erroneous. They understand the mere fact that government creates nothing. It is simply a re-distributor of others’ wealth. In The Law Frederic Bastiat goes on to say, “Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society.  As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all……It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”

Most of us see no need to debate our blatantly evil system of corporations controlling government. Corporatism, the fugitive, has been mistakenly flying below the radar while its evil twin, socialism, has been enjoying the façade of masquerading as the good guy.

So next time we are asked to take a second look at this newly painted vehicle called socialism; do it and look a lot closer. Pop the hood before you agree to buy.  I think you’ll find that despite the pretty paint it’s still missing the engine.

Police Then and Now

Police Then
Have you noticed the trend? Do city police officers look different than they used to? I haven’t been paying close attention, but it’s starting to stand out more to me now. Those nice clean cut police officers in your neighborhood are starting to look more and more like mean don’t mess with me military personnel.

What happened? Where did my Norman Rockwell police officer go? Are the police supposed to be warm and inviting, or cold and intimidating? They used to wear bright blue friendly shirts and a smile. Now they have dark shirts and those military pants that have all the pockets on them. They wear dark sunglasses to remove personality from their demeanor. It’s not uncommon to see them wearing camo. Last but not least they are donning military crew cuts or going to a shaved head.

Police Officers are to keep the peace. The Military are death machines. Which ones do we want in our neighborhood?
Police Now

UPDATE: Here is a link to the top 5 Worst Police Misconduct Videos of 2010.

13 year old eloquently illustrates our nanny state condition

Here are some good quotes:
“We were being entrepreneurs,” he said, “but now I feel a little defeated.”
“A permit to sell things in the park costs $150 to $350 for two hours and a $1 million insurance certificate is also required”
No wonder India is set to lead the world in economic strength… they don’t have stupid laws that stiffen entrepreneurship at such a young age.
 
nanny state

The closing of an island and nation

Local workers on the island of Diego Garcia 1971

Some have said the United States Pentagon is one of the largest land owners in the world. If this is true, how did the Pentagon get all that land? I’ll tell you how they got once such piece of land.

Diego Garcia, no it’s not a person it’s an island in the Indian Ocean. The extremely short story is that in 1971 the United Kingdom and the United States entered into an agreement to permanently evacuate the 2,000 native inhabitants of the island and turn it into a U.S. Military base. The Chagossians had been living there for six generations, aproximately 200 years.

In March 1971, a civil servant was sent to tell the Chagossians that they were to leave. A memorandum related that:

I told the inhabitants that we intended to close the island in July. A few of them asked whether they could receive some compensation for leaving ‘their own country.’ I kicked this into touch by saying that our intention was to cause as little disruption to their lives as possible.

They were not compensated immediately, and when they were finally paid for their property it was a measly sum. To receive the money, they had to sign away their rights to the island. They didn’t know this at the time because the paperwork was written in English, a language they did not know.

The Chagossians were left near homeless on the island of Mauritius where unemployment already stood at 20 percent. Moreover, the Chagossian trade was copra farming which did not translate well to the Mauritius economy. The Chagossians also spoke a patois unique to Diego Garcia, making it difficult to integrate with Mauritians.

They were put  in some abandoned apartments ridden with trash, and had no windows or doors. No running water or electricity. They were allowed to bring only one suitcase per person. They received nothing when they got there. The future was dim. Some committed suicide. Some turned to prostitution to survive. Some died under the living conditions. Others died of “sadness” as they called it.

The U.S. won’t allow them to visit their home land to tend to the dilapidated graves of their ancestors. They say it’s too big of a security threat.

The Diego Garcian Society is to this day fighting to regain their property.

Dear Pentagon,

Please evacuate the island of Diego Garcia and urge the British Government to allow the rightful owners to return.

Sincerely,

Humanity

If interested there is more information you can find. A book has been written. A movie was made. There are many articles that can be read.

A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
-Thomas Jefferson

PBS Stations Should Jump Ship

Update 6/17/09: The board has decided on the matter.

pbs logo 1971The Washington Post just came out with an article stating that the board of directors for PBS is going to vote in their next meeting (June 14-16) if they should start enforcing a 25 year old rule adopted to their By-laws in 1985. The rule is a “fairness-and-balance” policy and states that PBS content should be non-commercial, non-partisan, and non-sectarian.

This means that all member stations would lose PBS affiliation or be forced to cut their programs that don’t meet their to-date un-enforced requirements. It specifically would not allow religious programming. So stations owned by religious organisations such as WLAE and KBYU would particularly have a  hard time maintaining PBS status with their current programming. Many more stations (KBDI, WHUT, KLVX, KMBH, to name a few) air religious programs and would certainly be forced to drop them, or lose PBS status.

I’m calling on all PBS affiliates who are airing content that violate PBS By-laws to pre-empt the PBS decision and drop their PBS membership to show PBS that we/you don’t need them. Consider the following reason for dropping your PBS affiliation:

  • Your  station is currently violating the By-laws.
  • Do you really want to be told by the Government what you can/can’t air? (The entire board or directors for CPB is appointed by the President of the United States, and confirmed by the Senate.)
  • You shouldn’t be subsidised by tax dollars. Approximately half of funding comes from federal and local tax payers.
  • PBS / CPB was created in 1967 to provide diversity from the  THREE private networks. This isn’t a problem any more. How many channels do you currently get on your TV? The chartered purpose of PBS has been well out-lived. We don’t need government subsidised television any longer.
  • There is no substantial leeway in the Constitution giving government the permission to be involved in the first place.
  • And if you say you won’t be able to survive without the government hand-out then so be it. If you can’t survive on your own, then maybe you shouldn’t exist.

Speak your mind on this subject with a comment below.

People with “authority”

REI ATM MachineOn May 9th, 2009 Shane Becker was in R.E.I making a purchase. While standing in line he notices two men working on an ATM machine. He snaps a picture of the ATM with his iPhone (pictured at right). Why? Because he enjoys seeing the inside of machines that he doesn’t normally get to see. What happens next is a surprising series of events. I encourage you to read it on his blog, or listen to Shane tell his story on the Dori Monson radio show by clicking on the play button below.

[audio:shanebeckeratm.mp3]

After listening to most of callers to the show I wanted to quote Benjamin Franklin to them:

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

It’s incidents like this and others that get the attention of the people and seem to justify websites such as policeabuse.com. From reading over the Loomis Risk Management website these agents seem to simply be doing their job… or are they taking it to the extreme?

Loomis’ employees play a decisive role in controlling and reporting the risks …and threats that require action

What do you think? Do you side with Shane in this case or with the Loomis agents and the police?

Obama’s Planned Economy or Planned Destruction

Click to enlarge
1934 Chicago Tribune cartoon. Click to enlarge.

The Congretional Buget Office came out with a new report that seems a bit staggering. In a March 2009 publication they have a revealing chart (see below) depicting the federal deficit/surplus chart.

By the way, the CBO’s charter is to simply provide timely economic and budgetary analysis to congress. Congress uses this data to help them make more informed budgetary decisions. It is intended to be a non-partisan and objective analysis.

It’s funny they even use the word “surplus” in the title of the chart since there is only a brief time where we actually had a surplus.

The report is saying that in 2019 we will be sitting on a deficit of around $10 trillion dollars. It’s a hard number to grasp (see units exercise at bottom). To add some perspective, the deficit in 1980 was $930 million.

Here are some projections around this chart that might help put it in perspective. All of this will most likely happen during Obama’s administration (assuming Obama serves two terms, or 8 years) .

  • The deficit will at least double.
  • We will borrow more money than all of the other presidents – combined.
  • We will be spending more money on interest than our entire national debt of 1980.
  • The dollar could cease to be the World Reserve or Anchor Currency.


Analysis of the President's Budget
Analysis of the President's Budget

Units Exercise
One million seconds equates to about 11 DAYS
One billion seconds equates to about 31 YEARS
One trillion seconds equates to about 317 CENTUREIS

Taxation exercise

taxesMy friend Oak Norton has a nice little writeup on Taxation and the Monetary Policy that I found to be a very worthwhile mental exercise. I’ll try to summarize it here for you.

Scenario 1: Let’s assume that the tax rate is a flat 10%. One dollar ($1.00) is put into circulation and that one dollar never gets put into the bank, but instead continually circulates into the economy, by changing hands of regular buyers and sellers. How much money will the government get in taxes from that $1? The answer is simply $1. For those who didn’t come up with that answer, let me explain, for everyone else skip to scenario #2. The first person to receive the dollar will pay 10 cents in tax and have 90 cents left over to spend elsewhere. The second person receives 90 cents, pays 9 cents in taxes and has 81 cents to spend. This continues until 73 people have benefited from this money, and the original one dollar is now gone by being taxed out of existence. If you add up all the money each of the 73 people received you would get $10.

Scenario 2: Take the above scenario and only change one variable, the tax rate, and change it to 20%. How much money will the government get from that $1? The answer is still $1. So what did change by increasing the tax rate to 20%? The the net benefit of money being circulated is cut in half to $5. The number of people benefiting also drops in half to 35. And finally, although the government didn’t get any more tax revenue from doubling the rate, they did get it twice as fast.

As you continue to raise taxes the amount of money collected always stays the same, but the amount of money being circulated decreases at a faster rate resulting in a smaller net benefit, and that money touches fewer hands.

Don’t misunderstand me here. Obviously these isolated scenarios don’t take into account the many other variables at play in  the real world. When the tax rate goes up, of course government collects more in tax revenue as a whole. In the real world as money changes hands additional money is added from the person’s own pocket each time a transaction is made to make up for the loss in being taxed. The scenarios above don’t take this into consideration.

Has this taxation illustration changed the way you think about taxes? leave a comment below