Question of the Day #2: (February 25, 2009)
It would probably be more appropriate for
someone who believes the Bill Holt Bill to be
a good thing to support it. If there is anyone
like that, speak now or forever give up
Submit your artice and it will be posted in
How 'bout it Megan? Dr. Salsgiver?
This space is reserved for someone who believes there
is a gray area in this dark matter.
Submit your artice and it will be posted in this space.
While you're here, don't forget to
check out the
The Blair Holt Bill is the next step toward disarming
the populace. The founding fathers regarded
private ownership of fire arms as "the last check
and balance," suggesting that when government
becomes too oppressive it should be overthrown
and replaced. Private ownership of fire arms made
it possible to do that in the American Revolution.
We overthrew the tyranny of George III.
That poses the question, "What is tyranny?" I've
heard tyranny defined as being "when law abiding
citizens fear the government." Then I must ask
myself, as a law abiding citizen, do I fear the
government? The answer is, I certainly fear the
Internal Revenue Service and that is a part of the
United States Government. Lately I am coming
to fear that what I see on the "Media Monopoly
News and Political Machine" is not true. I fear
that it is written to turn my attention away from
what my government is doing. What is that? The
Bill Holt Bill wants to take away my right to self
My neighbor says, "You don't need guns. Why
would you need to have guns?"
If it is any of my neighbor's business what I feel
that I need, here are some comments:
In the last year, I killed two Cotton Mouth
Moccasins in my back yard. They were home
invaders. I think home invaders should be shot.
If a rabid dog or racoon comes after my children,
the police may take longer to arrive than it takes
the dog or racoon to infect or injure those children. Those things, in themselves do not address the
last check and balance characteristic of fire arm
That an oppressive government fears private fire
arm ownership is frightening. That this government
uses excuses like "getting fire arms off the streets,"
is even more frightening considering the places
with the strictest fire arm regulations in the country
are also the highest crime areas. The "get-the-guns-
off-the-streets" myth is an outright and undisputed lie. One wonders what the priority is that our officials are placing highest. That President Obama's friend, Black Panther Bobby Rush (Obama has such unusual friends, for a President!) wants to push something like the Blair Holt Bill forward, makes me wonder if he's trying to make it safer for Black Panthers and other criminals.
Punishing criminals in this administration doesn't seem to be a very high priority. An admitted tax evader is now in charge of the Treasury Department. I remember being late for a $700 quarterly deposit to the IRS. My penalty with fines and interest exceeded $1000, plus the $700 deposit. Geithner was not only forgiven but rewarded. Geithner is just one example of the criminals who are now in positions of power in the United States Government. We won't even bring up the birth certificate scandal that has been so quietly ignored by the News Media Monopoly. I think a record has been set for violating the oath of office - at the very moment of taking it.
Perhaps Bobby Rush fears America's pent up outrage! And perhaps he should fear it. Maybe that is why he is using a horrific gun crime in Chicago to try to justify stripping Americans of "The Last Check and Balance." .
Which is better for the growth and strength of an economy? Is it small government or big government, micro-management of our lives and businesses through government regulation or minimal management? Which?
One quick look at the vast poverty, crime and deprivation running rampant in the United States proves stronger government regulation is necessary. It is evident to even the most innocent observer that the evils of greed have driven some to vast wealth, built from the sweat of a new slavery of a dying middle class and a bondsmen class of the poor. This vast wealth hoarded by the avaricious should be stripped away and distributed to those on whose misery it was built. It is simply unfair that some should prosper so profoundly while others lack even their basic needs like health care, food and shelter.
Limited resources are exhausted and squandered in the endless search of greater wealth. These resources should be protected and their exploitation limited. This can only be done through a stronger micro-management stance on the part of government. Tax increases on the wealthy balance the rewards of labor with ownership. This balances in fairness, the jungle mentality of Capitalism and minimizes the impact of the greedy on those who must live by the sweat of their brows.
Between all extremes there is a middle ground. Where continued frustration results from continuous failure, people turn to crime. The question arises how can government be used to moderate the extremities of wealth and poverty? Should government be used in such a way? If so, how can it moderate poverty without punishing success? While taxation is a continual curse, it is necessitated by the need for shared infrastructure and services such as the military and police. Where the line is drawn on government regulation is mandated by the popular vote. The popular vote, guided by daily education from the news media, chooses “what is” in our society.
The weak link there is whether the news media, as followed by the majority of the public, is doing a fair job or a biased job. News reporting monopolies, if they have a political agenda, simply cannot be objective or fair. A first step in resolving the issues between the left and the right, using the popular vote, is to eliminate the monopolistic nature of the news reporting agencies. Taxation is necessary. Government regulation is necessary. The question is where to draw the lines. Objective news reporting can help voters realistically resolve those questions.
Compared to the rest of the world, poverty and crime in the United States is minimal. We attribute that to less government intrusion into the lives of its people than anywhere else on the planet. As intrusion on the part of government increases, so does the poverty and crime. The correlation is direct. Humans, like any other species, increase the behaviors they find rewarded and decrease the behaviors they find punished. If success is punished with higher taxes and greater regulation, we can look for the behavior we label “success” to be diminished. The result is fewer jobs, greater inability to pay for health care and the necessities of life, and more crime.
Regulation inhibits the creation of wealth. Freedom allows wealth to be generated. The resources for creating wealth are not limited except by the intrusive regulation of government. Punishing the successful by stripping them of their wealth eliminates their ability to provide more jobs that they can use to create even more wealth. Life is not a “Day-Care-Center” where the necessities are a civil-right. Life is an opportunity to grow, procreate and become all that we can be, or fail. Government intervention strips us of that opportunity.