The Plan is Here and it’s Called Freedom-Care

With skyrocketing costs caused by dollar devaluation, income taxes, and healthcare reform, these questions are on many Americans minds: “How much longer can I afford to live in a free country? Isn’t it time for a plan that makes freedom affordable to all?”

First off, Freedom-care won’t be mandatory; you’ll be able to opt in or out at your own choosing. Most of all, it prevents the federal government from denying your freedom when you need it the most.

Protections

Under the Freedom-care plan, each person will be able to choose the plan that suits their personal needs best. You won’t be forced to choose from a list of bureaucratically-approved activities. You can spend your freedom however you like! Finally, a real choice for your life is in your hands.

No one can be denied Freedom-care based upon preexisting conditions such as political affiliation, religion, lack of religion, race, gender, age or violating victimless crime laws. Basically the only way you can be turned down for Freedom-care is if you steal or harm another Freedom-care participant.

Provides stable and maintainable freedom insurance by providing for a well-armed defense. Members are allowed to participate in supplementary freedom insurance programs if they so desire.

Eliminates government preventative care – Under freedom care, the government can no longer tax you for bad behavior. You’ll be free to tan, smoke, drink alcohol, or have all the sugar you can afford because you are fully protected from government interference.

Caps out-of-pocket taxes so you won’t go broke while enjoying your freedom.

Creates an independent commission called “voters” to monitor the program and identify waste, abuse and fraud.

Benefits

Wide and ever-growing religious freedom – If you like your current religion you can keep it! You can’t be forced to choose from a preferred religion list.

Quality and affordable choices – Freedom-care participants can use their wealth in a manner of their own choosing. Freedom-care has the world’s largest list of products from around the world which members can choose to buy, and the list is still growing! You’ll get to decide what you can afford all by yourself.

Words – Freedom-care users have free access to use any word available–even words from other languages. Use the words however you like and feel free to share them with others at no charge.

Ideas – The idea bank is so large, quite frankly I’m not sure what’s all in there; but they tell me the bank holds an infinite amount of ideas. Just as with words you can share these ideas as often as you’d like.

Tell Congress the time is now for Freedom-Care…

Its time to drop the H-bomb on Terrorists: Hasselhoff-Bomb

There has been lots of debate the last few days about what motivates a person to become a terrorist. There are two camps on what causes terrorism: the “its all ideology” camp and the “it’s all unintended consequences” camp. Both groups are correct, because either can generate terrorists; I see unintended consequences as the symptom and fundamentalist ideology as the disease.

Terrorism is rooted with an ideology that sees itself in danger of extinction. Yesterday I mentioned the Boko Haram. It’s a militant Islamist group that basically sees western or non-Islamic education as evil. The followers of Boko Haram reject the notion the earth is a sphere. It stands to reason they feel they are being attacked by western science, because science has the innate ability to deal some serious damage to ignorance.

There are several parts of the world that are under “attack” from western science and culture. Baywatch was a popular show around the world and from some people’s perspective just flat-out anit-burqa. In truth, the views and ways of life all around the world are being challenged–but not intentionally challenged–by the west. Most people will speak up in defense when they feel their values are under attack and state the virtues behind their beliefs. Terrorist choose the violent path because they believe there is a sinister plot behind opposing views. They are the ones that see Baywatch as a western plot to destroy their culture. If you thought someone was plotting your demise, you might attack back too.

From the terrorist perspective–they feel that their way of life is under attack and those around them are slowly being corrupted–what should they do? Just follow the anarchy. Pull yourself out of the corrupt society and set up your own pure society. The regions with little or no government control are the best place for terrorists to set up shop. If everyone is armed with rifles to defend themselves, a terrorist won’t stand out. No government to monitor or crack down on their activities. From the protection zone of anarchy, you can start freeing the world from satanic plots. As long as there are regions of anarchy, terrorists will have safe bases of operation.

Dynamics of terrorism – how wars of terrorism are fought on both sides

Side A – declares war on side B but side A has little to no army.

Side B – is the opposing government or ideology of side A

Side A – can’t fight side B on an open battlefield because they would be wiped out and instead picks civilian targets to attack.

For terrorists, the justification for murdering civilians is that the values the terrorists are defending is more important than human life. If you are willing to die for these values then others should be just as willing to die, and if they aren’t willing to die for those values they weren’t a good person to begin with. For governments, the justification of stepping on civil rights is that all your civil rights are gone if a you are killed by a terrorist.

The side that does the most harm to civilians will probably lose hearts and minds. The harm isn’t measured only in causalities. When terrorists cause the public to be afraid of normal day to day activities, they become the bad guys. When governments crack down too hard, as in house-to-house searches, they become the bad guys.

The calculation often overlooked is how people view potential harm differently from real harm. You don’t normally sympathize with someone causing you real harm in order to prevent future harm.

Examples – The current group of terrorist argue their way of life is threatened by the opposing ideology or government. They are arguing that harm will come in the future whereas someone being killed by a bomb is a real and tangible harm. When the terrorists set off a bomb and people die, they represent the real harm.

The government argues for searching people and residences to protect the public from harm. If the government starts strip searches to prevent terrorist from blowing people up, it’s the potential threat of a bomb vs. the reality of having your privacy violated. When governments violate civil rights, they represent the real harm.

Blowback or unintentionally creating terrorists happens when in fighting terrorism the government does more harm to civilians than terrorists have done to civilians. Terrorist set off a bomb that kills 100 people–and while hunting down the terrorist, the government kills 500 people. The terrorists are still jerks; the problem is in doing even more harm, the government has legitimized the terrorists for attacking in the first place. From the uninvolved civilian perspective, the government is now the bad guys; their enemy appears to be the good guys, so where do I sign up?

I’m not empathizing with the terrorists groups, but I have to agree that western civilization is a powerful force and is corrupting civilizations around the world. I’m also very proud of “corrupting the world.” When I heard that Baywatch was a popular show in the Middle East, I felt a sense of American pride. Baywatch is no work of art in a literary sense, but its something to be proud of in that free people produce the things that people around the world want.

I too believe the world is slowly being conquered by western culture and technology. The culture of free societies will always dominate high-control societies for the simple fact we give people just want they want without any regulation. I watch news and documentaries from around the world and I see western clothing and technology everywhere. Hollywood and the media, through the use of technology, have become one of the most powerful forces on the planet.

So far the damage done to these fundamentalist groups ideology has been unintentional. The west has unintentionally created freedom junkies, because once you’ve had a taste of freedom you are hooked for life. I think its time to start intentionally damaging their culture with as much free and open access to information and entertainment as possible. The west is getting blamed for intentionally trying to corrupt other cultures, so why not start actively pursing their “corruption?” It’s time for governments to team up with the tech industry and entertainment industry to plan a bombardment of portable media players and laptops and highspeed internet access to all the information and entertainment deprived areas of the world.

Baywatch ’em back from the Stone Age!

Paris Hilton 2012

Donofrio v. Wells – Buried in the US Presidential 2008 elections, there was a case challenging the ballot process. The Supreme Court declined without comment to hear the Donofrio v. Wells case. The case (PDF) challenged Senator John McCain and then Senator Barrack Obama’s eligibility to hold the office, because there is no law that you have to prove US citizenship to get on the ballot. One of the candidates on the same ballot was Socialist Workers Party candidate, Roger Calero. Roger Calero has never hidden that he was born in Nicaragua.

The media did some reporting on the case but failed to mention Roger Calero was not a US citizen. Example – this Washing Post article mentions Roger Calero, but the article is focused on the politics that motivated the case and not the merits of the case.

Qualifications for President of the United Sates • 35 years old or older • Must be a natural-born U.S. citizen • Must have lived in the United States for fourteen years.

This case pointed out that anybody could get on the ballot. Here is Paris Hilton weighing in on politics during election. Paris Hilton isn’t old enough to run for President, but there is nothing to prevent Paris from getting on the ballot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jg46t2FBG6k&feature=PlayList&p=38D00C7A0CE37DAC&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=2

Worst case scenario would be after being elected President, it is discovered someone didn’t meet one of the three qualifications. If the President had signed bills into law would the laws be null and void? It would be utter chaos in the Congress; their fights would make South Korea brawls look like folk dances.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJdZ0TocTlo&feature=related

Picture John Boehner stabbing Nancy Pelosi with a US flag pole–that’s how bad it could get.

Some people say the qualifications are now irrelevant and useless so there is no point enforcing them. The people who wrote the US Constitution seem paranoid from our perspective two centuries later because they suffered from a host of abuses. Just because it seems paranoid now doesn’t mean its not a valid concern.

Picture 2012 rolling around and Paris Hilton runs on a 3rd party against Obama and Palin(all three are celebrities; it could happen). Hilton wins the “throw the bums out vote.” The Electoral College could refuse to vote in Paris Hilton, but I have to wonder if the members of congress would refute the will of the people and uphold the constitutional requirements.

Paris Hilton 2012 – isn’t that worth being paranoid about?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiCH5jPgtuM

The Christmas Spirit

Christmas time in politics. Listen to the harmonic sounds of demonizing the opposition. This just makes me feel warm and fuzzy all over.(sarcasm)

Oh Come All Ye Tea Baggers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kmccnhCquY&feature=player_embedded

The 12 Days Of Obama

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhenXd0yH7A&feature=related

Money Can’t buy Happiness – Only Power Can do That

This video explains how influence is purchased in congress by hiring relatives of congress members. I don’t know if its the oldest form of influencing politicians, but I’ll bet the ancient Romans wouldn’t be surprised by it.

I’ve heard the solution is to only vote for politicians with integrity; unfortunately there is over 200 years of evidence to dispute this approach. So the question I have is how much money would it take for voters to buy the politicians back? Would there be any savings? If Evan Bayh’s wife is getting a million a year from WellPoint. Would raising a Senator’s salary to 1.5 million a year be enough to buy Bayh back?

Maybe I should work this backwards and start by finding out how much political influence cost taxpayers each year. Lets say its only 100 billion a year transferred from taxpayers to political benefactors. One hundred billion divided by 537 people (house, senate, President and VP combined) works out to 186 million per person. If we offer to split the difference with Washington, it works out to 93 million a year salary per person and we’d save 50 billion.

We’ve bribed our enemies before; so why not bribe our public servants?

Politics in Star Trek

The NRO has a post that touched a nerve in me – Congratulations to Captain Picard!

This line is the one that set me off “Its (Star Trek) messages are unabashedly liberal ones of the early post-Cold War era – peace, tolerance, due process, progress (as opposed to skepticism about human perfectibility).”

Peace, tolerance, due process, and progress are not the sole possession of liberals. Peace, tolerance, due process, progress are essential for freedom to survive. These principles are very important for free markets to thrive. I’m putting this aside for now because it could easily turn into a book of quotes from the founding fathers supporting all these “liberal” messages.

The “touched a nerve” issue is that Star Trek somehow represents a Socialist or Communist utopia. This isn’t the first time I’ve heard a conservative poo-poo Star Trek as liberal propaganda.

Star Trek was centered on the Federation of Planets. The Federation is very similar to the Articles of Confederation of the United States of America because each member planet retained its sovereignty, freedom, and independence. There are state-rights conservatives that would love to have the same rights as members of the Federation.

Star Trek had replicators, not socialism – A device which can produce anything you need would have a huge impact on any society. The concept of ownership wouldn’t have the same importance because everything could easily be replaced. Imagine someone walking up and pointing a phaser at someone in the Star Trek universe and demanding their shoes. The victim would probably say “Is your replicator broken? If it is, you can use mine.” Theft would probably be classified as a mental illness, because there would be no need to steal. Once there is a limitless supply of food and clothing, ownership becomes meaningless.

Star Treks biggest, nasty, evil villain was the Borg. The Borg are the embodiment of all things communist. To the Borg individuality was irrelevant and made each person alike. Under Borg control, there was no privacy at all–not even the privacy of your own thoughts. The Borg sought to enslave others and “improve” them by force into a regime of total control.

Star Trek has the Prime Directive – “As the right of each sentient species to live in accordance with its normal cultural evolution is considered sacred, no Starfleet personnel may interfere with the normal and healthy development of alien life and culture. This directive takes precedence over any and all other considerations, and carries with it the highest moral obligation.” I’m fed up with lawmakers interfering with my normal development and culture. I can only wish that some day the United States government adopts this attitude towards its own citizens. A form of governing with a Prime Directive of not meddling in the affairs of others; it seems only possible in science fiction.

You might be a Aryan, Racist, Birther, Fanatic if…

This video reminds me of Jeff Foxworthy –”You might be a redneck if” jokes. If you are against government health care reform, you might be an Aryan, racist, birther, fanatic.

I’m against government health care reform/takeover and against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. So in Jeff Foxworthy speak – I might be: an isolationist, Aryan, pinko, racist, unpatriotic, birther, terrorist sympathizer, militia member.

The goal is simple; pile on the straw-man attacks until people are afraid to speak out for fear they’ll be labeled an extremist.

Generous? What Have you Done that’s Generous?

The health care debate has brought the movie Labyrinth to my mind, especially the part where Jareth said to Sarah, “I ask for so little. Just fear me, love me, do as I say and I will be your slave.”

The line did not make sense to me until recently. How could slaves be slaves to each other? Slaves can’t be slaves to each other because it’s a double negative. It gave me a headache just trying to make some sense of what Jareth meant. Now I see Jareth was just trying to trick Sarah into believing he would do just as Sarah asked, but in reality wanted to keep the baby and enslave Sarah.

The US government uses the “I’ll be your slave if you’ll be my slave” trick just as Jareth tried on Sarah. The federal version of this line is, “We are here to serve you; if you’ll just give up X amount of your income you’ll have freedom from the current need”.

The slave of a slave trick is not new; Franklin D. Roosevelt delivered a speech January 6, 1941 spelling out 4 freedoms. “The third is freedom from want–which, translated into universal terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants–everywhere in the world.”

Franklin D. Roosevelt left out the part of how to accomplish freedom from want. The US government does not manufacture anything. There is no government factory churning out medicine or food or houses. You have to be willing to give up another portion of income to receive any commodity. The only way a government can provide freedom from want is if you are willing to fear, love, and do as the they say.

Government doesn’t have a factory that produces freedom. Freedom is something we are born with and we are the only source of freedom. You have to be willing to sacrifice some freedom because you’ll be expected to follow the government rules to receive the benefits you want. If you choose not to follow the government rules, you’ll find out there are real consequences. Declare you are not a slave, that the government is your servant, and you’ll be banished to the Bog of Eternal Stench.

When anyone is offering to be your slave if you’ll be their slave, please remember Sarah’s response to Jareth: “For my will is as strong as yours, my kingdom as great…You have no power over me.”

I am Real and You are Not

When politicians and pundits use phrases like “real Americans,” “real voters,” “real people,” “everyone agrees,” or “vast majority,” there are two underlying arguments – if you share the same values you are real, and if you don’t share those values or don’t agree, you are not real.

On the flip side of there are these words – “manufactured, sheeple, robot, and zombie.” All these words are implying the people in question are not real or have no brains.

I’m setting aside the name calling for now and just focusing on the nullification of others.

This nullification works equally well for both the left and right. Example – At the tea party protests the phrase “real Americans” was used by the protesters, implying there were real and unreal Americans. People that disagreed with the protesters views were the unreal ones. When the tea parties were mentioned by politicians and pundits the tea party protesters were referred to as Astroturf.” Astroturf implies that the tea party protesters were fake or unreal.

This pattern of nullification repeats with every contentious issue.

Side 1 – If you don’t agree with us you aren’t real. “Real American”

Side 2 – How dare you say we aren’t real, when clearly you aren’t real? “Astroturf”

Side 1 – Side 2 has the audacity to say side 1 isn’t real. “That is un-American”

The ball bounces back to Side 2 and back and forth until everyone has been nullified.

Nullification allows the luxury of not bringing up or discussing opposing views. How could you have a serious discussion about something that doesn’t exist? Why waste time thinking about the unreal? People don’t have serious debates about the Easter bunny, so why should we bother to think about the opposing unreal views?

So I’ll go between the horns and agree with both sides; I am real and you are not.

Schumer Calls Flight Attendant “B-word”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5mKqYBK_K4

Those laws congress passes…didn’t mean congress had to follow the laws.